VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR (D) BY LRS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 13-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 13, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
ss. 4(1) and 23-Acquisition of/and-Compensation-Determination of-
C Factors to be considered-Held, market value of the land acquired is to be 
determined as on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1)-A comparable 
sale instance may be identified having regard to proximity from time angle as 
also from situation angle-When amount of compensation is to be determined 
on yardage basis, at least one third of land acquired should be deducted 
D towards development purposes-Different deductions, one for largeness of 
land and another for development costs are permissible-On facts, since lands 
were acquired as they would submerge under Dam water and development of 
the area had stopped, the lands would not have any potential value-
Compensation determined accordingly-Claimants would be entitled to interest 
on solatium. 
E 
Appellants' lands were acquired in the year 1980 under the 
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the same would have come 
under submergence of water of Kadana Dam. As regards compensation, 
the litigation between the parties went upto the High Court which based 
F its decision on a sale deed for 46.30 sq. m trs. of land of a different village; 
and upon making a deduction of 33% for larger areas and 25% for smaller 
areas held the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 180 
per sq. mtr. and Rs. 206 per sq. mtr. respectively for the large and small 
areas. The High Court, however, held that the claimants were not entitled 
to irrterest on the amount of solatium. 
G 
H 
In the appeals filed by the State Government as well as the claimants, 
it was contended for the State that the High Court erred in relying on the 
sale deed of a small area, and in not deducting 50% from the value of the 
lands keeping in view the large area of the lands as also on the ground of 
542 
VILUBENJHALEJARCONTRACTOR(D)BYLRS. v. STATE OFGUJRAT 
543 
future developments which were required to be made. For the claimants A 
it was contended that the lands under acquisition were fully developed and 
the High Court erred in relying on the sale deed of the land of a different 
village for the purpose of making deductions towards future developments; 
and deduction both for the largeness as well as development was not 
permissible. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. When the amount of compensation is determined on 
yardage basis, at least one-third of the land acquired should be deducted 
towards development purposes, viz. providing roads, electricity, drainage C 
facility and other betterment developments. Such development charges 
may be in between 33% and 53%. (549-G-H)'' 
Basavva (Smt.) and Ors. v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer and Ors., 
(1996) 9 SCC 640; Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tehsildar and 
Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, [1991) D 
4 SCC 506; Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor 
v. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) (D) by Lrs. and Ors., [1998i 2 SCC 385; 
Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, [1988) 2 SCC 
150; K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land 
Acquisition Officer and Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 62; Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons E 
and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1995) 2 SCC 422; L.A.O. v. Nookala Rajamallu, 
(2003) 10 SCALE 307; Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [2003] 1 SCC 
354; Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. State of UP., [2003) 
10 SCC 525; V. Hanumantha Reddy (D) by Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer 
& Manda! R. Officer, [2003) 12 SCC 642; HP. Housing Board v. Bharat S. 
Negi and Ors., [2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon 's. Allahabad f 
Development Authority and Anr., (2004) 10 SCC 745, relied on. 
Ravinder Narain and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481; The 
Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad v. Ba/anagouda (D) 
by Lrs. and Ors.,(CA Nos. 62-65 of 2000 decided by Supreme Court on 
10.12.2003), cited. 
G 
1.2. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 specifies the matter 
required to be considered in determining the compensation, the principal 
among which is the determination of market value of the land on the date 
of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A the Act. Where definite mater

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