TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 05-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 520 
TRISHALA JAIN AND Al\IR. 
v. 
STATE OF UTIARANCHAL AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7496-7497 of 2005 etc.) 
MAY 05, 2011 
. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND 
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.23 and 24: 
Fair market value of the acquired land - Determination 
of - Land Acquisition Officer applied the belting system and 
categorizing the land into three different categories awarded 
the compensation accordingly - However, Reference Court 
D held that the land as a whole was similarly placed and was to 
be used for one purpose, thus there was no question of 
applying the belting system and accordingly awarded uniform 
compensation to all the claimants - This finding of Reference 
Court upheld by the High Court -
Correctness of this 
E concurrent view not questioned by any of the parties before 
the Supreme Court - Held: The concurrent· finding recorded 
by the Courts below having remained unchallenged before the 
Supreme Court need not be interfered with. 
Fair market value of the acquired land - Determination 
F of - Sale instances (exemplars) - Claimants placed reliance 
upon two sale instances and sought compensation on that 
basis - Reference Court declined to consider the two sale 
instances produced by the claimants - Justification of- Held: 
Justified - Both the seller and the purchaser in the sale 
G instances relied upon by the claimants were either claimants 
in different claim petitions or belonged to the same family -
The claimants had full knowledge of acquisition of/and as well 
as the purpose for which the said land was sought to be 
acquired - Circumstances and evidence clearly indicate that 
~ 
520 
TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. v. STATE OF 
521 
UTIARANCHAL AND ANR. 
there was clear attempt on the part of the claimants to execute 
A 
sale deeds for the purpose of hiking up land price just before 
acquisition to get more compensation -
The said two sale 
instances were sham, collusive, lacked bona fides and were 
executed with the intention to raise the price of the land in 
question with the pretence of it being actual market value -
B 
Decision of Reference Court rightly upheld by the High Court. 
Determination of market value of acquired land -
Principle of deduction inland value covered by a comparable 
sale instance - Applicability of -Deduction on account of C 
expenses of development of the site - Held: Normally 
deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out 
development activities like providing roads or civic amenities 
such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired 
for construction of residential, commercial or institutional 
projects - It shall also be applied where the sale instances 
D 
(exemplars) relate· to smaller pieces of land and in 
comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -
In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account 
of wastage of/and - The cases where the acquired land itself 
is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before 
E 
acquisition, for the purpose .for which it is acquired requiring 
no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the 
purview of cases of 'no deduction' - Furthermore, where the 
evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the 
compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have 
F 
all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, 
including that of size, is another category of cases where 
.principle of 'no deduction' may be applied - In the instant 
~case, there is evidence on record to show that plotting was 
1done only on part of the acquired land and the land is G 
·Surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no 
evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed 
.:;ind is having all the required facilities and amenities - It may 
'Je a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly 
't is not a case of 'no deduction' - It also cannot be believed, 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 
A in the absence of specific documentary evidence, that no 
further development is required on the acquired land - Under 
the circumstances, no infirmity in the approach of tf]e High 
Court in applying the principle of deduction - In the faCts and 
circumstances of the present case, deduction of 10% from the 
B market value on account of development charges an_d other 
possible expenditures was justifiable and ca/led for ... · 
Determination of Compensation - Application of principle 
of guess

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