Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court’s deductions of 40% for development and 20% for plot size were erroneous; the correct market value should be fixed with a one‑third deduction for development and a 10% per annum escalation, with the appellants entitled to the revised compensation and statutory benefits.

Summary

The appellants, owners of small parcels of land acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for a housing project, challenged the compensation fixed by the Reference Court after the Madras High Court reduced the market value by applying a 40% deduction for development charges and a further 20% deduction for the small size of the plots. The Supreme Court examined the principles for fixing market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, emphasizing that a one‑third deduction for development is the norm for undeveloped or semi‑urban land unless the land is already developed, and that escalation in land prices must be accounted for, typically at about 10% per annum in semi‑urban areas. The Court held that the High Court erred by ignoring its own finding that the land was situated near residential colonies and by failing to apply the appropriate escalation factor. Consequently, the Court fixed the market value of the acquired land with a one‑third deduction for development and a 10% per annum escalation, rejecting the 40% and 20% deductions. The appellants were awarded the revised compensation along with solatium, interest, and other statutory benefits, and specific procedural directions were issued to ensure prompt payment.

Issues considered

The correct method for determining market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether a 40% deduction for development charges is appropriate for semi‑urban land situated near residential colonies.
Whether a 20% deduction for the small size of the plots should be applied.
The necessity of incorporating an annual escalation factor in the valuation of semi‑urban land.
The entitlement of the landowners to solatium, interest and other statutory benefits.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18(1), s. 4(1), s. 54

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket value determinationDevelopment cost deductionEscalation factorSolatiumLand Acquisition Act 1894Semi‑urban land

Judgment

[2011] 10 S.C.R. 293

VALLIYAMMAL AND ANOTHER A
v.
SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) AND
ANOTHER ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6127-6128 of 2011)
B
AUGUST 01, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1 ), 18(1) and 54 -
Compulsory acquisition of small parcels of land owned by C
appellants by the State Government for construction of houses
by State Housing Board ...: Market value fixed as also
compensation determined by the Reference Court - High
Court substantially reduced the compensation - On appeal,
held: High Court while deducting 40% towards development D
charges, ignored its own finding that the acquired land was
situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed
by the Housing Board - Thus, the High Court could have at
best applied 1!3rd deduction towards development cost - The
acquired land is a semi-urban land and has huge potential E
for being developed as housing site - High Court should have
added 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the
sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value of the acquired
land - Majority of the landowners have been deprived of their
entire landholding and have waited for 14 to 20 years for F
getting the compensation - It would be wholly unjust to deprive
them of their legitimate right by approving the 20% deduction
made by the High Court - Accordingly the market value of
the acquired land is fixed and the landowners would get
solatium, interest and other statutory benefits in accordarice G
with the provisions of the Act.
Various small parcels of land were acquired by
certain Notifications by the State Government for
construction of houses by State Housing Board. The
293 H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A High Court reduced the market value fixed by the
Reference Court and as such the amount of
compensation determined by the Reference Court was
substantially reduced. Thus, the appellants-landowners
filed the instant appeals.
B
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In fixing market value of the acquired land,
which is undeveloped or under-developed, the courts
have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market
c value towards development cost except when no
development is required to be made for implementation
of the public purpose for which land is acquired. [Para
17] [309--F-G]

Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4)
D Suppl. SCR 117 Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of UP. (2003) 10
· SCC 525:2003(2) Suppl. SCR 1044; V. Hanumantha Reddy
v. Land Acquisition Officer and Manda/ Revenue Officer
(2003) 12 SCC 642; HP.Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi
(2004) 2 SCC 184; Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development
E Authority (2004) 10 sec 745: 2004 (3) SCR 467 - relied on.

Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2001)
7 SCC 650: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573; Viluben Jha/ejar
Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789: 2005 (3)
F SCR 542; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568:
2007 (12) SCR 1120; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15
SCC 769: 2009 (13) SCR 622; A.P. Housing Board v.
K.Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707: 2010 (11 ) SCR
1107; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444:
G 2009 (15 ) SCR 287 - referred to.

1.2 The impugned judgment suffer from multiple
errors and call for interference by this Court. The first
error committed by the High Court relates to deduction
of 40% towards development charges. While doing so,
H
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 295
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC.

the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired A
land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies
developed by the Board and other establishments as
also the fact that the respondents had not produced any
evidence to show that they will have to start the
development work from scratch. Therefore, the High B
Court could have, at best, applied 113rd deduction
towards development cost. [Paras 20 and 21] [312-H; 313-
A-C]

1.3 The second error committed by the High Court
is that while fixing market value, it did not take into C
account the escalation in land prices. [Para 22] [313-D]

Ranjit Singh v. U. T. of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659;
Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v.
Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti D
v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283; Saidar Jogendra Singh
v. State of UP. (2008) 17 SCC 133; Revenue Divisional
Officer-cum-LAO. v. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. (2009) 4 SCC
395; The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 - E
referred to.
1.4 The acquired land is situated in the close vicinity
of various residential colonies, educational institutions,
hospitals etc. and is on the junction of two important
roads. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the land F
is semi-urban and has huge potential for being
developed as housing sites and the High Court should
have added 10% per annum escalation in the price
specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market
value of the acquired land. The third error committed by G
the High Court is that in fixing market value of the land
acquired vide notifications issued in 1991, 1992 and 1995
with reference to sale deed dated 4.9.1990 vide which a
piece of land was sold at the rate of Rs.201- per square
feet, the High Court did not add 10% escalation per H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 10 S.C.R.

A annum in the land prices. [Paras 23 and 24) [315-E-H;
316-A]

1.5 The deduction of 20% may have been sustained
keeping in view the smallness of the plots which were
8 sold vide sale deeds dated 4.9.1990 and 8.2.1991, but, in
the peculiar facts of the case, it will be wholly unjust to
allow such deduction. Majority of the appellants have
been deprived of their entire landholding and they have
waited for 14 to 20 years for getting the compensation. It
C appears that in compliance of the interim orders passed
by the Court, some of the appellants did get 25% and one
of them got 35% of the compensation, but majority of
them have not received a single penny towards
compensation and at this distant point of time, it will be
wholly unjust to deprive them of their legitimate right by
D approving the 20% deduction made by the High Court.
In such matters, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact
that the landowners have been deprived of the only
source of livelihood, the cost of living has gone up
manifold and the purchasing power of rupee has
E substantially declined. [Para 25) [316-A-D]

2. The market value of the acquired land is fixed as
under:
(i) For the acquisition made vide notification dated
F
9.10.1990, the base document will be .sale deed dated
4.9.1990 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs.20/
- per square feet. One-third of Rs.20/- comes to Rs.6.6
per square feet. After deducting Rs.6.6 from R.s.20/-,
market value of the acquired land will be Rs.13.4 per
G square feet which is rounded off to Rs.14/- per
square feet.
(ii) For the acquisitions made by the notifications
issued on 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991, the
H base document will be sale deed dated 8.2.1991 vide
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 297
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC.
which land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per square A
feet. One-third of Rs.30/- is equal to Rs.10/- per square
feet. After deducting Rs.10/- from Rs.30/-, market
value will be Rs.20/- per square feet.

(iii) For the acquisition made vide notification dated
B
08.4.1992, the base document will be sale deed dated
8.2.1991 vi de which land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/
- per square feet. By adding 10% per annum in lieu
of escalation in the land prices and deducting 1/3rd
towards development cost, market value of the
acquired land will be Rs.29.2 per square feet which C
is rounded off to Rs.30/- per square feet.

(iv) For the acquisition made vide notification dated
15.3.1995, the base document will be sale deed dated·
8.2.1991 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/ D
- per square feet. By adding 10% per annum in lieu
of escalation in the land prices and deducting 1/3rd
towards development cost, market value of the
acquired land will be Rs.29.2 per square feet which
is rounded off to Rs.30/- per square feet. E

(v) For the acquisitions made by the notifications
issued on 17.1.1997 and 19.3.1997, the base
document will be sale deed dated 8.2.1991 vide which
land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet. If
10% per annum is added in lieu of escalation in the F
land prices and 1/3rd is deducted towards
development charges, market value of the acquired
land will be Rs.35.3 per square feet which is rounded
off toRs.36/- per square feet. The appellants shall get
solatium, interest' and other statutory benefits in G
accordance with the provisions of the Act. [Para 26]
[316-E-H; 317-A-F]

3. With a view to ensure that the landowners are not
fleeced by the middleman, it is directed that within one H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R.

A month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment,
the Land Acquisition Officer shall depute an officer
subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar
or an equivalent rank, who shall get in touch with the
landowners and/or their legal representatives and inform
s them about their entitlement to receive enhanced
compensation. The concerned officers shall instruct the
landowners and/or their legal representatives to open
savings bank account in a nationalized or scheduled
bank, in case they already do not have such account. The
c account numbers of the landowners and/or their legal
representatives should be furnished by the concerned
officer to the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of
two months. Withi'! next one month, the Land Acquisition
.Officer shall deposit the amount of compensation along
with other statutory benefits in the bank accounts of the
0
landowners and/or their legal representatives by way of
cheques. [Para 27] [317-G-H; 318-A-D]

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumari Devi (1996) 8
SCC 577: 1996 (2) SCR 749; Faridabad Gas Power Project,
E NTPC v. Om Prakash (2009) 4 SCC 719 - cited.
Case Law Reference:
1996 (2) SCR 749 Cited Para 9
(2009) 4 sec 119 Cited Para 9
F
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573 Referred to Para 14
2005 (3 ) SCR 542 Referred to Para 15
2007 (12) SCR 1120 Referred to Para 16
G 2002 ( 4 ) Suppl. SCR 117 Relied on Para 17
2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 1044 Referred to Para 18
(2003) 12 sec 642 Relied on Para 18

H (2004) 2 sec 1s4 Relied on Para 18
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 299
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC.
2004 (3 ) SCR 467 Relied on Para 18 A
2009 (13 ) SCR 622 Referred to
.
Para 18
2010 (11 ) SCR 1107 Referred to Para 19
2009 (15 ) SCR 287 Referred to Para 19
B
(1992) 4 sec 659 Referred to Para 22
(2005) 9 sec 594 Referred to Para 22
(2004) 2 sec 283 Referred to Para 22
(2008) 11 sec 133 Referred to Para 22
c
(2009) 4 sec 395 Referred to Para 22
(2008) 14 sec 145 Referred to Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D
6127-6128 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 02.03.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. No. 759 to 764 of 1999.
WITH E
C.A. Nos. 6132-6133, 6134, 6135-6138, 6139-6140, 6141-
6146,6147,6148-6154,6155,6156,6157,6158,6159,6160,
6161,6162,6163,6164,6165,6166,6167,6168,6169,6170,
6171 of 2010.
F
V. Giri, S. Ravi Shankar, V.P. Sengottuvel, Mohammed
Sadique T.A., M.A. Chinnasamy, K. Krishna Kumar, Preetam
Shah, P. Soma Sundaram for the Appellants.

Gurukrishna Kumar, AAG, Anesh Paul, Prasannan, G
Subramonium Prasad, R. Nedumaran for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Delay in fiiing Special Leave Petition
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 10 S.C.R.

A (Civil) Nos.33777-33782/2009, 22831/2010, 23641/2010,
23643/2010 and 1961/2011 is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals filed against the judgments/orders
B passed by different Division Benches of the Madras High Court
substantially reducing the amount of compensation determined
by Additional District Judge, Erode and Principal Subordinate
Judge, Erode (hereinafter referred to as, "the Reference Court")
are illustrative of the plight of the owners of small parcels of land,
C who are deprived of the only source of livelihood and who have
to spend substantial amount in litigation and wait for years
together to get just and reasonable compensation in lieu of the
compulsory acquisition of their land by the State.

0 4. For the sake of convenience, we shall first advert to the
factual matrix of the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25581-
82 of 2009 - Jaganatha Gounder v. Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), Erode and another because learned counsel for
the parties made submissions keeping in view the factual matrix
E of those cases.

5. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), the
Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification dated 17 .1.1997
for the acquisition of 55.89 acres land comprised in different
F survey numbers of village Erode for construction of houses by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, "the Board").

6. By an award dated 3.3.2000, the Land Acquisition
Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of
G Rs.50,000/- per acre. This did not satisfy the appellants who
filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Act and claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard by
asserting that the acquired land is situated nea~ Erode-
Perundurai and Sennimalai Road junction and residential
H colonies like Anna Nagar, Sri Nagar, Bharthi Nagar, Rail Nagar,
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 301
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Jeeva Nagar, Subramania Nagar, Kalaigner Karunanidhi A
Nagar, Arts College, Women's College, Kongu Higher
Secondary School, St. Joseph Clinic, Hospitals etc. and
was having potential for being used for housing and business
purposes. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the
Court for the determination of the compensation payable to the B
appellants. The Reference Court considered the pleadings of
the parties and evidence produced by them and concluded that
the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.28/
- per square feet.

7. Both, the appellants and the respondents challenged the C
judgment of the Reference Court by filing appeals under Section
54 of the Act. They also filed applications under Order XU Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce
additional evidence. The High Court allowed the applications
and directed the Reference Court to give opportunity to the D
parties to adduce additional evidence and make fresh
determination of the compensation payable to the appellants
and remit its findings along with the documents.

8. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, E
the Reference Court considered the additional evidence
produced by the parties and opined that the appellants are
entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.19.28 per square feet.

9. After receiving the report of the Reference Court, the
High Court considered the evidence produced by the parties F
and. held that valuation of the land, which was made basis by
the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing market value cannot be
relied upon because that land was situated far away from the
acquired land. The High Court noted that there was a steady
increase of property value in the area because of repeated G
acquisitions made on behalf of the Board, referred to the topo-
sketch and sale deed Exhibit C.8 dated 8.2.1991 and
observed:

" ............. The said property is in a housing colony by H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A name K.K.Nagar and the area is considered to be a
developed area. Therefore we are of the opinion that the
valuation as found mentioned in Ex.C.8 could be taken as
Bench Mark for the purpose of fixing the market rate. In
fact we have taken a document of the year 1989 showing
B the market rate at Rs.20/- per sq.ft. for arriving at the
market rate in respect of the property acquired as per the
notification issued in the year 1991. ·

Even though as per Ex.C.8 dated 8.2.1991 the property
was sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft., the said
c transaction relates to a smaller extent. However as per the
subject notification larger extent of property was acquired
and as such the value as shown in Ex.C.8 cannot be taken
in its entirety for arriving at the market rate. The Housing
Board has to develop the property for housing purposes.
D It is in evidence that the acquired property was only an
agricultural property and it has no potential as a housing
site. No evidence was placed on the side of the claimants
, to show that they have been getting substantial income
from the property or it has got high potential as a house-
E site. Therefore we are of the view that necessary deduction
has to be made towards development charges."

The High Court then adverted to the principles laid down
by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v..Ram Kumari Devi
F (1996) 8 SCC 577, Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of
Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, Atma Singh v. State of Haryana
(2008) 2 SCC 568, The General Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008)
14 SCC 745, Revenue Divisional Officer-cun:i-L.A. 0. v. Shaik
G Azam Saheb etc. (2009) 4 SCC 395, Faridabad Gas Power
Project, NTPC v. Om Prakash (2009) 4 SCC 719 for
determination of market value of the acquired land as also the
rule of deduction towards development cost and held:

"The acquired property is a manwari land and even
H according to the claimants it was not a house-site
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 303
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

developed by them. The acquisition was only for A
construction of residential houses and therefore
necessarily the Housing Board has to spend considerable
amount for development and to make it fit for construction
of residential units. On the other hand, the property in
Ex.C.8 is a developed site and the same was sold only B
as a house-site. Therefore considering the advantages,
development and potential of the property in Ex.C.8 vis-a-
vis the disadvantages, undeveloped state and lack of
potential of the acquired property, we are of the view that
deduction at the rate of 40% has to be given towards c
development charges. n

The High Court also took cognizance of the fact that the
sale instance Exhibit C.8 relied upon for fixing market value was
in respect of a small piece of land and held:
D
"While fixing the market rate, very often, documents of
smaller extent would be taken as the basis. The normal rule
in fixing compensation for large extent of land with
reference to the value shown in the sale document of
lesser extent is that there must be suitable deduction. It is E
common knowledge that larger extent of property invariably
fetch less when compared to smaller extent. No prudent
buyer would buy large extent of land by quoting the price
prevailing in the market for a small piece of land.

The document in Ex.C.8 is in respect of a property having F
only 1200 sq.ft. However as per the present notification,
large extent of property was acquired. Therefore we are
. of the considered opinion that necessary deduction on
account of small size of the property retained for fixing the
market value has to be given. On an overall consideration G
of the matter, we fix the deduction on account of small size
of the plot taken as the basic document at 20%.

Taking an overall view of the matter we are of the opinion
that 40% deduction should be made towards development H
304 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A costs and 20% on account of small size of the plot taken
as the basis to arrive at the market value. Accordingly,
while retaining Ex.C.8 dated 8.2.1991 (Rate Rs.30/- per
sq.ft.) as the basic document for arriving at the market rate,
we deduct 40% by way of development charges and 20%
B by way of small size of the plot and arrive at the market
rate at Rs.5,22,720/- per acre."

10. The facts of the other appeals have been incorporated
in a statement, which is marked as Schedule 'A' and shall be
treated as part of this judgment. A perusal of the statement
C shows that various parcels of land were acquired by the State
Government vide notifications dated 9.10.1990, 15.4.1991,
16.4.1991, 22.5.1991, 27.5.1991, 8.4.1992, 15.3.1995,
17.1.1997, 12.2.1997 and 19.3.1997 and the High Court
reduced the market value fixed by the Reference Court from
D Rs.19.28 to Rs.12/- and from Rs.20/- to Rs.8/- per square feet.

11. Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in some of the cases criticized the impugned
judgments/orders primarily on the ground that while reducing
E market value fixed by the Reference Court, the High Court
. completely ignored the settled rule that the landowner is entitled
to the benefit of escalation in land prices. Learned senior
counsel then argued that the High Court was not at all justified
in making 40% deduction towards the cost of development and
F 20% further deduction on account of smallness of the size of
plot, which was taken as basis for arriving at the market value
ignoring that the appellants had suffered huge monetary loss
on account of non-payment of compensation for years together.
The other learned counsel appearing for the appellants adopted
G the arguments of Shri Giri.

12. Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, Additional Advocate General,
Tamil Nadu fairly stated that the appellants are entitled to the
benefit of escalation in land prices but argued that the
deduction of 40% towards development cost and 20% due to
H
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 305
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
smallness ofthe size of the plots sold vide Exhibit c.a· cannot A
be termed as excessive.
13. We have considered the respective arguments and
carefully perused the record. At the threshold, it will be useful
to notice some of the judgments in which the Court has laid
B
down guiding principles for determination of market value of the
acquired land.

14. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(2001) 7 SCC 650, this Court held:
c
"It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales
method of valuation of land while fixing the market value
of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the
acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is
preferred than other methods of valuation of land such D
as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion
method. Comparable sales method of valuation is
preferred because it furnishes the evidence for
determination of the market value of the acquired land
at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired E
land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of
issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However,
comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing
the market value of the acquired fand is not always
conclusive. There are certain factors which are required ·
to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the F
compensation can be awarded, according to the value of
the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter
a/ia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2)
that the sale deed must have been executed at the time
proximate to the date of issue of notification under G
Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale
must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the
land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired
land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by
the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale
value of the land covered by the sales be not given for
the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in
regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between
land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the
B court to proportionately reduce the compensation for
acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending
upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."

(emphasis supplied)
c 15. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat
(supra), this Court laid down the following principles for
determination of market value of the acquired land:

"Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be
D considered in determining the compensation; the principal
among which is the determination of the market value of
the land on the date of the publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) of SectiJ'l 4. ·

One of the principles for determination of the amount of
E
compensation for acquisition of land would be the
willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor.
It is beyond any cavil that the pricf:! of the land which a
willing and informed buyer would offer would be different
in the cases where the owner is in possession and
F enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch
in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by
the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite
G material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of
similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of
notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale
instances as well as other evidences have to be
considered.
H
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 307
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with A
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be
identified having regard to the proxiQlity from time angle
as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining
the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable
adjustment has to be made having regard to various B
positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under
acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive
and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
c
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a
distance from the road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to depth D
(iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring the
area · depressed portion to be filled
up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality E
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an F
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage
Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, G
a large block of land will have to be developed preparing
a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces,
plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the
hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."

16. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the Court
held:

"In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-
B holders are entitled to get for their land which has been
acquired, the main question to be considered is what is
the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays
down what the court has to take into consideration while
Section 24 lays down what the court shall not take into
c consideration arid have to be neglected. The main object
of the enquiry before the court is to determine the market
value of the land acquired. The expression "market value"
has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court
in several cases. The market value is the price that a
D willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the
property having due regard to its existing condition with all
its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when
led out in most advantagecus manner excluding any
advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the
E property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market
value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and
the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be
disregarded The guiding star would be the conduct of
hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a
F purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy
as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an
anxious dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale nor
fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or
otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of
G market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a
price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of
probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar,
Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., Administrator General

H
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 309
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi and Periyar Pareekanni A
Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kera/a.

For ascertaining the market value of the land, the
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into
consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for 8
changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well
settled that market value of a property has to be
determined having due regard to its existing condition with
all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when
led out in its most advantageous manner. The question C
whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one
of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to
which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and
proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or
institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, D
possibility of their further extension, whether near about
town is developing or has prospect of development have
to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr.
Harisingh Thakur, Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt.
and Administrator General, WB. v. Collector Varanasi.
It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land E
Acquisition Officer and Suresh Kumar v. Town
Improvement Trust that failing to consider potential value
of the acquired land is an error of principle."

17. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is F
undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally
approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards
development cost except when no development is required to
be made for implementation of the public purpose for which
land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC G
354, the Court held:

·: ........... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land
or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing
or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of
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
B land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial
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
c that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may
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 developmental
D purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is
such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such
evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land
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
E
developed area, does not give the land the character of a
developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one
portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining
large area where planned development is required, needs
laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity
F
lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of
some land where there are certain advantages by virtue
of the developed area around, it may help in reducing
the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental
charges required may be less on that account. There
G may be various factual factors which may have to be
taken into consideration while applying the cut in
payment of compensation towards developmental
charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1!3rd and
in some cases less than 1!3rd. It must be remembered
H that there is difference between a developed area and an
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 311
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. A
The fact that an area is developed or adjacent 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, as in this case, for development purpose." s
(emphasis supplied)

18. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal
Bhojwani v. State of UP. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha
Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ Revenue Officer C
(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 SCC 745. In Lal Chand v.
Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Court indicated that
percentage of deduction for development to be made for D
arriving at market value of large tracts of undeveloped
agricultural land with potential for development can vary
between 20 and 75 per cent of the price of developed plots
and observed:
E
"The 'deduction for development' consists of two
components. The first is with reference to the area required
to be utilised for developmental works and the second is
the cost of the development works ....

Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be F
made with reference to the price of a small plot in a
developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land,
will be for more than the deduction with reference to the
price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or
an industrial layout. It is also well known that the G
development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much
higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having
regard to higher overheads and expenditure."

· 19. In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010)
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R.

A 12 SCC 707, the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development
cost was invoked while determining market value of the
acquired land. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC
444, this Court held as under:

B "Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to
derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land
with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed
plot. The difference between the value of a small developed
plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the
c "development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the
quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail price"
as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction
is decided with reference to the extent and nature of
development of the area/layout in which the small
developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the
D
acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification,
whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is
considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the
percentage of deduction to take note of the developed
status of the acquired land.
E
The percentage of deduction (development cost factor)
will be applied fully where the acquired land has no
development. But where the acquired land can be
considered to be partly developed (say for example,
F having good road access or having the amenity of
electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is,
percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference
to the extent of development of the acquired land as on
the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will
G the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in
determining the percentage of deduction towards
development cost."

(emphasis supplied)

H 20. If the impugned judgment is considered in the light of
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 313
·ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, there is no A
escape from the conclusion that the same suffer from multiple
1 errors and call for interference by this Court.

21. The first error committed by the High Court relates to
deduction of 40% towards development charges. While doing
B
so, the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired land
was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed
by the Board and other establishments as also the fact that the
respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they
will have to start the development work from scratch. Therefore,
the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3rd deduction C
towards development cost.

22. The second error committed by the High Court is that
while fixing market value, it did not take into account the
escalation in land prices. In Ranjit Singh v. U. T. of Chandigarh . D
(1992) 4 SCC 659, Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue
Divisional Officer v. Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594, Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. · Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283,
Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2008) 17 SCC 133,
Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LA. 0. v. Shaik Azam Saheb E
(supra) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), this Court has
repeatedly held that the exercise undertaken for fixing market
value and determination of the compensation payable to the
landowner should necessarily involve consideration of
F
escalation in land prices. In the last mentioned judgment, the
Court noticed the earlier pre9edents and observed as under:

"We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied
on by the respondents. They all related to acquisition of
lands in urban or semi-urban areas. Ranjit Singh related G
to acquisition for development of Sector 41 of Chandigarh.
Ramanjulu related to acquisition of the third phase of an
existing and established industrial estate in an urban area.
Bipin Kumar related to an acquisition of lands adjoining
Badaun-Delhi Highway in a semi-urban area where H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 10 S.C.R

A building construction activity was going on all around the
acquired lands.

Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four
factors: situation of the land, nature of development in
surrounding area, availability of land for development in the
B
area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas,
unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity,
increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,
without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in
urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is
c faster, where the demand for land is high and where there
is construction activity all around, the escalation in market
price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas.
In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development
and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have
D touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the
nineties.

On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there
was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers,
E the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a
nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a
significant difference in increases in market value of lands
in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value
of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in
F market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to
15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural
areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about
5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the
general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence
of -clear and specific evidence relating to increase in
G
prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a
higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating
to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be
. applied woul.d depend upon the same.

H
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 315
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the A
market value by providing appropriate escalation over the
proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as
evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where
there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale
transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the B
neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where
the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the
subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four
to five years. Beyond that It may be unsafe, even if it
relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable c
standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become
unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.
For example, for determining the market value of a land
acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method
with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980
0
may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course
of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo
drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of
varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts
in prices affecting the very standard of increase."
E
23. Though it may appear repetitive, we deem it necessary
to mention that the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity
of various residential colonies, educational institutions,
hospitals etc. and is on the junction of two important roads.
Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the land is semi- F
urban and has huge potential for being developed as housing
sites and the High Court should have added 10% per annum
escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon
for fixing market value of the acquired land.

24. The third error committed by the High Court is that in G
fixing market value of the land acquired vide notifications issued
in 1991, 1992 and 1995 with reference to sale deed dated
4.9.1990 vide which a piece of land was sold at the rate of
Rs.20/- per square feet, the High Court did not add 10%
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R.

A escalation per annum in the land prices.

25. We may have sustained 20% deduction keeping in
view the smallness of the plots which were sold vide sale deeds
dated 4.9.1990 and 8.2.1991, but, in the peculiar facts of the
B case, we think that it will be wholly unjust to allow such
deduction. Majority of the appellants have been deprived of
their entire landholding and they have waited for 14 to 20 years
for getting the compensation. It appears that in compliance of
the interim orders passed by the Court, some of the appellants
C did get 25% and one of them get 35% of the compensation,
but majority of them have not received a single penny towards
compensation and at this distant point of time, it will be wholly
unjust to deprive them of their legitimate right by approving the
20% deduction made by the High Court. In such matters, the
Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the landowners have
D been deprived of the only source of livelihood, the cost of living
has gone up manifold and the purcha.sing power of rupee has
substantially declined.

26. In the result, the appeals are allowed and market value
E of the acquired land is fixed as under:

(i) For the acquisition made vide notification dated
9.10.1990, the base document will be sale deed dated
4.9.1990 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs.20/-
per square feet. One-third of Rs.20/- comes to Rs.6.6 per
F
square feet. After deducting Rs.6.6 from Rs.20/-, market
value of the acquired land will be Rs.13.4 per square feet
which is rounded off to Rs.14/- per square feet.

(ii) For the acquisitions made by the notifications issued
G on 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991, the base
document will be sale deed dated 8.2.1991 vide which
land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet. One-
third of Rs.30/- is equal to Rs.10/- per square feet. After
deducting Rs.10/- from Rs.30/-, market value will be Rs.20/
H - per square feet.
VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL.TEHSILDAR (LAND 317
ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. [G.S. SINGHVI. J.]

(iii) For the acquisition made vide notification dated A
08.4.1992, the base document will be sale deed dated
8.2.1991 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/-
per square feet. By adding 10% per annum in lieu of
escalation in the land prices and deducting 1/3rd towards
development cost, market value of the acquired land will . B
be Rs.29.2 per square feet which is rounded off to Rs.30/
- per square feet.

(iv) For the acquisition made vide notification dated
15.3.1995, the base document will be sale deed dated c
8.2.1991 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs.30/-
per square feet. By adding 10% per annum in lieu of
escalation in the land prices and deducting 1/3rd towards
development cost, market value of the acquired land will
be Rs.29.2 per square feet which is rounded off to Rs.30/ D
- per square feet.

(v) For the acquisitions made by the notifications issued
on 17.1.1997 and 19.3.1997, the base document will be
sale deed dated 8.2.1991 vide which land was sold at the
rate of Rs.30/- per square feet. If 100/o per annum is added E
in lieu of escalation in the land prices and 1/3rd is deducted
towards development charges, market value of the
acquired land will be Rs.35.3 per square feet which is
rounded off toRs.36/- per square feet.
F
The appellants shall get solatium, interest and other
statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

27. With a view to ensure that the landowners are not
fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to issue the
following further directions: G

(i) Within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this.
judgment, the Land Acquisition Officer shall depute an
officer subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib
Tehsildar or an equivalent rank, who shall get in touch with H

' '
318 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R.

A the landowners and/or their legal representatives and
inform them about their entitlement to receive enhanced
compensation.

(ii) The concerned officers shall instruct the landowners
and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank
8
account in a nationalized or scheduled bank, in case they
already do not have such account.

(iii) The account numbers of the landowners and/or their
legal representatives should be furnished by the concerned
c officer to the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of
two months.

(iv) Within next one month, the Land Acquisition Officer
shall deposit the amount of compensation along with other
D statutory benefits in the bank accounts of the landowners
and/or their legal representatives by way of cheques.

N.J. Appeal allowed.
SCHEDULE 'A' )> <
(') )>
Or
s. SLP(C) Nos. & Name Date of Date of Date of Date of High Court Cr
No. of Parties Section 4(1) award by Reference Judgment in Appeal w-
-1~
Notification 'LAO and Court order Suit Nos. and rate
compensation and Amount fixed
oS:
zS:
fixed. - r)>
)>
1. 22086-22087/2009- 19.3.1997 21.6.2000 & 4. 7.2003 and 28.4.2009 in AS. Nos. Z:<::
Valliyammal and another Rs.50,000/- Rs.28/- per 200 & 201/2009 and 0
)> U>
v. Special Tahsildar (Land per acre square feet Rs.12/- per square feet. z -0
Acquisition), Erode and m
.::o (')
another m )>
-I r
2. 25591/2009-Thangamuthu 17.1.1997 3.3.2000 & 24.3.2005 and 2.3.2009 in AS. No. (') -I
Gounder v. Special Rs.50,000/- Rs.30/- per 706/2006 and Rs.12/- ·m
~:r:
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), per acre square feet per square feet 000
Erode and another U>
. r-
3. 25587-90/2009- Mohan 15.4.1991 10.06.1994& 27.11.2002 and 2.3.2009 in AS. Nos.
ooO
- )>
and others etc v. Special Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 813, 820, 821 and 822/ z ::0
G>_
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), per acre square feet 2003 and Rs.8/- per I r
Erode and another square feet < )>
.:-z
(Rs.3,48,480/- per acre) ..t: 0
4. 25596-97/2009- K.R. 9.10.1990/ 28.9.1994, 30.03.2001 and 2.3.2009 in AS. Nos.
Palaniappan v. Special 16.4.1991. 10.6.1994 & Rs.16/- per 170/2003 and 87112006
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Rs.37,500/- square feet and Rs.8/- per square
Erode and another per acre feet
5. 33777-82/2009 - Ramayam- 15.4.1991 10.6.1994 & 16.4.1999 and 2.3.2009 in A.S. Nos. (/)
mal and others v. Special Rs.37.500/- Rs.2, 18,500/- 759 to 764/1999 and. c
'"O
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), per acre per acre Rs.8/- per square feet ::0
Erode and another (Rs.3,48,480/- per acre) m
s:
m
6. 33808/2009 - Vishwanatha 27.5.1991 03.7.1994 & 27.11.2006 and 2.3.2009 in A.S. Nos.
Gounder v. Special Tahsildar Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/-per 72112003 and Rs.Si- per (")
(Land Acquisition) Erode per acre square feet square feet 0
(Rs.3,48,480/- per acre)
c
7. 2194-2200/2010-Veerasa- 19.2.1997 31.6.2000 & 29.11.2002 and 2.3.2009 in A.S. Nos.
~
::0
my and others v. Special Rs.50,000/- Rs.28/- per 727, 729, 730, 731, 732, m
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), per acre square feet 733 and 73412003 and ""CJ
Erode and another Rs.12/- per square feet
0
8. 12581/2010 - N. Pazhanis-
amy Gounder v. Special
12.2.1997 3.3.2000 &
Rs.50,000/-
2.3.2006 and
Rs.30/-per
8.7.2009 in A.S. No.
854/2006 and Rs.12/-
~
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), per acre square feet per square feet
Erode and another (Rs.1.15 per (Rs.5,22,720/- per acre)
'i\3
0
......
square feet) ......
......
9. 22831/2010 -Arumugha 15.4.1991 10.6.1994 & 25.10.1999 and 2.3.2009 in A.S. No. ......
0
Gounder and another v. Rs.37,500/- Rs.17/- per 32512000 and Rs.8/- per
Special Tahsildar (Land per acre square feet square feet en
h
:0
Acquisition), Erode and (Rs.3,48,480/- per acre) )>
() )>
<
another Or
10. 23654/2010 - Kulanthais- 08A1992 22.5.1995 & 26.3.2007 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No. Cr
en -
wamy and another v. Rs.37,500/- . Rs.20/- per 428/2008 and Rs.8/- per -~
-I :s::
Special Tahsildar (Land per acre square feet square feet
Acquisition) Erode and 0 :s::
3)>
another )> r
11. 23655/2010 ~KB. 08.4.1992 22.5.1995 & 26.3.2007 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No. Z:<::
Dakhinamoorthy and others Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 543/2008 and Rs.8/- per o en
)> iJ
v. Special Tahsildar (Land per acre square feet square feet Zm
Acquisition) Erode and ::u ()
another ~ )>
-I r
12. 23656/2010 - P. Chandras- 08.4.1992 22.5.1995 & 26.3.2007 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No. () -I
. m
ekar and others v. Special Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 610/2008 and Rs.8/- per ~I
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre square feet square feet 0 (/)
Erode and another .en r-
en o
13. 23657/2010- Pavayammal 15.4.1991 10.6.1994 & 4. 1.2006 and 11.12.2009 inAS. No. - )>
and others v. Special Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 1002/2007 and Rs.8/-
zG') _::u
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre square feet per square feet ~):
Erode and another .:-z
14. 23658/2010- Lakshmi & 15.3.1995 25.3.1998 & 6.2.2006 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No.
c:....o
.:.....
Anr. v. Special Tahsildar Rs.39,220/- Rs.22/- per 356/2007 and Rs.8/- per
(..)
(Land Acquisition) Erode per acre square feet square feet N
N
and another
15. 23659/2010-Kannammal 15.4.1991 10.6.1994 & 29.11.2005 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No.
and others v. Special Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 74812008 and Rs.8/- per en
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre square feet
c
square feet ""O
Erode and another :::0
m
16. 23666/2010-Kannammal@ 15.3.1995 25.3.1998 & 29.11.2002 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No. :s:::
Rajeshwari & another v. Rs.50,000/- Rs.28/- per 77012004 and Rs.8/- per m
()
Special Tahsildar (Land per acre square feet square feet
0
Acquisition) Erode & c
another
~
17. 23669/2010 - Kannammal 27.5.1991 10.6.1994 & 29.11.2005 and 11.12.2009 in AS. No. :::0
and others v. Special Rs.37,500/- Rs.20/- per 760/2008 and Rs.8/- per m
""O
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre square feet square feet 0

~
Erode and another
18. 23641/2010-Chinnasamy 27.5.1991 3.7.1994 23.3.2001 and 2.3.2009 in AS. No.
and others v. Special 'l-. Rs.37,500/- Rs.17/- per 618/2003 and Rs.8/- per
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre square feet square feet
Erode and another -
19. 23643/2010-K.N. Arumug- 09.10.1990 28.9.1994& 17.01.2005 and 2.3.2009 in AS. No.
_.
ham v. Special Tahsildar Rs.37,500/- Rs.75,000/- 756/2008 and Rs.8/- per 0
(Land Acquisition) Erode per acre per acre square feet en
and another (Rs.3,48,480/- per acre) 0
:::0
)> <
() )>
20. 26825/2010 -Thambusamy 27.5.1991 03.08.1994 27.3.2008 and 19.12.2009 in A.S. No. Or
Cr
{Dead by LRs.) v. Special & Rs.37,500/- Rs.9/- per 835/2008 and Rs.8/- per
per acre square feet square feet
en~
Tahsildar {Land Acquisition) -I :s::
Erode and another 0 :s::
21. 1961/2011 -Nachimuthu v. 19.2.1997 31.6.2000 & 31.3.2004 and 2.3.2009 in AS. No. 3)>
)>r
Special Tahsildar {Land Rs.50,000/- Rs.28/- per 544/2005 and Rs.12/-
Z:<::
Acquisition) Erode and per acre square feet per square feet Oen
another {Rs.5,22,720/- per acre) )> -0
Zm
22. 2187/2011- Kannaki & 19.3.1997 21.06.2000 & 29.2.2005 and 8.7.2009 in AS. No.141/ ;o ()
another v. Special Rs.50,000/- Rs.30/- per 2006 and Rs.12/- per
.
m )>
-
Tahsildar {Land Acquisition) per acre square feet square feet -I r
(Rs.5,22,720/- per acre) ()-I
Erode and another ·m
~I
23. 1147/2011 -Jayalakshmi and 19.3.1997 21.6.2000 & 4.4.2006 and 8.7.2009 in AS. No. Pen
others v. Special Tahsildar Rs.50,000/- Rs.25/- per 181/2007 and Rs.12/- .en r-
. {Land Acquisition) Erode and per acre square feet per square feet enO
- )>
another (Rs.5,22,720/- per acre) Z;o
Q_
24. 3520/2011-P.Subbarayan 22.5.1991 10.8.1994 & 21.11.2005 and 8.7.2009 in AS. No. Ir
and others v. Special Rs. 37,500/- Rs.17/- per 392/2007 and Rs. 8/- < )>
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) per acre · square feet per square feet
-- z
<-0
Erode and another Rs. 0.86 per (Rs.3,48,480/- per acre) ..:.....
sq. ft.)
• w
I\)
w