UNION OF INDIAversusRAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ORS.

                    [2014] 7 S.C.R. 709


                     UNION OF INDIA                           A
                             v.
RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ORS.
      (Civil Appeal Nos. 7314-7365 OF 2005)

                  SEPTEMBER 09, 2014
                                                               B
                [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
              ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 4 - Compensation -
Determining factors - Held: In determining compensation for C
acquired land, it is the price paid in a bona fide transaction
of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer which is relevant
subject to such transaction being adjacent to acquired land,
proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar
advantages - There are other well known methods of valuaJion D
like opinion of experts and yield method - In absence of any
evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to takeinto
account transaction of nearest land around the date of
notification uls.4 of the Act by making a suitable allowance -
There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be the suitable E
addition or subtraction from the value of the relied upon
transaction - The extent of cut depends on individual fact
situations - The existing potentiality alone has to be taken into
consideration while determining the compensation - Remote
beneficial factors cannot be made the basis for determining F
the compensation - Comparable sales method is a preferred
method over the other methods for determining the
compensation - In the instant case, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there was no ground to interfere
 with the order of the High Court.
                                                               G
    A Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 14th March, 1989 to
acquire 72.9375 acres of land in villages Bir Kheri Gujran

                             709                               H
   710     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A for development of military cantonment. The Collector by
  award dated 13th August, 1991 assessed the market
  value of the ·acquired land @ Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. The
  Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation
  to Rs. 9,05,000 per acre. The High Court reduced the
B same to Rs. 105.80 per square yard by order dated 1st
  April, 1999. In the other set of acq~isition covered by
  notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16th
  September, 1988, for the land measuring 498.03, the
  Collector by awa;d dated 27th March, 1991, awarded
c compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per acre for the.
  land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran and for
  the land in villages Sher Majra, Haji Majra and Pasiana at
  the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by
  award dated 6th April, 1998 enhanced the compensation
D to Rs.2,75,000/- per· acre for the land in villages Kheri
  Gujran anc! Bir Kheri Gujran. In respect of land in the
  revenue estate of village Haji Majra, for the land upto 500
  meters on Patiala Sangrur Road, compensation was
  awarded at the same rate but for the rest of the land
E compensation was awarded at Rs.2,33,750/- per acre. For
  villages Pasiana and Sher Majra, the rate awarded was
  the same as for village Haji Majra. On further appeal, the
  Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of
  compensation to Rs.4,48, 159/- per acre which was
  affirmed by the Division Bench with slight modification
F by way of enhancement. Thus, the Division Bench
  upheld t~e view of the Single Judge in reducing the
  compensation from Rs.9,05,000/- per acre, fixed by the
  Reference Court, to Rs.105.80 per square yard fixed by
  the Single Judge in respect of the land covered by
G notification dated 14th March, 1989 and for the land
  covered under notification dated 16th September, 1988,
  the compensation was marginally enhanced to
  Rs.4,54,662/- per acre. The instant appeals were filed
  challenging the order of the High Court.
H
     UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH              711
                  (DEAD) TH. LRS.
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court                        A
         HELD: It is well settled in determining compensation
    for acquired land, price paid in a bona fide transaction of
    sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer is adopted
    subject to such transaction being .adjacent to acquired
    land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing 8
    similar advantages. Of course, there are other well known
    methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield
    method. In absence of any evidence of a similar
    transaction, it is permissible to take into account
    transaction of nearest land around the date of notification C
    under Section 4 of the Act by making a suitable
    allowance. There can be no fixed criteria as to what
    would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the
    value of the relied upon transaction. The extent of cut
    depends on individual fact situations. The existing D
•    potentiality alone has to be taken into consideration while
    determining the compensation. Remote beneficial factors
    cannot be made the basis for determining the
    compensation. Comparable sales method is a preferred
     method over the other methods for determining the E
     compensation. There is no ground to interfere with the
     order of the High Court. [Paras 10 and 11] [716-F-H; 724-
     A-C]
        Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Ors.
    (2010) 5 SCC 708: 2010 (5) SCR 164 - relied on.                F
        Basant Kumar and ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1996)
    11 SCC 542: 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 231; Smt. lndumati
    Chitaley vs. Union of India and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC
    219: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 701 - Distinguished.
                                                                   G
         Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition
    Officer, Poona and Anr. (1988) 3. SCC 751 :1988 (1) Suppl.
    SCR 531; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (0) by LRs. ·vs. State
    of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789: 2005 (3) SCR 542 - referred
    to.                                                            H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A                         Case Law Reference:

          1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 231      Distinguished    Para 7

          1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 701      Distinguished    Para 7

8         2010 (5) SCR 164             Relied on        Para 7

          1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531      Referred to      Para 10

          2005 (3) SCR 542 '           Referred to      Para 10

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
C 7314-7365 of 2005.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2005 of the
  High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPS 1110/
  1999 and LPA Nos. 1094, 478, 479, 482, 484, 491, 498, 508,
D 520, 521, 523, 527, 529, 532, 550, 558, 564, 566, 570, 576,
  577, 580, 583, 591, 592, 593, 594, 597, 600, 601, 604, 609,
  610, 618, 622, 623, 625, 633, 642, 644, 652, 654, 690, 701,
  808, 809, 813, 986, 988, 1095, 1097 and 1099 of 1999.

                                WITH

    C.A. Nos. 77-273, 613-627, 4599, 4683, 4744, 5058, 5059,
    5237, 5238 of 2006, 118, 870 and 3181 of 2007, 8599 and
    8600 of 2014.

F        R. Balasubramanyam, Sunita Rani Singh, Santosh Kumar,
    Anil Katiyar and D.S Mahra, for the appellant.

       Amit Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand, Praveen Jain, Mushtaq
    Ahmad, Rajesh Sharma, Shalu Sharma, Praveen Jain for the
    Respondents.
G
          The Judgment of the cqurt was delivered by

          ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted in SLPs.

          2. These appeals have been preferred against the
H
  UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                   713
   (DEAD) TH. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a group of           A
matters involving the issue of determination of compensation
for the land acquired by the appellant-Union of India in two sets
of acquisition.

      2. One of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land       8
Acquisition ,Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), in question, was
issued on.14th'March, 1989 to acquire 72.9375 acres of land
in villages Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala, for development
of military cantonment ,at Patiala in Punjab. The Collector vide
award dated 13th August 1991, assessed the market value of          C
the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per acre. The
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.9,05000/- per acre. A learned Single Judge of the High
Court reduced the same to Rs.105.80 per square yard vide
order dated 1st April, 1999, which has been affirmed by the
Division Bench.                                                     D

     3. In the other set of acquisition, covered by notification
under Section 4 of the Act dated 16th September, 1988, for
the land measuring 498.03, the Collector vide award dated 27th
March, 1991, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lakh          E
per acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri
Gujran and for the land in villages Sher Majra, Haji Majra and
Pasiana at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Reference
Court vide award dated 6th April, 1998 enhanced the
compensation to Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for the land in villages     F
Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran. In respect of land in the
revenue estate of village Haji Majra, for the land upto 500
meters on Patiala Sangrur Road, compensation was awarded
at the same rate but for the rest of the land compensation was
awarded at Rs.2,33,750/- per acre. For villages Pasiana and         G
Sher Majra, the rate award~d was the same as for village Haji
Majra. On further appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,48, 159/-
per acre which has been affirmed by the Division Bench with
slight modification by way of enhancement.
                                                                    H
    714        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A        4. Thus, the Division Bench has upheld the view of the
    learned Single Judge in reducing the compensation from
    Rs.9,05,000/- per acre, fixed by the Reference Court, to
    Rs.105.80 per square yard fixed by the learned Single Judge
    in respect of the land covered by notification dated 14th March,
B   1989 and for the land covered under notification dated 16th
    September, 1988, the compensation was marginally enhanced
    to Rs.4,54,662/- per acre.

         5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the
    Union of India has preferred these appeals. However, the land
C   owners have accepted the compensation awarded by the
    Division Bench.                           -

          6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

D
        7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Un_ion of India
  submitted that enhancement of compensation beyond the
  award of the Collector by the Reference Court and the High
  Court was not justified as the sale transactions relied upon by
  the land owners could not be the basis for fixation of
  compensation. The said instances were of land nearer to the
E city which land, being better located, had higher value. It is for
  this reason that in respe.ct of the land covered by notification
  dated 14th March, 1989, rate of compensation fixed by the
  Reference Court was reduced by the High Court. Plea that for
  taking into small instances cut of 60% should be applied was
F wrongly disregarded. Thus, methodology followed by the High
  Court was not appropriate. Reliance has been placed on law
  laid down in Basant Kumar and ors. vs. Union of India and
  Ors 1• , Smt. lndumati Chitaley vs. Union of India and Anr2. and
  Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karig9wda and Ors3 . • It
G was further submitted that the sale transactions Exp. P-21 and
  P-22 have been wrongly relied upon ignoring the objection of

    1_ (1996) 11 sec 542.
    2.   (1995) Suppl. 4 sec 219.
H 3. (2010) s sec 10s_
  UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                   715
   (DEAD) TH. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
the appellant and on that basis the Division Bench erred in          A
enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,54,6621- per acre in
respect of the acquisition covered by notification dated 16th
September, 1988.

      8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the land owners
                                                                     B
supported the view taken in the impugned judgment. It was
pointed out that the land was located adjacent to the municipal
limits near Golf Course and residential area. Its distance was
3 kms. from Phagwara Chowk. The land had potential value for
development into residential and commercial area.
                                                                     c
    9. We have considered the rival submissions. Before
considering the merits of the rival contentions, we consider it
appropriate to refer to the discussion on the issue by the High
Court which is as follows:-
                                                                     D
           "In the present case, situation is altogetherdifferent.
    While deciding issue regarding cut, referred to above,
    argument of counsel-for the Union of India that cut
    imposed is required to be enhanced is a/so liable to be
    rejected. In view of situation the land under acquisition,
                                                                     E
    as referred to above, cut imposed to the extent of 20%
    was perfectly justified. Counsel for the Union of India has
    tried to support his argument by citing various judgments
    but no benefit of those judgments can be extended to
    Union of India because at the time when matter was
    argued before Additional District Judge, no serious
                                                                     F
    dispute was raised by Union of India regarding potential
    value of the land under acquisition. No evidence was led
    to show that the land acquired had no potential for
    developing it into residential or commercial area.
    Argument to impose higher cut was rightly rejected by the        G
    learned Single Judge, after taking note of evidence on
    record.

           Argument of counsel for the Union of India that
                                                                     H
    716      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         since the land was situated at a distance of 1 to 1-112 kms
          of municipal limits, as such, higher cut be imposed, is
          not justified, in view of evidence on record. It had come
          in evidence that the land under acquisition was situated
          next to the municipal limits and was situated very near
B         to golf course. In view of this, no case is made out for
          further cut as prayed for.

                 In the present case, learned Single Judge has
          rightly placed reliance to award compensation upon sale
          instance Ex. P-21 and Ex.P-22. While determining
c         compensation,· reliance has also been placed on
          statements PW 4, P27, PW10. It had come on record that
          land subject matter of sale instance, referred to above,
          was situated within a distance of 20 kif/as or less from the
          land under acquisition. Sale deed Ex. P23 was rightly
D         ignored as it pertained to constructed house and there
          was no evidence on record to show that what was the value
          of land underneath the constructed portion of the house.
          Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
          that award of compensation @ Rs. 105. 80 paisa per
E         square yard to the claimants by the learned Single Judge
          was perfectly justified."

        10. It is well settled in determining compensation for
  acquired land, price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by
F a willing seller to a willing buyer is adopted subject to such
  transaction being adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the
  date of acquisition and possessing similar advantages. Of
  course, there are other well known methods of valuation like
  opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any
G evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into
  account transaction of nearest land around the date of
  notification under Section 4 of the Act by making a suitable
  allowance. There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be
  the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the relied
  upon transaction. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special
H
     UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                717
      (DEAD) TH. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
Land Acquisition Officer4, Poona and anr. , this Court summed        A
up the principle as follows:-

      "4. The following factors must be etched on the mental
      screen:
                                                                     B
      (1)

      (2)

      (3)
                                                                     c
      (4)
      (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
      determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
      notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act       0
      (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are
      irrelevant).

      (6) The determination has to be made standing on the
      date line of valuation (date of publication of notification    E
      under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical
      purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market
      and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day.
      It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell
      the land at a reasonable price.                                F

     ' (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to
       correlate the market value reflected in the most
       comparable instance which provides the index of market
       value.
                                                                     G
       (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
       (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of


4.   (1988) 3 sec 1s1.                                               H
    718       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         acquisition of land.)

          (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into
          account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and
          (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser
B         to pay a higher price on account of the resultant
          improvement in development prospects.

               (10) The most comparable instances out of the
          genuine instances have to be identified on the following
c         considerations:

                 (i)    proximity from time angle,

                 (ii)   proximity from situation angle.

                ( 11) Having identified the instances which provide
          the index of market value the price reflected therein may
          be taken as the norm and the market value of the land
          under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable
          adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land
E         under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.

               ( 12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may
          be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may
          be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
F         purchaser would do.

                (13) The market value of the land under acquisition
          has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected
          in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and
G         unloading it for minus factors.

                  (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13)
          has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a
          prudent man of the world of business would do. We may
H         illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                 719
 (DEAD) TH. l-RS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
  Plus factors                 Minus factors                    A
  1. smallness of size        1. largeness of area

  2. proximity to a road      2. situation in the interior at
                              a' distance from the road
                                                                B
 . 3. frontage on a road .    3. narrow strip of land with
                              very small frontage
                              compared to depth
  4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the
  area                     depressed portion to be filled       C
                           up
  5. regular shape            5. remoteness from
                              developed locality

  6. level vis-a-vis land      6. some special                  D
  under acquisition            disadvantageous factor
                               which would deter a
                               purchaser
 7. special value for an
   owner of an adjoining                                        E
   property to whom it may
   have some very special
   advantage

        (15) The evaluation of these factors of course          F
  depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any
  hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and
  most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor
  re§arding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000
  sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block       G
  of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a
  smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of
  land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out,
  carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out
                                                                H
    720       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A         smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the
          invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of
          an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making
          a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate
          ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per
B         cent to account for land required to be set apart for
          carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The
          discounting will to some extent also depend on whether
          it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity
          is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the
c         capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be
          longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.

                (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact
          pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent
          purchaser of land in which posjtion the judge must place
D         himself.

                (17) These are general guidelines to be applied
          with understanding informed with common sense."

E       Again in Viluben Jhatejar Contractor (D) by LRs. vs. State
    of Gujarat°, it was observed:-

          "24. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a
          relevant factor for determining the market value. In
          Basavva v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 6 SCC
F         640, deduction to the extent of 65% was made towards
          development charges.

          25. In Bhagwathula Samanna, (1991) 4 SCC 506, it.has
          been held: (SCC pp. 510-11, para 11)
G         "11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered
          by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive
          at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the
          principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It

H 5. (2005) 4 sec 789.
UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                   721
 (DEAD) TH. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
 is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition       A
 which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area
 there may be land which is fully developed having all
 amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If
 smaller area within the large tract is already developed
 and suitabie for building purposes and have in its vicinity       B
 roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the
 principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part
 of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."      ·

  26. In L. Kamalamma, (1998) 2 SCC 385, this Court held:          C
  (SCC p. 387, para 6)

  "Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction
  having taken place prior to eight months from the issue
  of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the
  present case. ·Having found that the piece of land referred      D
  in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are
  acquired under the notification in question the Reference
                                                              \
  Court and the High Court relied upon the said docum.ent
  and, in our view, rightly; Further when no sales of
  comparable land were available where large chunks of             E
  land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of
  smaller extent of land could be taken note of as
  indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large
  tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as
  for development of the land by providing enough space            F
  for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation
  of a layout,-,ump -sum payment as also the waiting period
  required for selling the sites that would be formed."

  27. In Administrator General of WB. v. Collector, (1988)
  2 sec 150, deduction to the extent of 53% was aflowed.           G

  28. In K. S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land
  Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62, it was held: (SCC
  p. 65, para 10)
                                                                   H
    722       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A          "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but
           depends upon the nature of the development and the
           stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the
           learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends
           upon development need in each case. Under the
B          Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This
           Court has laid as a general rule. that for laying the roads
          and other amenities 33-113% is required to be deducted.
           Where the development has already taken place,
          appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case,
c          we do not find any development had taken place as on
           that date. When we are determining compensation under
           Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under
           Section 4(1 ), we have to consider the situation of the land
          development, if already made, and other relevant facts
          as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential
D
           value, but no development had taken place as on the
          date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to
          hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for
          roads and for other amenities and his requirement to
          'expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains,
          electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further
          deduction towards development charges@ 33-113%, as
          ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."

          29. In Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat
          (1995) 5 SCC 422 and Land Acquisition Officer v.
          Nookala Rajamallu, (2003) 12 SCC 334 : (2003) 10
          Scale 307, it has been noticed that where lands are
          acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of
          development charges is permissible.

          30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that
          normally one-third deduction of further amount of
          compensation has been directed in some cases. (See
          Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, Tejuma!
          Bhojwani v. State of UP., (2003) 10 SCC 525, V.
H
 UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH                  723
  (DEAD) TH. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & A
    Manda/ R. Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing
    Board v. Bharat S. Negi, (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran
    Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10·
    sec 745.J
                                                                   B
     31. In Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences5
     whereupon Mr Ranjit Kumar placed strong reliance, the
     Cour~ooticed that if the acquisition is made for
     agricultural purpose, question of development thereof
     would not arise; but if the sale instance was in respect of
     a small piece of land whereas the acquisition is for a large C
     piece of land, although development cost may not be
     deducted, there has to be deduction for largeness of the
     land and a/so for the fact that these are agricultural lands.
     In that view of the matter, deduction at the rate of 33%
     made by the High Court was upheld. It may not, D
     therefore, .be correct to contend, as has been submitted
     by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, that there cannot be different
     deductions, one for the largeness of the land and another
     for development costs. "
                                                                   E
     11. As regards the judgments relied upon by the appellant,
the same are distinguishable. In lndumati Chitaley case
(supra}, it was noticed that the land in question was agricultural
land which could not be valued at par with. the value of the non-
agricultural land as was sought to be claimed on behalf of the F
appellant. In the said case, unlike the present case, there was
no finding that the land had immediate potential for residential/
commercial use. In Basant Kumar case (supra), it was
observed that while considering an instance of developed land
as the basis for determining the value of the agricultural land, G
one third of the value has to be deducted towards providing
amenities like roads, parks, electricity, sewage etc. We have
already noted the law laid down by this Court that extent of cut
depends on individual fact situations. In Karigowda case
(supra), it was observed that the existing potentiality alone has H
   724       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A to be taken into consideration while determining the
  compensation. Remote beneficial factors cannot be made the
  basis for determining the compensation. It was further observed
  that comparable sales method is a preferred method over the
  other methods for determining the compensation. There is no
8 dispute with these propositions but in the facts and
  circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the view
  taken by the High Court is vitiated by any error of principle
  propounded in the relied upon judgment or otherwise.

      12. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
C impugned judgment.

         13. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

   Devika Gujral                                Appeals dismissed.