In a second appeal concerning land acquisition compensation, the court examined whether the lower court's application of a 20% deduction in valuing the land was erroneous. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held the deduction was valid. The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal filed by the claimants-appellants was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 592 of 1993
Appellant :- Harish Chandra And Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Kant,N.K.Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Sri N. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By notification dated 08.12.1988 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') land measuring 4.503 acres (7-4-2 bighas) of Village Jalpura, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was acquired for construction of Kulesara Bandh from 0.900 k.m. to 1.400 k.m. and 2.586 k.m. to 3.210 k.m. Notification dated 16.03.1989 under Section 6 (1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 17.06.1989. Actual possession of the acquired land was taken on 04.05.1988 while formal possession was taken on 15.12.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 28.12.1990 awarding compensation @ Rs.15,238.09 per bigha. In the aforesaid acquisition land of the claimants-appellants, measuring about 2 pakka bigha, was also acquired. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants filed a reference being L.A.R. No.269 of 1991 (Mangeram Vs. State and others) which was decided by the impugned judgment dated 19.05.1993 determining compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per pakka bigha. Aggrieved with this judgment, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that in the impugned judgment the reference court relied upon sale deed exemplar dated 04.08.1988 whereby land measuring 10 biswas and 10 biswansis were sold for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- and thus, the price per bigha comes to about Rs.1,56,000/- but the reference court has illegally made
deductions and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,25,000/per pakka bigha.
4. No other point has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.
7. The only argument of the appellants before me to challenge the impugned judgment is that the deductions made by the court below to determine the market value of the acquired property is illegal. I do not find any force in this submission.
8. The principles regarding deduction to be applied while determining market value of a land for compensation under the Act, 1894, has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court, providing for deduction ranging up to 75% depending upon the nature of land, its situation and stage of development etc., vide Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419 (deductions between 20% and 33%), Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 (upheld deduction of 40%), Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (supra), (deduction between 20% to 50%), Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385, (deduction of 40% as development cost), Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana (supra), (1/3rd deduction was upheld on development),Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334, (53% deduction), V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, (37% deduction towards development),
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, (20 to 50% towards development), Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, (2008)2 SCC 568, (20% deduction towards largeness of area), Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (supra), (where valuation of a large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be 1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3 towards infrastructural developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%), Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K. Manohar Reddy and others, (2010) 12 SCC 707, (deductions on account of development could vary between 20% to 75%), Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Versus M.K. Rafiq Sahib, (2011) 7 SCC 714, (60% deduction).
9. In view of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of judgments as aforenoted, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment applying deduction of about 20% to arrive at the market value of Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha.
10. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
11. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed .
12. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.4.2019 Nitin Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the deduction of about 20% made by the lower court in determining the market value of acquired land is legal.
Whether there is any merit in the appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 19.05.1993.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement TrustRelied on¶13
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419 · Who else cites this
Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, VaranasiRelied on¶13
Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, PoonaRelied on¶13
Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another
Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) DeadRelied on¶13
Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385
Kasturi and others vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶13
Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana
Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala RajamalluRelied on¶13
Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land Acquisition OfficerRelied on¶13
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642 · Who else cites this
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of GujaratRelied on¶13
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 · Who else cites this
Atma Singh Versus State of HaryanaRelied on¶13
Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, (2008)2 SCC 568 · Who else cites this
Subh Ram and others Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶13
Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (supra)
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K. Manohar ReddyRelied on¶13
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K. Manohar Reddy and others, (2010) 12 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Versus M.K. Rafiq SahibRelied on¶13
Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Versus M.K. Rafiq Sahib, (2011) 7 SCC 714 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harish Chandra And Ors
State Of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
