another etc. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc.
J U D G M E N T
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Delay in filing Special
Leave Petition (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 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, 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.
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 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 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 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 near
Erode- 5Perundurai and Sennimalai Road junction and residential colonies like
Anna Nagar, Sri Nagar, Bharthi Nagar, Rail Nagar, Jeeva Nagar, Subramania Nagar,
Kalaigner Karunanidhi 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
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 judgment of the Reference Court by filing appeals
under Section 54 of the Act. They also filed applications under Order XLI 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 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, the Reference Court considered the additional evidence
produced by the 6parties 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 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
acquisitions made on behalf of the Board, referred to the topo-sketch and sale
deed Exhibit C.8 dated 8.2.1991 and observed:
said property is in a housing colony by 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 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 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.
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 7 house-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 (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-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik 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:
property is a manwari land and even according to the claimants it was not a house-site
developed by them. The acquisition was only for 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
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 development charges." 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: "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 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 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 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 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% 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 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 9reduced the
market value fixed by the Reference Court from 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 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 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 the arguments of Shri
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 smallness of the size of the plots
sold vide Exhibit C.8 cannot 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 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: "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 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 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 land is not always conclusive.
There are certain factors
which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the
compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in
the sales. The factors laid down inter alia 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 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 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, 1 shape, site or nature of land
between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the 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)
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 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
Section 4. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation
for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the
It is beyond any cavil
that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would
be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and 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 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. The amount of compensation
cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy.
A comparable instance
has to be identified having regard to the proximity 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
positive and negative factors vis-`-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
(ii) proximity to a
(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 (iv)
nearness to developed
(iv) lower level requiring
the area depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v)
remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-`-vis land
(vi) some special under
acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for
an 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, 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 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- 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 consideration and 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 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 advantageous
manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the 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 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 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 of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi and Periyar Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala.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 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 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, 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, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi. It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v.
Land 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 that
there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential
value, which is yet to be developed. 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." (emphasis
18. The rule of 1/3rd
deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525,
V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue 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 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 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: "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 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 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) 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: "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 "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 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. 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, having
good road 1 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 the future use or purpose of
acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards
development cost." (emphasis supplied)
20. If the impugned judgment
is considered in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases,
there is no escape from the conclusion that the same suffer from multiple 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 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 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
(1992) 4 SCC 659, Land 1Acquisition 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-L.A.O.
v. Shaik Azam Saheb (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 escalation in land prices. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court noticed
the earlier precedents 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 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 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 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
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 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, 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 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 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 would depend upon the same.
Normally, recourse is
taken to the mode of determining the 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 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 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 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
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-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 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% 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 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 did get 225%
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 been deprived of the only source of livelihood,
the cost of living has gone up manifold and the purchasing power of rupee has
26. In the result, the appeals
are allowed and market value 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 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 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/- per square feet. (iii) For the
acquisition made vide notification dated 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 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 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/- 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 10% per annum is added 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. 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:
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 the landowners and/or their
legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement to receive
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.
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.
next one month, the Land Acquisition Officer shall deposit the amount of compensation
along with other statutory benefits in the bank accounts of the landowners
and/or their legal representatives by way of cheques.