KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 02-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 373 
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v 
GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR 
(Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land 
falling under Mouza Madurdaha, District 24 Parganas (Sout/1) 
within the limits ofKolkata Municipal Corporation - Three plot 
C 
of lands- plotldag nos. 62 and 42, admeasuring 1. 94 acres 
and 0. 61 acres respectively, and classified as Safi land 
(agricultural land) and plot no. 242, admeasuring 0. 22 acres, 
and classified as beef land (marsh land) - Determination of 
compensation -
Collector made award determining the 
D 
market value of the acquired lands as Rs. 2386 per cottah for 
sali land (agricultural land) and Rs.1193 per cottah for beef 
land (marsh land) - Reference Court awarded Rs.1,20,000 
per cottah for sali plots (plot nos. 62 and 42) and Rs. 60, 000 
per cottah for bee/ plot (plot no. 272) with statutory benefits -
E 
High Court affirmed the compensation awarded by the 
Reference Court -
He/d· On facts and circumstances, 
compensation for plot nos. 62 and 42 reduced to Rs. 67, 0001 
- per cottah while compensation in regard to plot no.272 
maintained at the rate of Rs. 60, 0001- per cottah. 
F 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land 
-
Determination of compensation -
Addition towards 
appreciation in value between the date of exemplar sale and 
the date of preliminary notification as regards the acquisition 
111 question - Held.· Unless the difference 1s more than one 
G 
year. normally no iJddition should be made towards 
opprec1iJlion in value. unless there is special evidence to show 
some specific increase within a short period. 
373 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A 
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land 
- Detennination of compensation - Addition of percentages 
for advantageous frontage - Held: Advantage of a better 
frontage is considered to be a plus factor while assessing the 
value of two similar properties. particularly in any commercial 
B or residential area, when one has a better frontage than the 
other -
However where the value of large tracts of 
undeveloped agricultural land situated on the periphery of a 
city in an area which is yet to be developed is being 
determined with reference to value of nearby small residential 
c plot. the question of adding any percentage for the advantage 
of frontage to the acquired lands, does not arise. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land 
- Determination of compensation - Deductions from value 
of small developed plots to arrive at the value of acquired 
D lands - Deduction for development -
Held: The prices 
fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation 
of large tracts of land and cannot be directly adopted in 
valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable 
properties - The former reflects the 'retail' price of land and 
E the latter the 'wholesale' price - However, if it is shown that 
the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use 
for building purposes, that building lots that could be laid out 
on the land would be good selling propositions and that 
valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetiaal layout 
F could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small 
laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable 
small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification 
would be relevant - In such a case, necessary deductions for 
the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other 
G civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by 
laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, 
and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of 
the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are 
to be made - On facts, the Reference Court after considering 
H the facts found that 33. 33% (one-third of the value of the small 
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 375 
CHANDRA MAKAL 
developed plot) should be deducted towards developmenV A 
development cost, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands 
- The High Court did not interfere with the said percentage 
of deduction - In the circumstances. no reason to alter the 
percentage of deduction of 33. 33%. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 & 23 - Acquisition of 8 
land - Determination of compensation - Releva
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.