# SMT. BASA VVA AND ORS. ETC v. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] 3 S.C.R. 500
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2209-12 of 1993
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/smt-basa-vva-and-ors-etc-v-the-spl-land-acquisition-officer-and-ors-14044
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land Acquisition-Compensatimi--Detennination of market valueC Deduction towards development charges-Pennissible extent of-Deduction
between 33-113 to 53% held permissible by Supreme Court in many
decisions-Land acquired situated in area where there was no development-Development likely to take long time-Reliance on sale deed for
compensation-Land under sale deed sintated at far flung area from land
under acquisitimi--In view of the fact that development would have taken
D long years High Cowt allowed additional deduction of 12% i.e. 53% and
12% in detem1ination of compensatimi--Held principles adopted by High
Court was not illegal.
K Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO, [1995] S SCC
E 426, relied on.
F
G

## Text

A
SMT. BASA VVA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND ORS.
MARCH 15, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land Acquisition-Compensatimi--Detennination of market valueC Deduction towards development charges-Pennissible extent of-Deduction
between 33-113 to 53% held permissible by Supreme Court in many
decisions-Land acquired situated in area where there was no development-Development likely to take long time-Reliance on sale deed for
compensation-Land under sale deed sintated at far flung area from land
under acquisitimi--In view of the fact that development would have taken
D long years High Cowt allowed additional deduction of 12% i.e. 53% and
12% in detem1ination of compensatimi--Held principles adopted by High
Court was not illegal.
K Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO, [1995] S SCC
E 426, relied on.
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2209-12
of 1993 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.92 of the Karnataka High
Court in Misc. F.A. Nos. 677-79 and 681 of 1989.
K. Madhava Reddy, S.S. Javaly, G.L. Sanghi, D. Dave, Anand A.
Magadum, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Gopal Singh, T.V. Ratnam, Ms. Kiran Sur~
B.G. Sridharnn, G.V. Chandrashekhar, P.P. Singh, P. Mahale, S.K. Kulkarni, M.T. George and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the 'Act') acquiring 194 acres of land (out of which 33 acres is
subject matter in these appeals) for industrial development near Dharwad
H was published on October 30, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
~
500
BASA VV Av. SPL. LAND ACQN. OFFICER
501
compensation at the rate ranging between Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 8,080 by his A
award dated August 22, 1985. On reference the Civil Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 1.72 per sq. ft. by judgment and order October 11,
1988 which worked out to Rs. 74,953 per acre. On appeal by judgment and
order made in FMA No. 575/89 and batch the High Court reduced the
compensation to Rs. 56,000 per acre. Thus, this appeal by claimants for B
further increase. It is also not in dispute that though the State wanted to
file appeals against enhancement of the compensation, this Court has
dismissed their Special Leave Petitions.
Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants
contended that 53% deduction is reasonable, as held by this Court but C
deduction of 65% towards the developmental charges by the High Court
is not correct principle of law. Therefore, the High Court has committed
error of law in reducing the same. He also contended that when the lands
acquired are adjacent to national highway and compensation for acquisition, though snbsequent'to the date of notification in this case, for the lands D
in Kulkarni's case which in just disposed of, was granted at the rate of Rs.
67,200 acre, the appellants also are entitled to the same benefit. The High
Court, therefore, was in error in determining the compensation at the rate
of Rs. 56,000 per acre. Shri Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the respondents resisted the contention.
E
Having given our consideration, the question that arises for consideration is : whether the High Court has committed any error of law in
fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 56,000 per acre ? On the
principle of deductions in the determination of the compensation, this
Court in K Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO, (1995] 5 p
SCC 426 has considered the entire case law and has held that the Court,
in the first instance, has to consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces
of lands are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of
comparable lands. In the event the Court finds that such sales are genuine
and reliable and the lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction
should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracks G
"
of land. The time lag for real development and the waiting period for
development are also relevant consideration for determination of just and
adequate compensation. Each case depends upon its own facts. For deduction of development charges, the nature of the development, conditions and
nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 3 S.C.R.
A
rules for roads, sewarage, electricity, parks, water etc, and all other relevant
circumstances involved are to be considered. In this case the facts recorded
by the High Court are that Ex.P-10 sale deed is dependable sale but it is
in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than l k.m.
It is has also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is
B no development towards that area. The High Court also noted that it takes
years for development in those lands though, the lands are capable to be
used for non-agricultural purpose. On those findings the High Court held
the market value under Ex.P-10 cannot form the sole basis but keeping in
view the developments the lands are capable to fetch compensation at the
rate of Rs. 56,000 after deducting 65%. For developmental charges, that
C deduction between 33-1}3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court in
several judgments. In Vasundara Devi's case 63% deduction was upheld.
In view of the fact that development of land would have taken years, the
High Court has deducted another 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in
view the fact that the lands under Ex.P-10 were situated at far flung places
D from the lands under acquisition and since the land takes long time for
development it has given additional deduction of 12%, i.e. 53 + 12% = 65%
in determination of the compensation. On the basis of the rationale
referred to above, the principle adopted by the High Court cannot be said
to be illegal. Thus considered, we hold that there is no justification for
interference in the finding recorded by the High Court or to further
E increase the compensation.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeals dismissed.
I
i
~
.