Supreme Court of India
SAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusASSTT. COMMNR. & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1056
- Decided
- 19 August 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
Deduction for development charges in land acquisition cannot exceed 33⅓% where the land lies within municipal limits and the development cost is not high, rendering the 53% deduction excessive.
Summary
The appellants' land of about 4.34 acres in Taj Sultanpur, Gulbarga was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court fixed the market value at Rs.19,500 per acre, but the High Court allowed a deduction of 53% for development charges, despite the land being within the municipal limits of Gulbarga since 1965. The appellants contended that, per Supreme Court precedents, the deduction should not exceed 33⅓% where the cost of development is low. The Supreme Court examined the location, proximity to the city, and earlier judgments, concluding that a 53% deduction was excessive and not in line with the ratio laid down in Kasturi and Shivadevamma cases. Consequently, the Court modified the High Court order, directing a deduction of only 33⅓% for development charges and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in deducting 53% towards development charges in a land acquisition within municipal limits.
- Whether the deduction for development charges should be capped at 33⅓% in such circumstances.
- Whether the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court is binding on the learned judge.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents on development charge deductions apply to the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationDevelopment chargesDeduction percentageMunicipal limitsSupreme Court precedentKarnataka
Judgment
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 401
SAlBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. A
v.
ASSTT. COMMNR. & LAND AGQUISITION OFFICER
(Civil Appeal No. 3726 of 2001)
AUGUST 19, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
·~
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Acquisition of land - Compensation - Deduction towards c
development charges - Held: The acquired land being within
the city limit and in close vicinity thereof, reference court and
High Court erred in deducting 53% towards development
~
charges - In the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the decisions of Supreme Court, authorities D
~ directed to deduct 33-1/3% as development charges.
The instant appeal. was filed by the land owners,
whose lands were acquired in terms of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, primarily challenging the order of
the High Court whereby it directed deduction of 53% E
towards development charges.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
"
-' HELD: The lands in question are within the municipal
F
limits of the City since 1965 and some of it is located
within the close vicinity of the City. So the cost of
development is not likely to be very high. Therefore,
deduction at the rate of 53% as directed in the impugned
judgment is on the higher side and is not in consonance
with the ratio laid down by this Court.* It should not be G
-"'(- more than 33-1/3%. It is to be emphasised that there
--- cannot be any hard and fast or a rigid rule. Every case..
has to be decided on its individual facts taking into
consideration various facts and circumstances. In the
401 H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A instant case, neither the reference court nor the High
Court has assigned any specific reasons for making
deduction at a rate more than 33-1/3%; The judgment of
the High Court is accordingly modified. The respondent
would make deduction at the rate 33-1/3% towards
B development charges. (Para 11 12, 13 and 14] (406-C-G]
*Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana 2003 1 SCC 354; V.
Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer 4-
& Manda/ R. Officer 2003) 12 SCC 642 and K. S.
Shivadevamma & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land
c Acquisition Officer & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2003 1 sec 354 relied on Para 8
D 2003 12 sec 642 relied on Para 12
(1996) 2 sec 62 relied on Para 7
*
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3726 of 2001.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2000 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No.3232 of ~. 996.
,,
S.J. Amith, Kiran Suri (not present) for the Appellants. >-
F Sanjay R. Hedge, A. Rohen Singh, Nishant Mishra for the
Respondent.
The Judgme~t of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
G against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at
-y.
Bangalore dated 16.3.2000 in Miscellaneous First Appeal (for
short, M.F.A.) No. 3232 of 1996.
2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:
-
H --..,,
·'"'
SAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. ASSTI. COMMNR. & 403
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
The preliminary notification was issued on 13.8.1981 to A
acquire 4 acres and 27 guntas of land belonging to the
appellant situated in Survey Nos. 129/1, 129/3, 129/4 and 129/
74 situated in Taj Sultanpur, Gulbarga City in Karnataka. The
award was passed on 30.6.1986 awarding compensation at
the rate of Rs.2,500/- per acre. B
3. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated
8.4.1996 determined the market value at the rate of Rs.19,500/
- per acre.
4. The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment preferred c
M.F.A. No. 3232 of 1996 before the High Court. The appellant
placed reliance on the judgments and awards passed in M .F.A.
No. 3738 of 1995 dated 20.1.1998 and M.F.A. No. 2557 of
1997 dated 27.1.1998, wherein the market value of the lands
located at almost the same distance from Gulbarga city and is
0
} -jr having same potentiality of development. The appellant also
produced notification dated 30.10.1965 to show that the Taj
Sultanpur village was declared to be within the municipal limits
of Gulbarga city of Karnataka.
5. The High Court dismissed the appeal without E
considering the main submission of the appellant that the
acquired lands are within the municipal limits of Gulbarga city
and the deduction at the rate of 53% towards the development
charges is excessive and not in consonance with the law laid
down by the Full Bench of the High Court and by this Court. F
6. In the present appeal, the appellant is aggrieved by the
deduction at the rate of 53% towards development charges. In
the present case, the following questions of law formulated by
the appellant are reproduced as under:-
G
"A. Whether the High Court has committed a serious
error in deducting 53% towards development
charges in the facts and circumstances of the
case?
B. Whether the High Court has committed a serious H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A ercor in not appreciating that the acquired lands
come within the Municipal limits of the city of
Gulbarga and therefore the development charges
cannot be more than 33-1 /3%?
c. Whether the decision of Full Bench of the
B Karnataka High Court is binding on the learned
Judge passing the impugned judgment?
D. Whether the High Court has failed to appreciate ~·
that the judgment in other appeals is applicable as
c it has the same potentiality?
E. Whether the High Court has failed to take note of
the other evidences produced by the appellant such
as valuer's evidence?"
7. During the course of hearing, the parties have focused
D
the entire argument as to whether d~duction at the rate of 53%
was in consonance of law or not? The appellant placed reliance
* <.
on the judgment of this court in KS. Shivadevamma & Others
v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer &
Another (1996) 2 SCC 62. In para 10 of the judgment, this
E Co~rt accepted the argument that 53% deduction i.s not
automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and
the stage of development, meaning thereby that it would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case,
this court has further observed as under:- >-"
F
"This court has laid as a general rule that for laying the
roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be
deducted. Where the development has already taken
place, appropriate deduction needs to be made."
G 8. This Court in Kasturi & Others v. State of Haryana
(2003) 1 sec 354 has extensively dealt with this aspect and )
-'J'=-
observed in para 7 as under:
" ..... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or
undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
H commercial purposes, normally 1 /3rd amount of
SAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. ASSTT. COMMNR. & 405
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of A
compensation payable on the acquired land subject to
certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent
of expenditure involved for development and the area
required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the
land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial B
purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the
land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the
,._, purpose of making construction; may be the land is
situated in the midst of a developed area all around but
that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may c
be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that
may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A
claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and
nothing more is required to be done for development
.. • .....,
purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is
sucti a land and it is so located. In the absence of suc.h
evidence, merelv saying that the area adjoining his land
D
is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the
extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small
portion of the land is abutting the main road in the
developed area, does n~t give the land the character of a E
developed area. ....... "
<4
This court in the said case also observed that there is a
.... difference between a developed area and an area which is yet
to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent F
to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated
in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or
plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired.
9. In substance, the ratio of the judgment in Kasturi &
Others (supra) is that the deduction would depend on several G
...,,,_ factors, particularly the extent of land in question, location of the
___._ said land and the proximity of the land from the municipal limits.
10. In the instant case, the land in question is within the
municipal limits of Gulbarga city since 1965. The Taj Sultanpur
H
...
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (AODL.) S.C.R.
A village is located only at a distance of 2-1/2 kms. from Gunj
locality of Gulbarga City and, therefore, it is located within the
close vicinity of Gulbarga City. The Taj Sultanpur village is
adjoining Shak Roza and Vakkalgera limits of Gulbarga city
which are part and parcel of Gulbarga city for a long period.
B So the cost of development is not likely to be very high. As laid
down in KS. Shivadevamma's case (supra), as a general rule
that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is
required to be deducted.
c
11. Deduction at the rate of 53% as laid down in the *
impugned judgment seems to be on the higher side and is not
in consonance with the ratio laid down by this Court. We would
like to emphasize that there cannot be any hard and fast or a
rigid rule. Every case has to be decided on its individual facts
taking into consideration various facts and circumstances.
D
12. In the instance case, neither the Reference Court nor
the High Court has assigned any specific reasons for making
+ .__
deduction at a rate more than 33-1/3%. On consideration of the
ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi's case (supra) and in
V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition
E Officer & Manda/ R,, Officer (2003) 12 SCC 6.42 and in the
tads and circumstances of this case, in our considered view,
deduction at the rate of 53% is on the higher side and it should
not be more than 33-1/3%. ,.
~
F 13. On consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the High
Court is modified to the extent of deduction charges. We direct
the respondent to make deduction at the rate of 33-1 /3%
towards development charges.
G 14. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is modified and disposed
of in the abovementioned terms. The parties are directed to
--,..
,>-"----
bear their own costs.
RP. Appeal allowed.
H -,.____
,,.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search