LexVALLIYAMMAL AND ANOTHER versus SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANOTHER ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 293 VALLIYAMMAL AND ANOTHER v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANOTHER ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6127-6128 of 2011) AUGUST 01, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1 ), 18(1) and 54 - Compulsory acquisition of small parcels of land owned by C appellants by the State Government for construction of houses by State Housing Board ...: Market value fixed as also compensation determined by the Reference Court - High Court substantially reduced the compensation - On appeal, held: High Court while deducting 40% towards development D charges, ignored its own finding that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Housing Board - Thus, the High Court could have at best applied 1!3rd deduction towards development cost - The acquired land is a semi-urban land and has huge potential E for being developed as housing site - High Court should have added 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value of the acquired land - Majority of the landowners have been deprived of their entire landholding and have waited for 14 to 20 years for F getting the compensation - It would be wholly unjust to deprive them of their legitimate right by approving the 20% deduction made by the High Court - Accordingly the market value of the acquired land is fixed and the landowners would get solatium, interest and other statutory benefits in accordarice G with the provisions of the Act. Various small parcels of land were acquired by certain Notifications by the State Government for construction of houses by State Housing Board. The 293 H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A High Court reduced the market value fixed by the Reference Court and as such the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court was substantially reduced. Thus, the appellants-landowners B filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market c value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. [Para 17] [309--F-G] Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4) D Suppl. SCR 117 Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of UP. (2003) 10 · SCC 525:2003(2) Suppl. SCR 1044; V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer and Manda/ Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642; HP.Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184; Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development E Authority (2004) 10 sec 745: 2004 (3) SCR 467 - relied on. Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2001) 7 SCC 650: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573; Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789: 2005 (3) F SCR 542; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568: 2007 (12) SCR 1120; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769: 2009 (13) SCR 622; A.P. Housing Board v. K.Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707: 2010 (11 ) SCR 1107; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444: G 2009 (15 ) SCR 287 - referred to. H 1.2 The impugned judgment suffer from multiple errors and call for interference by this Court. The first error committed by the High Court relates to deduction of 40% towards development charges. While doing so, VALLIYAMMAL v. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND 295 ACQUISITION) AND ANR. ETC. the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired A land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Board and other establishments as also the fact that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they will have to start the development work from scratch. Therefore, the High B Court could have, at best, applied 113rd deduction towards development cost. [Paras 20 and 21] [312-H; 313- A-C] 1.3 The second error committed by the High Court is that while fixing market value, it did not take into C account the escalation in land prices. [Para 22] [313-D] Ranjit Singh v. U. T. of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659; Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti D v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283; Saidar Jogendra Singh v. State of UP. (2008) 17 SCC 133; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO. v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.