Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

K. VASUNDARA DEVI ETC. versus REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO)

Decided
27 July 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 376 · 1995 INSC 424
Also cited as
  • (1995) 5 SCC 426 (12 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1995 SC 2481 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 377, margin D

These appeals are disposed of by common judgment since common question of law arises in this appeal. Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on August 29, 1980 acquiring an extent of 46 acre 6 gunthas of land in Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda Dist. of AP. for planned development by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Possession thereof was taken on December 10, 1980 and the award was made on August 18, 1983 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre and deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges and fixed the compensation at Rs. 43,000 per acre with statufory benefits. On reference, the Subordinate Judge Suryapet in O.P. No. 20/84 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,20,000 per acre and deducted 1/4th towards developmental charges together with statutory benefits. On appeal to the High Court, while upholding the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,20,000 per acre, it had deducted 40% of the value of the land for developmental charges and also that fixation of the market value was based on exhibit X-1 to X-3 sale deed of small extent of one guntha each. Thus, these appeals by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court in AS.No. 1833/85 dated December 15, 1992 and batch.

pp. 377–378, margin E

Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, [1981] 2 SCC 719 and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, [1991] 4 SCC 218 contended that this Court had upheld deduction of uniform rate of l/3rd is required for developmental charges. The High Court, therefore, was not right in deducting 40% of value towards developmental charges. We think that the contention is not wellfounded. The High Court has noticed in its judgment thus:

p. 378, margin A

"However, as the sales under Bxs. X-1 to X-3 are for very small extents when compared to the lands under acquisition and the acquisition is meant for the housing scheme of housing board, necessary deduction will have to be given for developmental charges and also for taking into consideration the sales which are for smaller plots while considering the fixation of market value for the

p. 378, margin C

lands under acquisition which are in a large extent."

p. 378, margin D

In view of this finding, the High Court had taken into consideration not only the requirements towards developmental charges but also when reliance is placed by the Court in Ex. X-1 to X-3, admittedly smaller extents of one guntha each which had fetched a market value at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000, necessary deduction need to be given. Taking these two factors into consideration, ultimately it deducted 40%, though loosely termed as "towards developmental charges". This Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR (1988) SC 943, has applied the twin tests and held that 50% of the deduction should be made when the sale transaction relate to smaller extent of the lands were found to be genuine and relied on to determine the market value of a large track of land and 50% deduction was found to be reasonable in that case. The State did not file appeal against enhanced compensation or deduction.

p. 378, margin D

In Bhagwathula Samanna and Others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam Municipality, AIR (1992) SC 2298, this Court had held that since lands are in ·developed area, no deduction towards developmental charges be made. In Vijay Kumar Motil Lal's and Marigala Gauri cases (supra), the only question was regarding deduction for developmental charges. Sales relating to smaller pieces of land when .

p. 378, margin G

found to be germane Gujarat High Court deducted 60% of the value, this Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, C.A. No. 3263/79 dated July 26, 1995, upheld the deduction of 60% by the High Court. When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large track of lands. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large track of land. In that view of the law, we are of the considered opinion that ratio in the cases in which it was dealt with only about deduction of developmental charges of undeveloped large extent of land does not render any assistance in deciding the principle followed by the High Court in this matter. In view of the judgment of this Court in Administrator General of West Bengal's case (supra) and all subsequent decisions, we do not think that it is a proper case for interference.

p. 379, margin A

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 379, margin C