Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2016

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21956 OF 2014] ARUN MANOHAR DANGE AND ANR                  Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAIGAD, ALIBAG Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.   The issue pertains to the determination of just  

compensation  for  the  land  acquired  from  the  appellants.  The dispute is in a narrow compass as to  whether there should be 75% deduction for development  charges.  The reasons stated by the High Court in  paragraph  12  of  the  impugned  Judgment  reads  as  follows :-

"12. Now the question is what should be  

the deduction made for arriving at the  

market  value  of  the  acquired  land  on  

the basis of the market value reflected  

from Exhibit 32.  The rate of market  

value reflected from Exhibit 32 is Rs.  

381/- per sq. meter.  The area of the  

acquired and is very large  - 9900 sq.  

meters.  There were no internal roads  

or drainage lines on the acquired land.  

Apart  from  the  largeness  of  the

Page 2

2

acquired land, a substantial deduction  

will have to be made on account of cost  

of  development.   The  decision  in  the  

case  of  Bhagwathula  Samanna  (supra)  

relied  upon  by  the  learned  counsel  

appearing for the appellants will not  

help him as in the facts of the case,  

the  land  was  acquired  for  housing  

purposes  and  the  finding  of  fact  was  

that there were roads, electricity and  

drainage  facilities  in  the  nearby  

locality.   Deduction  on  account  of  

development  cost  normally  ranges  from  

10% to 75%.  Considering the fact that  

we are comparing a large acquired land  

of  9900  sq.  meters  which  was  an  

agricultural land with a developed plot  

of  land  admeasuring  only  778.80  sq.  

mtrs.,  maximum  deduction  of  75%  will  

have to be made on account of cost of  

development......."  

Our  attention  has  been  invited  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  to  paragraph  5  of  the  impugned Judgment, "the acquired land was situated on  the relevant date within the limits of Pen Municipal  

Council".  It is stated in the award itself that the

Page 3

3

basic amenities such as electricity and water supply  were available in the municipality as on the date of  the award.  There were educational facilities such as  primary,  secondary  and  higher  education  schools  as  well as colleges available and the main city is near  to the main market place.  All these amenities were  available in the municipality on the relevant date.  Bombay-Goa  National  Highway  passes  through  the  municipality.   There  was a  railway station  in the  city and the adjoining areas were developing quite  fast.  It has also been noted by the High Court in  paragraph 9 of the impugned Judgment that there was  evidence available to the effect that the acquired  land  can  be  utilised  for  setting  up  of  a  housing  colony  and  that  there  was  overall  growth  in  and  around the municipality.   

Thus,  having  regard  to  all  these  aspects,  the  market value having been fixed by the High Court at  Rs. 445/- per sq. meter, we fail to appreciate the  basis  for  deduction  of  75%.   Though  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  vehemently  contended  before us that the land value fixed for a small plot  cannot be taken as a base for fixation of land value  of the appellants, which comes to 9900 sq. meters.  There is a quarrel with regard to this submission.  But the question is whether the High Court has taken  into consideration the stage of the development of

Page 4

4

the property in and around the acquired land, which  we  have  referred  to  above  in  detail,  as  per  the  evidence available on record.   

In that view of the matter, we do not find any  justification for deveating from the normal practice  adopted by the courts in limiting the dedution only  by 1/3rd of the market value.  We are persuaded to  follow the same principle, taking note also of the  fact that the purpose of acquisition was for water  filtering shed.   

There  is no  dispute that  the land  was in  'No  Development Zone' and further deduction of 10% was in  any way unjustified.   

Thus, we allow the appeal and limit the total  deduction  to  33%+10%,  which  comes  to  44%.   The  reference  court  shall  work  out  the  compensation  accordingly.   

There shall be no order as to costs.                

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]  

New Delhi; January 18, 2016.