and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector) Hyderabad  INSC 299 (19 November 1991)
Rangnath (Cj) Misra, Rangnath (Cj) Mohan, S. (J)
1992 AIR 421 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 375 1992 SCC (1) 141 JT 1991 (4) 530 1991 SCALE
Acquisition Act. 1894.' S. 4 (1) Compensation--Determination of--Deduction of
Development cost--Validity of
plots of land of the appellant were acquired by notifications dated 12.1.1978,
27.7.1978 and 14.6.1979 issued under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 10.6.1982 fixed the market value
at Rs. 42,000 per acre with 5 per cent deduction towards development cost.
appellant's appeal the Civil
Court fixed the
market value at Rs.200 per sq. yard with a deduction of 5 per cent towards the
appeal by the land acquisition officer, the High Court reassessed the entire
evidence and fixed the market value at Rs.3 lakh per acre holding that if a
deduction of 20 per cent was allowed, the market value would come to Rs.2,40,000
per acre which worked out at Rs.50 per sq.yard, and accordingly set aside the
judgment and decree, and determined the market value at Rs.50 per sq.yard.
the appeals of the appellant-claimant this Court,
1. In fixing the compensation, the High Court did not go by the percentage of
deduction but kept in view the market value of the land at the time of the
notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [p. 377 F]
There was clear material and the High Court accepted it that price went up in
the area after 1980. The notifica- tions were within a range of a year or two
from that time.
the valuation after 1980 was not the guideline. [ p. 377 F-G] 376
the instant case, the Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent. The
referee Court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting
the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one- third put it at
one-fifth. The High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction. The
appropriate market value fixed by the High Court per sq. yard was Rs 50 and if
a 20 per cent deduction from out of Rs.3 lakhs per acre was accepted, it worked
that way. The finding of the High Court need not be disturbed. [p. 377 E-G]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4538-39 of 1991.
the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1990 of the Hyderabad High Court in C.C.A.
Nos. 54 & 55 of 1987.
for the Appellant.
Agrawal and T.V.S.N.Chari for the Respondents- The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted. By notifica- tion
dated 12th January,
1973, under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modifiednby Notification of 27th July, 1978, 26 acres and 26 gunthas of land
located within the Hyderabad District was notified for acquisition for the Bhagyanagar
Urban Development Authority. A similar notification was published on 14th June, 1979 for acquisi- tion of two acres and
29 gunthas. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award for both the properties
on 10 th June, 1982 fixing the market value at Rs. 42,000 per acre with five
per cent deduction towards development cost. Being dissatisfied with the awards
passed by Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was sought and made under
section 18 of the Act. The Claimants demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.
200 per square yard. The Civil
Court fixed the
market value at Rs.200 per sq.yd. as demanded but directed deduc- tion of 20
per cent towards development charges. The Land Acquisition Officer carried
appeals against the escalation of compensation and the present appellants
preferred cross objections. The High Court reassessed the entire evidence and
came to hold.
the position of the acquired lands is altogether different. It is common
knowledge that the prices started soaring high from 1980 onwards and this part
of Hyderabad, namely, 377 Gaddiannaram started
developing from 1980 and today it is undoubtedly one of the important areas in Hyderabad. But we must consider the position
as it stood in 1978 and 1979. Taking all the circumstances into account, we
think it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. The Civil Court had given a deduction of 20 per
cent towards development charges.
learned Advocate General contended that deduction should be enhanced to 33-1/3
per cent. We do not think that any interference is called for in this regard.
The lands are abutting the highway. Evidence shows that there are roads on
three sides. Hence. we maintain the deduction of 20 per cent and if so done,
the market value comes to Rs.2,40,000 which works out at Rs. 50 per sq.yd. The
Trial Court has awarded Rs.200 per sq.yd with a deduction of 20 per cent which
comes to Rs.160 per sq.yd. We are unable to sustain the order of the Court
below on any justifiable grounds. We accordingly set aside the judgment and
decree and determine the market value at the rate of Rs.50 per sq.yd ...... "
It is against this deduction in compensation that the claimants have come to
this court in appeal.
Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent.
referee court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting
the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one-third put it at
one-fifth. We find that the High Court did not go by the percentage of
deduction. In fact, according to the High Court and particu- larly as the
portion we have extracted above would show the appropriate market value per
square yard was Rs. 50 and if a 20 per cent deduction from out of Rs. 3 lakhs
per acre was accepted, it worked out that way. The Judgment of the High Court
gives us the impression that in fixing the compensa- tion. the High Court did
not go by the percentage of deduc- tion but kept in view the market value of
the land at the time of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act.
is clear material and the High Court has accepted it that price went up in the
area after 1980. The notifications are within a range of a year or two from
that time. There- fore, the valuation after 1980 is not the guideline. Having
looked into the material accepted by the High Court, we are not in a position
to disturb the finding recorded by the High Court. The appeals are accordingly
dismissed. No costs.