Holding

The High Court correctly fixed compensation at Rs.75 per square foot, but its deduction of Rs.25 per square foot for development charges was erroneous and is set aside.

Summary

The appellant owned 35 guntas of land in Bangalore South Taluk that was acquired for the widening of a National Highway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Initial compensation of Rs.10 per square foot was enhanced to Rs.27.50 by the Reference Court and further to Rs.75 per square foot by the Karnataka High Court, which also deducted Rs.25 per square foot as development charges. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in fixing the compensation at Rs.75 per square foot, but the deduction for development charges was unsupported by any evidence and therefore erroneous. The Court noted that development charges can be deducted only when the purpose of acquisition involves development, which was not the case here. Consequently, the deduction was set aside and the appellant was awarded compensation at Rs.75 per square foot along with statutory solatium, interest, and other benefits.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of the compensation rate of Rs.75 per square foot awarded by the High Court.
The validity of the Rs.25 per square foot deduction for development charges in the absence of evidence.
Whether the purpose of acquisition (highway widening) permits deduction of development charges.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 34, s. 4, s. 5-A, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensation enhancementdevelopment chargessolatiuminterestNational HighwaySection 23Section 34Supreme Court

Judgment

-'.- [2009]2 S.~C.R. 1092

A C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY
V.
SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2009
A.
•
FEBRUARY 24, 2009 ... ' .
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S.' SIRPURKAR, .JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ..... .Land acquisition ""'.'
Compensation ..,. Enhanced by High Court @ Rs. 751- per t-
square.feet and deduction of Rs.251'" towards development
c charges ~ On appeal, held: Compensation at the rate awarded
by High· Court is correct - Deduction towards development
charges not correct as the proposed deve/opmentnot proved.
In_ a land acquisition case; High Court enhanced
D ~ompensation at the. rate of Rs.75/". p~r square feet an~ /

deducted Rs.25/ .. out of th~t -towards development ~

charges. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: t. The.High Court was right in awarding the
E
compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet for the
land in question. The High Court has increased the
compensation from Rs.27·.50/- per square feet to· Rs.75/-
per· square feet. The High Court observed that the land .)
+
was abutting the National Highway and was within 15
F kilometers. from Bangalore City Corporation limit and
further observed that all-round development has taken place,
as industries have come up thereby. Appellant has not been
able to show anything from the record to hold ·that the
concerned land would deserve a higher price than the one
G awarded by the High Court. [Para 6] [1095-G; 1096-C] t-
>,..,. '
2. The High Court has not discussed the reason for 'I
the deduction of Rs.25/- per square feet nor has the High
Court relied on any piece of evidence for that purpose. It
H 1092 -
C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY V. SPL. LAND ACQ. 1093
OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR.

is true that where the lands are ·acquired for public A
purpose like setting up of industries or setting up of
housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the
acquiring body would be entitled to ded·uct some amount
from the payable compensa~i~n. on account of
development charges, however,. it has to be established . B
by positive evidence that such development charges are
justified. The evidence must .come for the need of
development contemplated and the possible expenditure
for such development. There is·no such.discussion inthe
order of the High Court. No evidence was shown in c
support of the plea of the proposed developmei:tt. ·The
land is acquired only for widening of the National
Highway~ There would, therefore, be no questiOn of any ·.
such development or any costs therefor. [Para 8} ·
.i [1096-E-H; 1097-A] . D
'>

N~lson Fernandes and.Ors. vs:. Speciai Land Acquisition
/

Officer, South Goa and Ors. 2007(9) SCC 4;.47i Viluben
Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat 2005(4) SCC 789;
Hasanali Khanbhai .and Sons vs. State of Gujara 1995 (5) SCC
422; Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamal/u 2003(12) · E
sec 334 - relied on,
Case Law Reference
. 1. 2007(9) sc.c 447 Relied on . Para 8
~
2005(4) sec 1ss Relied on Para 8 F
1995 (5) sec 422 Relied on Para 8
2003(12) sec 334 Relied on Para 8
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1173
of 2009 G
\.
.... A From the Judgement and Order dated 14.11.2007 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Banglore in Miscellanceous First
Appeal No. 1021 of 2001 (LAC).
S.N. Bhat, for the Appellant. H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Anitha Shenoy, Rashmi Nanadakumar, Vikas Goel, R.N.
Sharma, K.C. Dua, for the Respondent. "· 111
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by "
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. l;
B
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has a slightly chequered history.
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the r-
t-
land, bearing Survey No. 4 of Beratana Agrahara Village, Segur
'
c Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas, belonging ~
to the appellant. Section 4 Notification dated 29.11.1990 was
published on 20.12.1990. After Section 5-A enquiry, declaration
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') was published on 18.6.1992. In the award
D proceedings dated 9.12.1994, the compensation was
determined at Rs.10/- per square feet. An application for \-
...l
~nhancement under Se~tion 18 of the Act was filed· by the
appellant and Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and ...
enhanced the compensation to Rs.27.50 per square feet. The
appellant was also held to be entitled to solatium at 30% of the
E
market value and for additional amount at 12% p.a. under
f
Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court accepted that }
this was non:agricultural land and was situated adjacent to the L
,
Highway and thus, it had potential for being used for commercial .
purpose. The public purpose for which the land was acquired,
F was for widening of the National Highway.
3. Dissatisfied by the judgment of the Reference Court, an
l
appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court set aside \

I-
the ord~r e>f the Reference Court, enhancing the compensation 'r-

G and strangely enough held that the Reference Court had erred r

in enhancing the compensatio~. Aggrieved by the judgment of ~
>..""!'
the High Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, being
SLP (Civil) No. 8575 of 2006 before this Court. This Court, by
its order dated 26.2.2007, set aside the judgment and remanded
the matter to the High Court to consider the appeal. afresh.
H· •.._
C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY V. SPL. LAND ACQ. 1095
OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

Accordingly, the High Court heard the matter again and partly A
;<
allowed the appeal, _enhancing the compensation amount at
Rs. 75/- per square feet. However, the High Court deducted
Rs.25/- per square feet for developm~nt charges. The High
Court also did not award the compensation towards yieiding
coconut trees, barbed fencing wire etc. Aggrieved by that order, B
the appellant, now, has come before us by way of the present
appeal.
-I 4. The Learned Counsel· appearing on behalf of the
appellant urged that considering that this land was on the
outskirts of Bangalore City and had the great commercial c
potential, the High Court was bound to give enhanced
compensation, at least at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet. It
was pointed out that the acquired land was on the National
Highway and as such, had the potential for commercial
purposes. The Learned Counsel further, by way of his second o,
submission, urged that the High Court, at any rate, should not
have deducted Rs.25/- per square feet, so as to limit the
compensation to Rs.50/- per square feet. The Learned Counsel
pointed out that such deduction for development charges was
completely unjustified, particularly, because there could be no E
development in the small piece of land. The Learned Counsel
relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (9) sec 44 7.
5. As against this, the Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, .supported the impugned judgment and
contended that in fact,. the High Court had given much more F
compensation than what was actually deserved by the appellant.
6. The High Court has increased the compensation from
Rs.27 .50/- per square feet to. ,Rs. 75/-· per square feet. In the
impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the concerned G
land was abutting the National Highway and was within 15
~A
kilometers from Bangalore City Corporation limit and further that
all-round development has taken place as industries have come
up thereby. In this, the High Court relied upon a Division Bench
judgment passed by the same High Court, wherein, it was found
H
. 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A ·. that the value dfthe nearby land was Rs.62.50/- per square feet. ~ /
'
;" The High Court ultimately held that since the said land referred
· · to in the earlier judgment passed by it was 25-30 kilometers
"· away from Bangalore Bus Station, the present land would
· deserve a better rate than the one given·in the earlier judgment,
B since it was only 15 kilometers away from the Bus Station.
···Accordingly, the High Court recorded a finding that the rate of
Rs.75/- per square feet would be a proper rate. We are satisfied
with this finding of the High Court, as the Learned Counsel has
not been able to show anything from the record to hold that the
c. concerned land would des~rve a higher p_rice than the one
awarded by the High Court. We are generally satisfied with the
finding of the High Court and would choose to confirm the same.
, Thus, we hold that the High\Court was right In awarding the rate
:. · '.·ofRs.75/- per square feet for the concerned
~. '
land .
D•' :.·, 7. That leaves us with the other question of deduction
t ~ 'ordered by the High Court".
"..,.':! • _:. t

. ,. .,.· _8. The High Court has directed the deduction of Rs.25/-
. td?e_rsquare feet. Unfortunately! the High Court has not discussed
F . t_h~ reason for this deduction of Rs.25/- per square feet nor has
;.~ . the High Court relied on any piece of evidence for that purpose.
· · It is true:ttiat where the lands are acquired for public pu~pose
like setting up of industries or setting up of housing colonies or
· - other.such allied purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled
· ,-- to· deduct some amount froni the payable compensation on
1

F · account of development charges, however, it has to be !
''established by positive evidence th.at such development I
/>--
charges are justified. The evidence must come for the need of
development contemplated and the possible expenditure for
such development. We do not find any such discussion in the
G order of the High Court. As if this is not sufficient, when we see
. the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
.Bangalore, Rural bistric.t, Bangalore in Reference proceedings,
we find. that there i~ no deduction ordered for the so-called
development charges. We are, therefore, not in a position to
H understand as to from where such development charges sprang
C.R. NAGARAJA SH ETTY V. SPL. LAND ACQ. 1097
OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

up. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents A
was also unable to point out any such evidence regarding the
proposed development. We cannot ignore the fact that the land
is acquired only for widening of the National Highway. There
would, therefore, be no question of any such development or
any costs therefor. In the reported judgment in Nelson B
Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
South Goa and Others in 2007(9) SCC 447, this Court has
. discussed the question of development charges. That was a
case, where, the acquisition was for laying a Railway line. This
Court found that the land under acquisition was situated in an c
area, which was adjacent to the land already acquired for the
same purpose, i.e., for laying Railway line. In paragraph 29, the
Court observed that the Land Acquisition Officer, the District
Judge and the High Court had failed to notice that the purpose
of acquisition was for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant
D
factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation.
The Court relied on judgment in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(4) SCC 789, where it
was held that the purpose for which the land is acquired, must
also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and
E
the deduction of development charges. Further, in paragraph
30, the Court specifically referred to the deduction for the
development charges and observed:-
"30. We are not; however, oblivious of the fact that normally
113rd deduction of further amount of compensation has F
been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for
which the land is acquired must also be taken into
consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired
for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan
Railways ...................... In the instant case, acquisition G
is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of
""'" 1...
development thereof would not arise."
The Court made a reference to two other cases, viz.,
Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons Vs. State of Gujarat and Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported in 1995 H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009]2 S.C.R.

A (5) SCC 422 and 2003(12) SCC 334 respectively, where, the
deduction by way development charges, was held permissible.
The situation is no different in the present case. All· that the
acquiring body has to achieve is to widen the National Highway.
There is no further question of any development. We again, even
B at the cost of repetition, reiterate that.no evidence was shown
before us in support of the plea of the proposed development.
We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred .in directing
the deduction on account of the developmental charges at the _...
rate.of R$.25/'." per square feet out of the ordered compensation
c at the rate of Rs. 75/:- per square feet. We set aside the judgment
to that extent. The .claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the
compensation .at the rate. of Rs. 75/- per square.feet with all the
statutory benefits like solatium under Section 23(2), 12% interest
under Section 23(1-A) on the enhanced market value and
0 interest at 9% and 15% as provided under Section 34 of the
Act for one year and the rest of the period from the date qt taking
posse~sion till the date of payment of the compensation
awarded in favour of the claimant. With this, we partly allow the
appeal and modify the order of the High Court.

K.K.T. Appeal· partly allowed.

I
)--