IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] AND [UDAY UMESH LALIT] JJ.
July 25, 2018
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 69866987 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1035810359 of 2015)
Union of India ….Appellant(s)
Dyagala Devamma & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals are filed opposite a final visualisation and sequence antiquated 08.08.2014 inspected by a High Court of Judicature during Hyderabad for a State of Telangana and a State of Andhra Pradesh in LAAS No.762 of 2010 and CO(SR) No.373 of 2011 whereby a High Court discharged a interest filed by a appellant herein and partly authorised a cranky objections filed by a respondents herein and extended a remuneration as mentioned in fact infra.
3) We herein set out a facts, in brief, to conclude a issues endangered in these appeals.
4) 0n 12.11.2003, a State of Andhra Pradesh released a presentation underneath Section 4 of a Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and acquired a land measuring about 10100 acres (SY No.398/3 and other connected consult numbers) situated during Jagitial Municipality, District Karimnagar (AP). The merger of land was for a open purpose, namely, “laying new extended gaugesingle railway line from Karimnagar to Jagitial Phase –II by a appellantRailways”. This was followed by distribution of presentation underneath Section 6 of a Act and afterwards possession on 02.12.2003.
5) The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) started record underneath Section 11 of a Act for integrity of a remuneration payable to a landowners for their lands. By endowment No.26/2006 antiquated 14.07.2006, a LAO dynamic a marketplace value of a acquired land during a rate of “Rs.1,30,000/per hactare for soppy lands” and “Rs.1,24,000/per hactare for dry lands”. The LAO also awarded remuneration for structures, wells etc. to some landowners.
6) The claimants (landowners) felt vexed and sought anxiety underneath Section 18 of a Act to a Civil Court in OP No.27/2007. By endowment antiquated 23.07.2010, a Civil Court (Sr. Civil Judge,Jagitial) redetermined a marketplace value of a land in question. The Reference Court dynamic a marketplace value of a acquired land during Rs.21,29,600/per hactare uniformly. However, carrying courtesy to a assemblage of contribution of a case, a Reference Court deliberate it usually and correct to concede 50% towards developmental charges and accordingly worked out a marketplace value of a land during “Rs.10,64,800/per acre” for being paid to a landowners.
7) The appellant Railways felt vexed and filed interest before a High Court of Andhra Pradesh since a landowners also felt vexed and filed cranky objections claiming encouragement of a marketplace value dynamic by a Reference Court.
8) By impugned judgment, a High Court discharged a interest filed by a appellant Railways and partly authorised a cranky objections filed by a landowners and extended a remuneration to Rs.15,97,200/per acre. The High Court, inspected a marketplace value dynamic by a Reference Court i.e. Rs.21,29,600/per hactare though reduced a reduction towards developmental charges from 50% to 25% and accordingly worked out a remuneration “at a rate of Rs.15,97,200/per acre”. It is opposite this judgment, a appellant Railways felt vexed and filed a benefaction appeals by approach of special leave before this Court.
9) Heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, schooled Additional Solicitor General for a appellant UOI and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, schooled comparison warn for a respondents.
10) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, schooled Additional Solicitor General appearing for a appellant while assailing a legality and exactness of theimpugned visualisation radically done dual submissions.
11) In a initial place, schooled ASG contended that a High Court erred in serve enhancing a remuneration during Rs.15,97,200/per acre.
12) According to him a remuneration dynamic by a Reference Court payable during a rate of Rs.10,64,800/per hactare was just, authorised and correct and, therefore, it did not call for any serve enhancement.
13) In a second place, schooled ASG urged that carrying placed faith on mould Sale Deed (ExP18) for last a marketplace value, a Reference Court righteously deducted 50% towards growth charges, since a High Court erred in deducting 25% towards developmental charges.
14) According to schooled ASG, a High Court ought to have appreciated that there were 3 specifying factors appearing from a mould sale help (Ex.P18). Due to these 3 factors, reduction of 50% towards developmental charges from a marketplace value was called for. These factors are, First, Sale Deed (Ex.P18) was for a really tiny square of land (19 Guntas=1/2 acre); Second, a land that was a theme matter of ExP18 had a rare site since it was situated confronting dual roads one on a easterly side and other on a north side; and Third, it was a grown land.
15) It was, therefore, urged that so distant as a land in doubt is concerned, a same did not have these factors and, therefore, a Reference Court righteously deliberate it correct to concede 50% towards developmental charges from a marketplace value that was worked out on a basement of Sale Deed (Ex.P18). It was urged that a High Court but assigning any reasons many reduction logic reasons erred inreducing developmental charges from 50% to 25% from a marketplace value. Learned ASG, therefore, prayed for replacement of a endowment of a Reference Court in place of impugned visualisation of a High Court.
16) Per contra, schooled comparison warn for a respondents (landowners) inspected a impugned visualisation and contended that it does not call for any division and hence a appeals merit to be dismissed.
17) The doubt arises for care in these appeals is either a High Court was fit in deducting 25% towards developmental charges from a marketplace value of a land in doubt opposite 50% reduction done by a Reference Court. In other words, carrying courtesy to a contribution and resources of a case, either a Reference Court was fit in deducting 50% from a marketplace value of a land or either a High Court was fit in deducting 25%.
18) Before we inspect a contribution of this case, it is compulsory to take note of ubiquitous beliefs of law on a theme in doubt that are laid down by this Court in several cases and some of that were also cited during a Bar by a schooled warn for a parties. Indeed, if we might contend so, law on a several issues urged herein by a schooled warn for a parties is already staid by this Court and what has sundry in a focus depends on a contribution of any case.
19) In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751, this Court dealt with a doubt as to how a Court should establish a gratefulness of a lands underneath merger and what extended element of law relating to merger of land underneath a Act should be kept inconsideration to establish a correct marketplace value of a acquired land.
20) In Para 4 of a judgment, this Court laid down as many as 17 principles, that are reproduced next for perusal:
“(1) to (4)………………………………….
(5) The marketplace value of land underneath merger has to be dynamic as on a essential date of announcement of a presentation underneath Section 4 of a Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications underneath Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The integrity has to be done station on a date line of gratefulness (date of announcement of presentation underneath Section 4) as if a valuer is a suppositious client peaceful to squeeze land from a open marketplace and is prepared to compensate a reasonable cost as on that day. It has also to be insincere that a businessman is peaceful to sell a land during a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by a instances method, a justice has to relate a marketplace value reflected in a many allied instance that provides a index of marketplace value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are fraudulent adult in expectation of merger of land.)
(9) Even postnotification instances can be taken into comment (1) if they are really proximate, (2) genuine and (3) a merger itself has not encouraged the
purchaser to compensate ahigher cost on comment of a following alleviation in growth prospects.
(10) The many allied instances out of a genuine instances have to be identified on a following considerations: (i) vicinity from time angle, (ii) vicinity from conditions angle.
(11) Having identified a instances that yield a index of marketplace value a cost reflected therein might be taken as a normal and a marketplace value of a land underneath merger might be deduced by creation suitable adjustments for a and and reduction factors visàvis land underneath merger by fixation a dual in juxtaposition.
(12) A balancesheet of and and reduction factors might be drawn for this purpose and a applicable factors might be evaluated in terms of cost movement as a advantageous client would do.
(13) The marketplace value of a land underneath merger has afterward to be deduced by loading a cost reflected in a instance taken as normal for and factors and unloading it for reduction factors.
(14) The practice indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common clarity demeanour as a advantageous male of a universe of business would do. We might illustrate some such scholastic (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. sparseness of stretch 1. largeness of area
2. vicinity to a highway 2. conditions in a interior during a stretch from a road
3. front on a highway 3. slight frame of land with really tiny front compared to depth
4. nearness to grown area 4. reduce turn requiring a vexed apportionment to be filled up
5. unchanging figure 5. retirement from grown locality
6. turn visàvis land underneath merger 6. some special difficult cause that would deter a purchaser
7. special value for an owners of an adjoining skill to whom it might have some really special advantage
(15) The analysis of these factors of march depends on a contribution of any case. There can't be any tough and quick or firm rule. Common clarity is a best and many arguable guide. For instance, take a cause per a size. A building tract of land contend 500 to 1000 sq. yds. can't be compared with a vast tract or retard of land of contend 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller tract is within a strech of many, a vast retard of land will have to be grown by scheming a lay out, figure out roads, withdrawal open space, plotting out smaller plots, watchful for purchasers (meanwhile a invested income will be blocked up) and a hazards of an entrepreneur. The cause can be ignored by creation a reduction by approach of an stipend during an suitable rate trimming approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to comment for land compulsory to be set detached for figure out lands and plotting out tiny plots. The discounting will to some border also count on either it is a farming area or civic area, either building activity is picking up,and either watchful duration during that a collateral of a businessman would be sealed up, will be longer or shorter and a attendant hazards.
(16) Every box contingency be dealt with on a possess fact settlement temperament in mind all these factors as a advantageous client of land in that position a decider contingency place himself.
(17) These are ubiquitous discipline to be practical with bargain sensitive with common sense.”
21) These beliefs are constantly kept in mind by a Courts while last a marketplace value of a acquired lands (also see Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 422).
22) In further to these principles, this Court in several cases have laid down that while last a loyal marketplace value of a acquired land generally when a acquired land is a vast cube of underdeveloped land, it is usually and reasonable to make suitable reduction towards losses fordevelopment of acquired land. It has also been consistently hold that during what commission a reduction should be done varies from 10% to 86% and, therefore, a reduction should be done gripping in mind a inlet of a land, area underneath acquisition, either a land is grown or not and, if so, to what extent, a purpose of acquisition, etc. It has also been hold that while last a marketplace value of a vast cube of land, a value of smaller pieces of land can be taken into care after creation correct reduction in a value of lands generally when sale deeds of incomparable parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laid down that a Court should also take into care a potentiality of a acquired land detached from other applicable considerations. This Court has also famous that a Courts can always request reasonable volume of guesswork to change theequities in sequence to repair a usually and satisfactory marketplace value in terms of parameters specified underneath Section 23 of a Act. (See Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 47 and Vithal Rao & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2017) 8 SCC 558)
23) Keeping in mind a aforementioned principles, when we take note of a contribution of a box during hand, we find that firstly, a land acquired in doubt is a vast cube of land (101 acres approx.); Secondly, it is not entirely developed; Thirdly, a respondents (landowners) have not filed any mould sale help relating to vast pieces of land sole in acres to infer a marketplace value of a acquired land; Fourthly, mould relied on by a respondents, generally Ex.P18 pertains to really tiny pieces of land (19 guntas); Fifthly, a 3 specifying featuresnoticed in a land in sale help (Ex.P18) are not benefaction in a acquired land.
24) It was for a aforementioned reasons, in a opinion, a Reference Court was fit in creation reduction of 50% towards developmental charges from a marketplace value. The High Court, in a opinion, did not allot any good reason as to because and on what basis, it deliberate correct to make reduction towards developmental charges during a rate of 25% in place of 50%.
25) This Court has hold in Trishala Jain’s box (supra) that it depends on a contribution of any box to confirm for integrity of a marketplace value of a land as to what commission should be adopted for deduction. In a opinion, a reasons mentioned above were righteously done basement by a Reference Court to support a reduction of 50%.
26) So distant as a integrity of marketplace value done by a Reference Court is concerned, i.e., Rs.21,29,600/per acre, a same carrying been inspected by a High Court, we do not find any justification to inspect this emanate again. Even a schooled ASG did not plea this anticipating and cramped his submissions usually relating to a emanate of commission of a reduction only.
27) Learned warn for a respondents was not means to indicate out any fact/evidence that could convince us to defend a logic and end arrived during by a High Court in a impugned judgment.
28) In perspective of a foregoing discussion, we are prone to defend a logic and a end arrived during by a Reference Court instead of a High Court.
29) As a effect of a foregoing discussion, a appeals attain and are accordingly allowed. Impugned visualisation is set aside and that of a Reference Court (Civil Court) antiquated 23.07.2010 in OP No.27/2007 is restored.