//
you're reading...
legal issues

LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored.=CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257 OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001] Mohinder Singh & Ors. .. Appellants -vs- State of Haryana .. Respondents = 2014 – Aug.Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807

LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed  by  the  High  Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal  limits  and the deduction of 1/4th the market value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is appropriate and liable to be restored.=

In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed  and

the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside

and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.        The  appeals

preferred    by   the   State   are    dismissed.

This Court in the decision  in  Charan  Dass  vs.  H.P.  Housing  and  Urban

Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398] observed that any  deduction  made

should be based on the situation of the land and the  need  for  development

and where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed  land  with

amenities  of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 40%  would

not be justified.  In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1  SCC

354] wherein the  question  had  arisen  as  to  whether  the  deduction  of

development charges at the rate of 20% in regard to the acquired  lands  was

justified or not, and after taking the various  factors  into  consideration

it was held that a cut of 20% to the development  charges  which  was  lower

than the normal 1/3rd was understandable and could be justified.

In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in

taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for

the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are

unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed  by  the  High  Court

since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal  limits  and

the deduction of 1/4th the market value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is

appropriate and liable to be restored.

In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed  and

the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside

and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.        The  appeals

preferred    by   the   State   are    dismissed.

Interlocutory Application Nos. 5  and  6  in  S.L.P.  No.5191  of  2001  for

bringing on record the legal heirs are allowed.  No costs.

2014 – Aug.Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807
Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,936,806 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,874 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com