STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus RADHESHYAM & ORS

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 24-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
v.
RADHESHYAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8857-8858 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 24, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4(1) – Market value of land
acquired – Determination of – Standard method of determination is
by evaluating the land on the date of publication of notification
u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Thus, it is determined with
reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the
neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before
the date of preliminary notification – In the instant case, none of
the principles were followed by High Court – Matter remitted to
High Court for fresh consideration.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Deduction to be made towards
utilization of land and development charges – Deduction depends
upon the evidence to be brought on record by the parties in respect
of land under acquisition – If land under acquisition is capable of
being used for the purpose for which smaller plots are used and is
situate in a fully developed area with no requirement of any further
development to be made, there would be no need for deduction of
the value – Where all civic and other amenities are to be provided
to make the land suitable for the purpose for which it is required,
deduction is liable to be made.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The market value is determined with reference
to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood,
by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of
preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the
market value. Thus, insofar as the determination of the market
value of the land in question by the High Court is concerned, the
same is not sustainable and the matter needs to be remitted back
to the High Court to determine the valuation of compensation
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 743
743
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the settled
principles culled out for such determination. [Paras 22, 28][753-
D; 755-H; 756-A-B]
2. The deduction to be made towards development of the
land depends on various factors and there cannot be a straight
jacket formula. The principles are whether there should be any
deduction or not and the ratio of deduction depends upon the
evidence to be brought on record by the parties in respect of the
land under acquisition. It stands settled that if there is a large
tract of land under acquisition but is capable of being used for the
purpose for which smaller plots are used and is situate in a fully
developed area with little or no requirement of any further
development to be made, there would be no need for deduction
of the value. Similarly, when all civic and other amenities are to
be provided to make the land under acquisition suitable for the
purpose for which it is being acquired setting aside some part of
the land for development like roads, drainage, electricity,
communication providing for common facilities and appropriate
deduction, is liable to be made. The view taken by the High Court
in this regard, is also not liable to be sustained. Thus, this issue
also requires reconsideration by the High Court in the light of
the evidence and material on record of the case. [Paras 29, 33,
34, 36 and 37][756-B; 758-D-F; 759-A-B]
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of
Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 : [2005] 3 SCR 542 –
followed.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v.
T. Adinarayan Setty [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 404;
Bhagwanthulla Samanna & Ors. v. Special Tehsildar
and Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506 : [1991]
1 Suppl. SCR 172; Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr.
(2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622; Charan Dass
(Dead) by LRs. v. H.P. Housing & Urban Development
Authority & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 398 : [2009] 14 SCR
163; Noida v. Surendra Singh 2015 SCC OnLine ALL
5945 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354
: [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 117; U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 467 :
[1998] 1 SCR 254; Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 47 : [2011] 8 SCR
520 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 117
referred to
Para 8
[1998] 1 SCR 254
referred to
Para 9
[2011] 8 SCR 520
referred to
Para 10
[1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 404
relied on
Para 23
[2005] 3 SCR 542
followed
Para 24
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 172
relied on
Para 29

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