LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 02-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\-
! 
't-· 
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
KRISHNA GOP AL LAHOTI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND LOKESHWAR 
B 
-t 
i 
SINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-ss.23, 24 & 25: 
Acquisition of large tracts of land-Fixation of market value- c 
With reference to sale instances in respect of small plots of land-
Permissibility-Held: Where large area is subject matter of acquisition, 
rate at which small plots are sold cannot be a safe criteria-However, 
in absence of any other material and in appropriate cases, the D 
.. 
adjudicating Court can make comparison of prices paid for small plots 
; 
·~ 
and determine compensation in respect of the acquired land albeit after 
making necessary deductions /adjustments. 
Acquisition of land-For development purpose-Determination 
of compensation-Deduction towards development charges-Held: E 
Depends upon facts of each case-In respect of agricultural/ 
undeveloped land having potential for housing or commercial purposes, 
normally I/3rd compensation has to be deducted subject to certain 
variations depending on nature of the acquired land, its location, extent 
of expenditure involved for development etc. 
F 
Land situated in village was acquired by Appellant authority 
under a Housing and Development Scheme. Special Land 
Acquisition Officer determined market value of acquired land at the 
rate of Rs.2.20 per sq. ft. and on that basis awarded compensation 
G 
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land owners 
-c~·· 
filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act seeking higher 
compensation contending that the acquired land was adjacent to the 
Lucknow-Sitapur Highway and near developed colonies and hence 
had great potential. Tribunal determined market value of the land 
921 
H 
I 
----.( 
\ 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
·-tr 
A at Rs.6 per sq.ft. and accordingly awarded compensation. The award 
was upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Party allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, 
B rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. 
It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the 
~ 
rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis' for fixation of the 
..._ 
rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in 
appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make 
c comparison of the prices paid for small plots ofland. However, in 
such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while 
determining the prices. [Paras 15and16] [928-D-F] 
The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 
D (1971) SC 015; Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead} by Lrs. v. The Stqte of 
Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR (1977) SC 1560 and Smt. Kausalya 
.l 
Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and 
I f 
Anr., AIR (1984) SC 892, relied on. 
Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, (1989) 1 
E SVLR (C) 399, referred to. 
! 
2. Compensation must be determined by reference to the price 
which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the 
willing purchaser. While considering the market value, disinclination 
F of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the 
purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be 
considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of.the land 
is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly 
this.does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might 
G 
desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a 
particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may a~ways be taken 
A •...; 
• ~ 
into consideration for what it is worth. [Para 17] [929-A-C] 
. ...,__ 
f 
Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Offic.er, 
Vizagapatam, AIR (1939) P .C. 98, relied on. 
H 
LUCKNOWDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITYv. KRISHNA 923 
"'t~ 
GOPALLAHOTI 
3.1. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enumerates A 
the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first 
·criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the 
land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 
4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which 
i 
the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the B 
> 
compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that 
the amount of compensation to be aw

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