RADHA MUDALIYAR versus SPL. TAHASILDAR (LAND ACQ.), T.N.H. BOARD

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[201 O] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 154 
RADHA MUDALIYAR 
v. 
SPL. TAHASILDAR (LAND ACQ.), T.N.H. BOARD 
(Civil Appeal No. 5616 of 2004 etc.) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND SWATANTER 
KUMAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
s. 23 - Compensation - Basis for determination - Held: 
Comparable sale instances are the best piece of evidence 
for the purpose of determining the compensation - Even 
transactions of the adjacent areas and closest sale instances 
D to the date of the notification are best evidence - In case of 
increasing trend in value of land, the claimants are entitled 
to the benefit of increase for the intervening period - Annual 
increase of 10% to 15% is normally allowed by the court where 
the record reflects increasing trend in the sale price of the land 
- In the instant case, 10% is allowed because of the short 
E intervening period between the execution of the sale deed and 
issuance of notification uls. 4. 
s.23 - Deduction - Applicability of, while determining 
compensation - Held: The deduction can be applied for 
F different aspects - If the size of the plot of comparable sale 
is vety small and the same has to be taken into consideration 
for non-availability of other evidence and the land acquired 
is a large chunk of land, then some deduction on that score 
is applicable -
Deduction on account of expenses of 
G development of the sites could vary from 20% to 70% 
depending on the nature of the land, its situation, the purpose 
and stage of development - In the instant case, agricultural 
land was acquired to carty out the development scheme for 
setting up export processing zone -
The development 
H 
154 
RADHA MUDALIYAR v. SPL. TAHASILDAR (LAND 
155 
ACQ.), T.N.H. BOARD 
purpose, being in public interest, is bound to result in 
A 
utilization of part of the land for the purposes of roads, by-links, 
water and electricity lines and other infrastructural amenities 
of the project- In the facts and circumstances of the case, 
deduction of 30% is applied. 
ss. 23(/-A), 23(2) and 34, proviso -
Consequential 
8 
benefits, solatium and interest - Held: The claimants are 
entitled to solatium as well as the interest on the aggregate 
amount including solatium, at the rate specified in proviso to 
s. 34 - Solatium is in consideration of compulsory nature of 
acquisition -
The compulsory nature of acquisition is to be 
C 
distinguished from voluntary sale or transfer - In the latter, 
there is a willing buyer and seller - In the case of acquisition, 
it is compulsory and deprives the owner of an opportunity to 
negotiate and bargain the sale price of its land as it will entirely 
depend on the Collector or the court to determine the amount D 
of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 
On 23.1.1985, a Notification under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Industries 
Department of the State of Tamil Nadu to acquire land in 
furtherance of the scheme sanctioned by the State 
Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu 
(SIPCOT) and a total of 261.42 acres of land was acquired 
for setting up the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ). 
The land acquisition officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 
E 
F 
145 per cent for an extent of 64 cents and Rs. 110 for 6.42 
acres of another kind of land and also awarded 
compensation at different rates for the superstructures 
raised by the claimants-appellants on their respective 
lands. The possession of the land was taken. The 
appellants received the compensation under protest. 
G 
They filed applications for reference under Section 18 of 
the Act. The reference court enhanced the compensation 
payable to the claimants to Rs. 3,600/- per cent as 
agricultural land by relying upon Exhibits A4 and A5. On 
H 
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (AOOL.) S.C.R. 
A appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation 
payable holding that the market value of the acquired 
lands would be Rs. 2,018/- per cent by adopting the value 
as per Ex.A4, i.e. Rs. 3,363/-and making a deduction of 
40% towards development charges. 
B 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellants that the High Court did not appreciate the 
evidence on record in its correct perspective and appl.ied 
deduction of 40% which, in the facts and circumstances 
of the case, was not called for; and the appellants were 
C not awarded solatium and interest in accordance with 
law. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
0 
HELD: 1.1. It is

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