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.
Discussion
Comments are closed.