C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY versus SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 24-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-'.- [2009]2 S.~C.R. 1092 
A 
C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY 
•
V. 
A. 
SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR. 
Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 24, 2009 ... 
' . 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S.' SIRPURKAR, . JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ..... . Land acquisition ""'.' 
Compensation ..,. Enhanced by High Court @ Rs. 751- per 
t-
c 
square.feet and deduction of Rs.251'" towards development 
charges ~ On appeal, held: Compensation at the rate awarded 
by High· Court is correct - Deduction towards development 
charges not correct as the proposed deve/opmentnot proved. 
In_ a land acquisition case; High Court enhanced 
D 
~ompensation at the. rate of Rs.75/". p~r square feet an~ 
/ 
deducted Rs.25/ .. out of th~t -towards development 
~ 
charges. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: t. The.High Court was right in awarding the 
compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet for the 
land in question. The High Court has increased the 
compensation from Rs.27·.50/- per square feet to· Rs.75/-
per· square feet. The High Court observed that the land 
.) 
was abutting the National Highway and was within 15 
+ 
F kilometers. from Bangalore City Corporation limit and 
further observed that all-round development has taken place, 
as industries have come up thereby. Appellant has not been 
able to show anything from the record to hold ·that the 
G 
concerned land would deserve a higher price than the one 
awarded by the High Court. [Para 6] [1095-G; 1096-C] 
t-
>,..,. ' 
2. The High Court has not discussed the reason for 
' 
I 
the deduction of Rs.25/- per square feet nor has the High 
Court relied on any piece of evidence for that purpose. It 
H 
1092 
-
.i 
'> 
/ 
.. 
~ 
1. 
.... A 
C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY V. SPL. LAND ACQ. 
1093 
OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER. & ANR. 
is true that where the lands are ·acquired for public A 
purpose like setting up of industries or setting up of 
housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the 
acquiring body would be entitled to ded·uct some amount 
from the payable 
compensa~i~n. on account of 
development charges, however,. it has to be established . B 
by positive evidence that such development charges are 
justified. The evidence must .come for the need of 
development contemplated and the possible expenditure 
for such development. There is·no such.discussion inthe 
order of the High Court. No evidence was shown in c 
support of the plea of the proposed developmei:tt. ·The 
land is acquired only for widening of the National 
Highway~ There would, therefore, be no questiOn of any ·. 
such development or any costs therefor. [Para 8} · 
[1096-E-H; 1097-A] 
. 
D 
N~lson Fernandes and.Ors. vs:. Speciai Land Acquisition 
Officer, South Goa and Ors .. 2007(9) SCC 4;.47i Viluben 
Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat 2005(4) SCC 789; 
Hasanali Khanbhai .and Sons vs. State of Gujara 1995 (5) SCC 
422; Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamal/u 2003(12) · E 
sec 334 - relied on, 
Case Law Reference 
2007(9) sc.c 447 
Relied on 
. Para 8 
2005(4) sec 1ss 
Relied on 
Para 8 
F 
1995 (5) sec 422 
Relied on 
Para 8 
2003(12) sec 334 
Relied on 
Para 8 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1173 
of 2009 
G 
\. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 14.11.2007 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Banglore in Miscellanceous First 
Appeal No. 1021 of 2001 (LAC). 
S.N. Bhat, for the Appellant. 
H 
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Anitha Shenoy, Rashmi Nanadakumar, Vikas Goel, R.N. 
Sharma, K.C. Dua, for the Respondent. 
"· 
111 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
" 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 
l; 
B 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeal has a slightly chequered history. 
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the 
t-
r-
land, bearing Survey No. 4 of Beratana Agrahara Village, Segur 
' 
c Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas, belonging 
~ 
to the appellant. Section 4 Notification dated 29.11.1990 was 
published on 20.12.1990. After Section 5-A enquiry, declaration 
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred 
to as 'the Act') was published on 18.6.1992. In the award 
l 
D proceedings dated 9.12.1994, the compensation was 
... 
determined at Rs.10/- per square feet. An application for 
\-
~nhancement under Se~tion 18 of the Act was filed· by the 
appellant and Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and 
... 
enhanced the compensation to Rs.27.50 per square feet. The 
E 
app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.