LexSAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus ASSTT. COMMNR. & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 401 SAlBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. A v. ASSTT. COMMNR. & LAND AGQUISITION OFFICER (Civil Appeal No. 3726 of 2001) AUGUST 19, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ·~ LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Deduction towards c development charges - Held: The acquired land being within the city limit and in close vicinity thereof, reference court and High Court erred in deducting 53% towards development ~ charges - In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the decisions of Supreme Court, authorities D ~ directed to deduct 33-1/3% as development charges. The instant appeal. was filed by the land owners, whose lands were acquired in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, primarily challenging the order of the High Court whereby it directed deduction of 53% E towards development charges. " Allowing the appeal, the Court -' HELD: The lands in question are within the municipal F limits of the City since 1965 and some of it is located within the close vicinity of the City. So the cost of development is not likely to be very high. Therefore, deduction at the rate of 53% as directed in the impugned judgment is on the higher side and is not in consonance G with the ratio laid down by this Court.* It should not be -"'(- more than 33-1/3%. It is to be emphasised that there --- cannot be any hard and fast or a rigid rule. Every case .. has to be decided on its individual facts taking into consideration various facts and circumstances. In the 401 H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A instant case, neither the reference court nor the High Court has assigned any specific reasons for making deduction at a rate more than 33-1/3%; The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified. The respondent would make deduction at the rate 33-1/3% towards B development charges. (Para 11 12, 13 and 14] (406-C-G] *Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana 2003 1 SCC 354; V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer 4- & Manda/ R. Officer 2003) 12 SCC 642 and K. S. c Shivadevamma & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62, relied on. Case Law Reference: 2003 1 sec 354 relied on Para 8 D 2003 12 sec 642 relied on Para 12 * (1996) 2 sec 62 relied on Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3726 of 2001. E From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2000 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No.3232 of ~. 996. ,, S.J. Amith, Kiran Suri (not present) for the Appellants. >- F Sanjay R. Hedge, A. Rohen Singh, Nishant Mishra for the Respondent. The Judgme~t of the Court was delivered by G DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 16.3.2000 in Miscellaneous First Appeal (for -y. short, M.F.A.) No. 3232 of 1996. - 2. The facts in nutshell are as follows: H --..,, ·'"' } -jr SAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. ASSTI. COMMNR. & 403 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] The preliminary notification was issued on 13.8.1981 to A acquire 4 acres and 27 guntas of land belonging to the appellant situated in Survey Nos. 129/1, 129/3, 129/4 and 129/ 74 situated in Taj Sultanpur, Gulbarga City in Karnataka. The award was passed on 30.6.1986 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per acre. B 3. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 8.4.1996 determined the market value at the rate of Rs.19,500/ - per acre. 4. The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment preferred c M.F.A. No. 3232 of 1996 before the High Court. The appellant placed reliance on the judgments and awards passed in M .F.A. No. 3738 of 1995 dated 20.1.1998 and M.F.A. No. 2557 of 1997 dated 27.1.1998, wherein the market value of the lands located at almost the same distance from Gulbarga city and is 0 having same potentiality of development. The appellant also produced notification dated 30.10.1965 to show that the Taj Sultanpur village was declared to be within the municipal limits of Gulbarga city of Karnataka. 5. The High Court dismissed the appeal without E considering the main submission of the appellant that the acquired lands are within the municipal limits of Gulbarga city and the deduction at the rate of 53% towards the development charges is excessive and not in consonance with the law laid down by the Full B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.