K. S. SHIVADEVAMMA AND ORS. ETC. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 08-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K.S. SHIVADEVAMMA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION 
OFFICER AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 189~Sections 4(1) and 23(1) Indian Stamp 
Act, 1899-Section 47A--Compensation-Detennination of-Acquisition of 
C Agricultural laJtd for building Bus Stand-Stamp Act and Commissioner's 
Assessment-Reliance for detennining market value-Detemiination by High 
Cowt after 53% deduction as developmental charges-Held : Deduction of 
53% under Building Rules and 33 113 under General Rules required-Stamp 
Act and Commissioner's assessment cannot f01m the basis for detennination 
D of compensation-Hence, deduction not illegal. 
5 acres and 10 guntas of agricultural land abutting national Highway 
within the limits of Municipality was acquired by a Notification under 
Section 4(1) for establishment of Bus Stand. Sanction for conversion of 
two acres into non-agricultural land was obtained two years prior to the 
E Notification. 
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 5,000 per acre with the 
finding that the lands are situated in aeveloping area, though at the point 
of time, the land was agricultural, it possessed potential value for building 
F purposes, but are not capable of immediately realising the price as build· 
ing sites, No steps were taken to have the non-agricultural lands developed 
as building plots. 
On reference, Civil Court determined the compensation @ 30,000 
per acre. In appeal to High Court the appellants placed the sale· deed 
G which fetched consideration of Rs. 41,000 and relied on Government 
circular determining the value of the lands for the purpose of fixing stamp 
duty and Registration fee and also placed commissioner's report regarding 
the valuation assessed by him. The Court rejecting them, determined the 
compensation Rs. 18 per Sq. yd. after deducting 53% as developmenta) 
H charges and concurred with the finding of the land acquisition officer. 
364 
-
KS. SHIV ADEY AMMA v. ASSTI. COMMNR. 
365 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contented that in MFA No. A 
670/71 for expansion for Hospital, compensation of Rs 35 per Sq. yd. was 
awarded by High Court and that in view of the situation of the land and 
having regard to establishment of bus stand, compensation determined by 
High Court was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The circular issued by the Government under Section 47 A 
of the Stamp Act for fixation of Stamp duty and the Registration fee would 
not form basis to determine the compensation unless evidence is adduced 
B 
as regards the prevailing m.irket value of the land in the locality possessed C 
of similar advantageous features. Even Commissioner's assessment is his 
"best judgment assessment." Therefore, it cannot form the basis to deter-
mine the market value. [368-C-D] 
2. The approach adopted by High Court in judgment in MFA 670/71, 
is not a sound principle of law, to form basis for determination of com- D 
pensation in this case. The lands concerned therein was for expansion of 
the Civil Hospital which was already in existence and in a developed area. 
Lands CO\'ered in other appeals are already in developed area and far away 
from the acquired land. (368-E-F) 
3. The sale-deed relied on by the appellants is a small piece of land 
which could never form the basis for determining the compensation for a 
large extent of land measuring 9 acre 10 guntas. (368-G] 
E 
4. If the lands are to be used for building purposes necessarily under 
Building Rules the land owner has to leave out 53% area for roads, open F 
space & other amenities. In addition, the owner is required to expend 
money for development & construction of the roads, water supply mains 
and electrical lines etc. and that this requires considerable expansion and 
improvement. If the compensation is determined on the basis of yardage, 
the owner cannot put the entire land to use unless he leaves out land for G 
the above purposes and also expend money for developmental purposes. 
Merely because land is acquired for establishment of bus stand, that use 
is irrelevant in determining market value. (369-C-DJ 
5. The principle is not for what purpose the land was acquired. If 
the owner sold the land in the open market as house sites, whether he H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A would be entitled to use the entire land for building purpose would be the 
yardstick. (369-F) 
B 
Revenue Divisional
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.