"· KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. -I STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. -

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 1. Apart from Special Leave Peti- tion (Civil) Nos. 9488, 9499 and 9531, all of 2003, leave is granted in respect of all the other Special Leave Petitions heard along with Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2003. E

2Copy pinpoint2. These appeals, have their genesis in a common award dated 141h March, 1989, made by the Land Acquisition Collec- tor, Kurukshetra, whereby he awarded compensation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for land in the form of Chahi, Gair Mumkin Tubewell, etc. and at the rate F of Rs. 40,000/- per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin Talab Land and Rasta Land . .3. Twenty seven References were made to the Land Ac- quisition Judge, Kurukshetra, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same were disposed of by an G Award dated 2"d January, 1993.

4Copy pinpoint4. Being dissatisfied as to the extent of compensation awarded, the claimants filed Regular First Appeals before the High Court. Similarly, being aggrieved by the enhancement of H

p. 370 Copy page pinpoint

A the mar_ket.value of the lands, the State also preferred 27 Regu- lar First Appeals. In all, 51 Regular First Appeals, arising from the common Notification, Award, and Judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge, were taken up for hearing together and were 1...,~ disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by a B common Judgment dated 1Oth August, 1999. ' j-~

5Copy pinpoint5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein filed Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.As) be- fore the Di\tisiori Bench of the High Court which were mostly dismissed in limine or on account of technicalities. All the ap- e pellants, however, are similarly circumstanced and having the same grievance. This batch of appeals have been preferred against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of l;._ the High Court in the various Letters Patent Appeals.

6Copy pinpoint6. Applications have been filed in SLP(C) Nos. 9488/2003, ~ 9499/2003 and 9531/2003 for substitution and setting aside abatement and also permi$sion to file Special Leave Petition. As they all arise out of the said common judgment of the High Court, they are allowed and leave is also granted in the con- nected Special Leave Petitions. As all the appeals relate to the E same Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and arise out of the same Award, they were taken up for hear- ing and final disposal together. , 'r.

7Copy pinpoint7. Coming back to the facts of the case, it may be indi- . F cated that on·12th June, 1986, the State of Haryana issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the "LA Act") for the acquisition cf 265 kanals and 19 Marlas of land in the revenue estate of vil- lage lsmailabad, District Kurukshetra for the establishment of a G new grain market, construction of rest house, staff quarters and other connected purposes of the Market Committee, lsmailabad. Notification _under Section 6 was thereafter issued on 9th June, 1987 and the Collector, Kurukshetra, by his Award dated 14th March, 1989 awarded compensation for 250 kanals and 17 H marlas, comprising the first category of land referred to above,

KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 371 & ANR. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.] ''I at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. For 15 kanals and 2 marl~s A of land comprising the second category of lands, the compen- sation was awarded at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Sola- ti um and interest were also awarded in terms of the provisions of the LA Act. .....• _~

8Copy pinpoint8. As indicated earlier, twenty seven References were B made under Section 18 of the LA Act to the District Judge, Kurukshetra. All the said References were heard together and by his award dated 2nd January, 1993, the District Judge, Kurukshetra enhanced the compensation in respect of the first category of lands to Rs.1,28,000/- per acre and in respect of c the second category of lands to Rs.80,000/- per acre.

9Copy pinpoint9. In the Regular First Appeals filed both by the claimants and the State of Haryana, the High Court by a common Judg- ment dated 101h August, 1999, enhanced the compensation for -..:ir D the acquired lands to Rs.2,88,000/- per acre and it was indi- cated that all the claimants were entitled to uniform compensa- tion as the lands had been acquired for a common purpose. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the State of Haryana were dismissed and those of the claimants were allowed in part. E

10Copy pinpoint10. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that in en- hancing the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants

. .., -~- herein, the learned Single Judge took one exemplar (Ex. P-q) for the purpose of comparison vis-a-vis the land acquired. Ex. P-6 is a sale deed, whereby on 301h January, 1986, a plot of land measuring 148 square yards was sold for Rs.24,000/~, whereas the notification under Section 4 was issued six months after on 121h June, 1986. On the basis of the above, the price of the land in question works out to Rs.9,60,000/- per acre. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the aforesaid valuationi directed deduction of 70% of the value of the lands towards

- ~ development charges to make the acquired land suitable for the purpose for which it had been acquired and also having regard to the nature of the lands on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. On the basis of such H

372 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A deduction, the learned Single Judge uniformly enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands acquired to Rs.2,88,000/ - per acre. As indicated herein before, most of the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench in limine or on technical grounds.

11Copy pinpoint11. These appeals have been ~4ferred by the claimants where Letters Patent Appeals were \~~posed of by cryptic or- ders although they were aggrieved by the rate of deduction ap- plied by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dis- posing of the Regular First Appeals preferred by the appellan.ts C as also the respondents.

12Copy pinpoint12. On behalf of the appellants, it was conUfoded that the rate of deduction as applied by the learned Single Judge was highly excessive as the acquired land~"Nere situated in an area which was already developed. It was submitted that the ac- 0 quired lands were situated at Ambala Pehowa Road in Village lsmailabad and were adjacent to the Village abadi where there were houses and shelters, power house, telephone exchange and a factory.

13Copy pinpoint13. It was also submitted that since the acquired lands were reserved for commercial and residential purposes, the claimants had demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per maria from the Collector and in support thereof Sale Deeds in respect of lands adjacent to the acquired land had been placed on record to show that the valuation of the said lands were between Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,0_00/- per maria.

14Copy pinpoint14. It was submitted that this Court had repeatedly held that in assessing the compensation payable in respect of agri- cultural land or undeveloped land which had potential ..-~lue for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3 of the assr;)ssed value of the land is deducted depending on the nature of the land, its location, extent of expenditure involved for cavelopment, and the land required for roads and other civic amenities to make the land suitable for residential or commercial purposes. H However, in the instant case, despite the location of the acquired

KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 373 & ANR. [ALTAMAS·KABIR, J.] -~ land and its potential value, the compensation payable to the A claimants was reduced drastically without proper reason for such drastic deduction.

15Copy pinpoint15. In addition to the above, it was submitted that both the learned District Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had erred in holding that the sale deed in respect of a B - .J,, small plot of land was not a proper indicator for the purpose, of d~termining the value of a large tract of land. It was urged that even with regard to the said question, this Court had consls- tently indicated that such sale deeds or such exemplars should not be discarded in limini, but were to be taken into consider- c ation while fixing the value of the lands acquired. '

16Copy pinpoint16. In support of the aforesaid submissions reliance was . placed on the decision of this Court in Lucknow Developme'nt Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Ors. [2007 (12) Scale D -..)( 685] where deduction for development charges at the rate of 1/ 3 of the amount of compensation was accepted to be normal. However, it was also indicated that there may be various fac- tors which were required to be taken into consideration while deciding the amount of deduction to be made towards devel- opmental charges. While in some cases,. it could be more than E 1/3, in other cases it could be less, having .regard to the differ- ence between a developed area or an area having potential value which is yet to be developed.

17Copy pinpoint17. In the same decision, while observing that where a F . ~ large area is the subject matter of acquisition the rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria, it was also observed that it could not be laid down as an absolute propositionthatthe rates fixed for smatl plots could not be the basis for fixation of the value of the acquired land. However, in G such cases necessary deduction/adjustments have to be made while determining the value and in the said context it was held ~ + that a deduction of 1/3 of the cumpensation amount was con . . sidered to be normal.

18Copy pinpoint18. It was also sought to be urged that apart from Exh. P.S H

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A on which reliance had been placed by the High Court certain other exemplars were also produced on behalf of the claimants which were not relied upon on the ground that they had not been J properly proved. It was submitted that with the incorporation of ' Section 51-A in the LAActby way of amendment the degree of B proof had been altered and although the previous legal position was that all sale deeds on which reliance was placed by the parties were required to be proved, after the amendment such proof was not strictly required and the various foras up to the stage of Regular First Appeal co~ld rely on such documents, c which included certified copies, as exemplars without having to prove the same. It was urged that having regard to the provi- sions of Section 51-A of the LA Act the different foras, including the High Court, had erred in not placing r~liance on all sale deeds ~that had been produced on behalf of the claimants in assessing

0 the land. amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquired

19Copy pinpoint19. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance was placed on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Ce- m.entCorporation of India Ltd: vs. Purya arid ors. (2004) 8 SCC E 270 and Ranvir Singh Vs. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 59, which supported such contention.

20Copy pinpoint20. Since the grievance of the appellants was only with regard to the rate of deduction on account of the developmental charges and an attempt was made on behalf of the appellants F to assert that 70% deduction was unwarranted as the lands sought to be acquired were already within or adjacent to a de- veloped area, on behalf of the State-respondent such deduc- tion was sought to be justified. G ·21. It was submitted on behalf of the State-respondent that the observations made in the Lucknow Development Authority case'was more by way of caution than laying down the general law which finds consistent expression in various other decisions of this Court, such as Union of India vs. Ram Phool and another H (2003) 10 SCC 167 in which it had been held that an isolated

KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. .STATE OF HARYANA 375 ·--y & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

deed of sale showing a very high price cannot be the sole ba- A

- ~ -\ sis for determining the market value.

22Copy pinpoint22. It was submitted that the said view was reiterated in the case of Ranvir Singh (supra), which, in fact, had been relied upon by the appellants in relation to the submissions made with regard to Section 51-A of the LA Act. !3

23Copy pinpoint23. It was urged that this Court has consistently held that small tracts of land purchased for a particular purpose may fetch fancy prices in terms of its location and the need for acquisition by the vendee, but the same basis could not be applied to each c tract of land which were yet to be developed for public purposes such as housing or setting apart an area for a particular pur- pose such as education and/or industrialization. It was submit- -~ ted that in such cases there could be no comparison with re- gard to the value of the lands covered by the sal~ deed and those proposed to be acquired, and that the sale price of such a small tract of land was not a safe basis for determining the value of a very large tract of land using the comparative method.

24Copy pinpoint24. It was, however, fairly submitted that in Ravinder Narain vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 it has been observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as follows: "6. Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a "* ~ safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur v. F Bhuban Chandra Dutta (1972) 4 SCC 236, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P.(1977)1 SCC 684 and Kausaly~ Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad (1984) 2 sec 324. G

7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute + proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the H

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices:"

25Copy pinpoint25. It was also submitted that in the instant case excluding all the other exemplars, the High C9urt had chosen to rely on 8 Ex. P.6, where a small tra.ct of. land (148 sq. yards) had been sold at the rate of Rs.9,60,000/- per acre·and the compensa- tion had been worked out on such basis after applying deduc- tion of 70% of the market value towards developmental charges, since the lands acqu1red ·were agricultural and huge investment was required to be made by the State to make the same suit- able for the purpose for which they. had been acquired namely, the setting up of a new grain market with ·all the ancillary infra- structure needed by the Market Committee, lsmailabad.

26Copy pinpoint26. ltwas submitted that the deduction of 70%, which had been applied by the High Court, was quite reasonable as the sale deed relied upon by the appellants related to lands sold for shops etc. and Ex. P.6 and other sale ·instances had been re- lied· upon by the appellants for smaller areas. It was urged that in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of E Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, this Court had held that there can be different deductions depending upon various factors. It was submitted that in various other decisions and in particular in K.S.Shivadevamma vs. Assistant Commissioner of Land Ac- quisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 262, it '('las held that although F as a general rule 33-1 /2 per cent is required to be deducted for laying of roads and other amenities, deduction to the extent of 53% was hot improper and the extent ·of deduction depends upon the development need in each case. In Vasavva (Smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition .Officer and others, G (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld a deduction of 65%.

27Copy pinpoint27. As an alternative argument it was urged on behalf of the State-respondent that since the High Court had relied only on Ex. P.6 which related to the sale of only 4 marlas of land, the matter could be remanded to the High Court for consideration H

KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 377 -y. & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

of all the various sale deeds which were produced on behalf of A the parties, to arrive at a fresh valuation for the acquired lands.

28Copy pinpoint28. It was submitted that in view of the above the submis- sions made on behalf the claimants under Section 51-A of the

• "" LA Act was not relevant for determination of the point raised in these appeals. B

29Copy pinpoint29. Having carefully considered the submissions made 011 behalf of the respective parties we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court.

30Copy pinpoint30. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken, c into consideration the nature of the land sought to be acquired in relying on Ex.P.6 in assessing the market value thereof and has applied a deduction of 70% in arriving at the compensation _. _ to be awarded to the claimants in respect of the said lands. The various other documents which were produced on behalf of the D claimants were in respect of the lands which were similar to the lands forming the subject matter of Ex.P.6. The learned Single Judge has given reasons for not relying on all the other exem- plars in choosing to rely on Ex.P.6 alone. But the rate of deduc- tion applied appears to be on the nigh side in relation to the E I\ developmental work involved in making the acquired land suit- able for the purposes for which they were so acquired. The ac- quired lands are adjacent to the village abadi which is already developed. Having regard to the consistent view that a deduc- .. t- tion of 1/3rn of the market value is normal, though a higher de- F duction is permissible, we are of the view that deduction of 60% would meet the expenditure towards developmental charges considering the proximity of the acquired lands to the areas already developed.

31Copy pinpoint31. In our view, the Division Bench of the High Court while G ~ ...._ ., dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the claimants could have given proper reasons before dismissing the same in limine. However, since the decision of the Division Bench en- dorses that of the learned single Judge, with which we have dealt with in detail, and with which we agree, save for the amount H

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A of deduction applied towards developmental charges, these appeals against the decision 'Of the Division Bench in dismiss- ing the appeal filed by the appellant in C.A.Nos.1330-1332 of 2003, and all the other connected appeals have to be allowed in part. As far as the alternative submissions made on behalf of the State regarding remand of these appeals to the High Court is concerned, we are not inclined to accept the same, since we are not convinced that such a course of action needs to be adopted.

32Copy pinpoint32. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part only to the extent that the deduction of 70% applied by the learned Single Judge and endorsed by the High Court is reduced to 60%.

33Copy pinpoint33. Having regard to the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.