LexUNION OF INDIA versus PREMLATA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1001 [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1001 1001 UNION OF INDIA v. PREMLATA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 176-177 of 2022) APRIL 06, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Comparable sales – s.4 notification issued to acquire 45 hectares 89 R land – Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- per Hectare in respect of land bearing survey No. 43/2 and Rs.1,35,000/- per Hectare for the land bearing survey Nos. 40, 41 and 44 – Reference court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 6/- per square foot, after making deduction of 25% towards developmentcharges – High Court, kept compensation at the same rate but subject to 1/3rd deduction instead of 25% deduction towards development charges – On appeal, held: Before reference court, the landowner had relied upon other sale instances which were discarded by reference Court as those sale instances were in respect of small plots – Even High Court agreed with the findings recorded by the reference court with respect to sale instances – As per the settled position of law, the sale instances with respect to small plots of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation – In present case, land acquired is a large area which is not comparable with the sale instance at all – Further, deduction of 40% made towards development charges considering that land acquired is a large extent of area, it is an agricultural land not fully developed, the landowner having not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land and the exemplars relied upon by the landowner pertained to very small plots which were developed and converted to non-agricultural use. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation determining the market price at Rs. 6/- per square foot after making deduction of 25% of the same towards A B C D E F G H 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. development charges, relying upon and considering the sale deeds in respect of plots of land bearing survey No. 42 of village Borkhedi, vide Ex. 91 to 93. Before the Reference Court, the landowner relied upon other sale instances at Ex. 50, 51 & 27. Having considered the fact that all the sale instances were in respect of small plots, the Reference Court discarded the same. Even the High Court also agreed with the findings recorded by the Reference Court with respect to sale instances produced as Ex. 50, 51 & 27. All the sale instances are with respect to small plots and even the same instances were of the year 1987. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act has been issued in the year 1992. As per the settled position of law, small plots/parcels of land cannot offer the same market value as when a large tract of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. Generally the sale instances with respect to small plots/parcels of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Reference Court as well as the High Court, the sale instances produced at Ex. 50, 51 & 27 were not comparable at all. [Para 5][1010-E-G] 2. In the present case, a large parcel of land admeasuring 46 Hectares 89 R has been acquired. The sale instances at Ex. 91 to 93 in respect of plots out of land bearing Survey No. 42 are with respect to small pieces of land admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. which were non-agricultural developed plots and even the market price mentioned in the said sale deeds were on square foot basis. The acquired land was a barren agricultural land which may have a non-agricultural potentiality. Therefore, considering the fact that the sale exemplars/sale deeds produced at Ex. 91 to 93 are in respect of very small plots of land and were non-agricultural developed plots and even the same were on the highway and having the access to the main road, there shall be at least 40% deduction towards development charges. As such, the High Court has not assigned any good reason as to why and on what basis, it considered proper to make deduction towards development charges at the rate of 33.33% (1/3rd deduction). Therefore, considering the relevant factors on the appropriate deduction A B C D E F G H 1003 towards development charges as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is found that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.