K. VASUNDARA DEVI ETC. versus REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO)

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 27-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. VASUNDARA DEVI ETC. 
v. 
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO) 
JULY 27, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
Land Acquisition for planned development-Compensation for-Deter-
C mination of-Deduction of 40% market value of land-Factors taken into 
account for; Requirement of development charges-Extent of lan<l-Held 
valid. 
For acquisition of large extent of lands, measuring 46 acres and 6 
gunthas, the Trial Court determined compensation @Rs. 65,000 per acre 
D and deducted l/3rd value of the land towards development charges 
E 
F 
. together with statutory benefits. The Reference Court enhanced the com-
pensation to Rs. 1,20,000 per acre and deducted l/4th value of the land 
towards development charges together with statutory benefits. On appeal 
the High Court upheld the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,20,000 per 
acre but deducted 40% of the value of the land. In so doing the High Court 
not only took into consideration the requirement of development charges 
but also placed reliance on exhibits X-1 to X•3 which were sale deeds of 
small extent of land of one guntha each when compared to lands under 
acquisition which were in large extent. The claimants preferred appeals 
before this Court challenging the validity of deduction made by the High 
Court while determining the compensation. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were 
G considered to determine market value, the· same will not form sole basis 
to determine market value of large tracks of lands. Sufficient deduction 
should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large track 
of land. Therefore, it is not a proper. case for interference. [379-B-C] 
Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanas~ AIR 
H (1988) SC 943, relied on. 
376 
-·-
/ -
K.V. DEVI v. REV. DIVNL. OFFICER (LAO) 
377 
Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, [1981) 2 SCC 719; A 
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangale Gowri, 
(1991) 4 sec 218, held inapplicable. 
Bhagwathula Samanna and Others v. Special Tehsildar and Land 
Acquisition Office1; Vishakapatnam Municipality, AIR (1992) SC 2289, 
referred to. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6808-10 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.92 of the Hyderabad 
High Court in AS.No. 1833/85, Cross-Objections (S.R.No. 19817/92) & C 
C.M.P. No. 10687 of 1992. 
K. Madhava Reddy, D. Ramakrishana Reddy and G. Prakash, for 
the Appellants. 
G. Prabhakar for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
D 
These appeals are disposed of by common judgment since common E 
question of law arises in this appeal. Notification under s.4(1) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the State 
Gazette on August 29, 1980 acquiring an extent of 46 acre 6 gunthas of 
land in Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda Dist. of AP. for planned develop-
ment by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Possession thereof was taken F 
on December 10, 1980 and the award was made on August 18, 1983 
determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre and 
deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges and fixed the compensation 
at Rs. 43,000 per acre with statufory benefits. On reference, the Subor-
dinate Judge Suryapet in O.P. No. 20/84 enhanced the compensation to Rs. G 
1,20,000 per acre and deducted 1/4th towards developmental charges 
together with statutory benefits. On appeal to the High Court, while 
upholding the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,20,000 per acre, it had 
deducted 40% of the value of the land for developmental charges and also 
that fixation of the market value was based on exhibit X-1 to X-3 sale deed 
of small extent of one guntha each. Thus, these appeals by special leave H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
against the judgment and decree of the High Court in AS.No. 1833/85 
dated December 15, 1992 and batch. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the appellant 
placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, [1981] 2 
SCC 719 and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A. 
Mangala Gowri, [1991] 4 SCC 218 contended that this Court had upheld 
deduction of uniform rate of l/3rd is required for developmental charges. 
The High Court, therefore, was not right in deducting 40% of value 
towards developmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.