LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 921

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

\- ! LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS. NOVEMBER 2, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR -t SINGHPANTA,JJ. ] i Land Acquisition Act, 1894-ss. 23, 24 & 25: Acquisition oflarge tracts ofland-Fixation ofmarket value- With reference to sale instances in respect ofsmall plots ofland- Permissibility-Held: Where large area is subject matter ofacquisition, rate at which smallplots are sold cannot be a safe criteria-However, in absence of any other material and in appropriate cases, the adjudicating Court can make comparison ofprices paidfor smallplots .. ; ·~ anddetermine compensation in respect ofthe acquiredlandalbeit after making necessary deductions /adjustments.

Acquisition ofland-For development purpose-Determination ofcompensation-Deduction towards development charges-Held: Depends upon facts of each case-In respect of agricultural/ undevelopedlandhavingpotentialfor housingorcommercialpurposes, normally I/3rd compensation has to be deducted subject to certain variations depending on nature ofthe acquiredland, its location, extent ofexpenditure involvedfor development etc. Land situated in village was acquired by Appellant authority under a Housing and Development Scheme. Special Land Acquisition Officer determined market value ofacquired land at the rate ofRs. 2. 20 per sq. ft. and on that basis awarded compensation under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land owners filed reference application under Section 18 ofthe Act seeking higher -c~·· compensation contending that the acquired land was adjacent to the Lucknow-Sitapur Highway and near developed colonies and hence had great potential.

Tribunal determined market value ofthe land I ----. ( \ ·-tr at Rs. 6 persq. ft. and accordingly awarded compensation. The award was upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Party allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Where large area is the subject matterofacquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the ~ ... _ rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis'for fixation ofthe rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison ofthe prices paid for small plots ofland. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. [Paras 15and16] [928-D-F] The Collector ofLakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR (1971) SC 015; Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead} by Lrs. v. The Stqte of Madhya Pradesh andAnr. , AIR (1977) SC 1560 and Smt. Kausalya .

l I Devi Bogra andOrs. etc. v. LandAcquisition Officer, Aurangabadand f Anr. , AIR (1984) SC 892, relied on. Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, (1989) 1 ! SVLR (C) 399, referred to. 2. Compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity ofthe purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of. the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this. does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish ofa particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may a~ways be taken •... ; • ~ into consideration for what it is worth. [Para 17] [929-A-C] .... ,__ f Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v.

Revenue Divisional Offic. er, Vizagapatam, AIR (1939) P. C. 98, relied on. LUCKNOWDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITYv. KRISHNA 923 "'t~ GOPALLAHOTI 3. 1. Section 23 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first ·criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value ofthe land on the date ofthe publication ofthe notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 ofthe Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the i compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 ofthe Act that > the amount ofcompensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability ofdetermining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases.

There is bound to be some amount ofguess work involved while determining the potentiality. [Para 17) [929-C-E) 3. 2. The element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the .... lJ underlying principles offixation of market value with reference to ') c~mparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time ofthe date ofnotification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be ofthe land acquired or ofthe land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case. [Paras 18and19] [929-F-H; 930-A] 3. 3. The deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any strait-jacket formula. It would depend upon I the facts ofeach case.

There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than I/3rd and in some cases less than l/3rd. [Paras 21and22] [930-B-C; 931-A] ~- 3. 4. There is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. In respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally l/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out ofthe amount ofcompensation ~\ ' payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes.

A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose + ofmaking construction; may be the land is situated in the midst ofa .. ( developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing · more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis ofevidence that itis such a land and it is so located. In the absence ofsuch evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of 1. the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not r give the land the character of a developed area.

The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipsofacto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued ,. as a building site or plot, particularly, when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. However, in cases ofsome land where there are certain advantages by virtue ofthe developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. {Para 22] [930-C-G; 931-A] ~ The Special LandAcquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T Adinarayan Setty, AIR (1959) SC 429; Ravinder Narain andAnr. v. Union ofIndia, [2003] 4 SCC 481; Kasturi andOrs. v. State ofHaryana, [2003] 1 SCC 354; Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and Anr. , [2004] 10 SCC 745; State of West Bengal v. Kedarnath Rajgarhia Charitable Trust Estate, [2004] 12 SCC 425 and V Hanumantha Reddy ·r (dead) byLrs. v. LandAcquisition Officer andManda! R.

Officer, (2003] 12 sec 642, relied on. 4. Keeping in view the general principles and the factual LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KkISHNA 925 scenario as evident from the materials brought on record, the market value fixed (i. e. Rs. 8/- sq. ft. ) is sustained but instead of 25% development charges one-third has to be deducted. The entitlement~ shall be worked out on that basis. [Para 25) [931-E) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5112 of ~ 2007. ~ From the final Judgment and Order dated 9. 2. 2005 ofthe High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in F. A. No. 541 1998. Umesh Chandra, Krishna Chandra, S. A. Kashifand Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant. Jayant Bhushan, Ashwani Garg and Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. ~ The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by ' ~ DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofa Division BetJ.

ch ofthe Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). 3. In the First Appeal challenge was to the award dated 18. 2. 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow l in a reference under Section 18 ofthe Act in land case No. 746of1991 titled Krishna Gopal Lahoti v. State ofUP. 4. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows: A large area ofland measuring 194 bigha 19 biswa 14 biswansi and 14 kachwansi situated in village Purania and Mahibullapur was sought to be acquired by appellant-Lucknow Development Authority under the housin. g and development scheme known as "Timber Nagar Avasiya YoJana". Khasra plot No. 379 measuring 8 bigha, and Khasra, plot No.

394 measuring 2 bigha, 8 biswa 15 biswansi situated at village Mahibullapur and belonging to the claimants Krishna Gopal Lahoti, Sharad Kumar Lahoti, Sunil Klimar Lahoti and Sudhir Kumar Lahoti were also acquired under the said scheme. The relevant notification under Section 4 was issued on 26. 3. 1986. The notification under Section 6 ofthe Act was published on 28. 5. 1986. The possession ofthe acquired land was taken on 17. 12. 1986 and Award under Section I I ofthe Act was made on 27. 5. 1988 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land + ~. Acquisition Officer in his Award under Section I I ofthe Act determined the market value ofthe land in question at the rate ofRs. 2. 20 per sq. ft. 5.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, reference under Section I8 was preferred by the land owners, inter alia, stating that adjoining to the land in question, there is Lucknow-Sitapur Highway and nearby the acquired land there are number of colonies such as Aliganj Colony, Kapurthala Complex, P & T Colony, Arif Complex, Public Service Commission and Office ofGeological Survey ofIndia. 6. According to the landowners, the land in' question has great potential value and the market value as determi'ned by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite inadequate. The market value ofthe land at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. wa5 claimed by the respondents besides r statutory benefit under Act 68 of I984. 7. The Lucknow Development Authority and the State ofU. P. filed written statements separately.

It was stated that the_compensation as determined and awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite adequate and the claimants are not entitled to the benefits ofthe provisions ofAct 68of1984. It was stated that claim petition is barred by time. It is also barred by the provisions ofthe Urban Land Ceiling ~ct, 1976 (in short 'ULC' Act) and by the provisions of Section 31 ofthe Act. 8. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. 9. The learned Tribunal could not find any substance in the pleas raised by the appellants regarding claim being barred under various heads as alleged in the written statements and all the issues were decided in negative against the appellant. The Tribunal further found that the claimants are entitled to the benefit ofprovisions ofAct of68 of 1984 and on the ba5is ofthe evidence on record, the Tribunal dete1mined the market value I ~· I GOPALLAHOTl[PASAYAT,J. ] ,,,.... of the land at Rs. 6/- per sq. ft.

and accordingly compensation was awarded by the impugned Award. 10. Against the Award, the First Appeal was filed before the High Court. Primarily, it was contended before the High Court that the Tribunal had not properly evaluated the evidence on record and wrongly placed 'B ~ reliance on a sale deed relating to a small piece of land. It was also / submitted that without any proper appreciation ofmaterials on record the compensation was enhanced. 11. Stand ofthe respondents before the High Court was that there was no illegality in the Award passed by the reference court. It was submitted that the land was situated near densely populated area having great potential value and the appellate authority is selling the same land at the rate ofRs. 300/- per sq. ft. The reference court on the basis oforal and documentary evidence has awarded compensation at the rate ofRs. 6/ - per sq. ft. along with other benefits as provided under the Act.

The High ~- Court found that the claimants had filed number ofsale deeds ofvarying '\ rates ranging between Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. but the sale deed relating to the plot No. 166 situated at Mahibullahpur was relied upon by the Tribunal and the reasons for enhancing the compensation were assigned which according to the High Court did not call for any interference. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea ofthe appellant that the sale deed (Ex. C-38) was unduly relied upon by the Tribunal. It was pointed out that the/sale deed is related to a very small piece ofland as against t~e large area ofmore than 10 bighas involved in the present case. The High Court referred to certain decisions ofthis Court 5- to hold that while determining the market value ofthe land, the potentiality ofthe land is a very material consideration and several factors like location ofthe land, its surroundings, availab!

e facilities thereon in the vicinity, nature ofthe land have to be taken into account. The High Court also found that there was no similarity between the land which was the subject matter of G. dispute in land acquisition case No. 204 of 1992 where the rate fixed was ... Rs. 1. 85 per sq. ft. -- 12. The High Court further found that two sale deeds (Ga 26 and Ga 27) reflected that the rate was Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. However, instances were refe1Ted to in holding that the market value is much higher. After granting deduction of25% on account ofexpenses to be incurred towards plotting and development charges, the rate was fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. Therefore, the High Court did not find any substance in the stand that the deduction should be at least 40% and not 25% as done. Accordingly, appeal as noted abeve was dismissed. 13. 1n support ofthe appeal, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the High Court. . 14.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that three sale deeds namely, C-38, 39 and 40 clearly show that rate is much higher. It was pointed out that this Court has depending on the facts of the case, allowed deductions ranging between 20% to 33%. That cannot be hard and fast rule and in fact it would depend upon various factors. 15. Where large area is the subject matter ofacquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions ofthis Court in The Collector o/Lakhimpurv. Bhuban Chandra Dutta AIR (1971) SC 2015, Prithvi 1 Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs. v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh and Anr. , AIR (1977) SC 1560 and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad andAnr. , AIR (1984) SC 892. 16. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation ofthe rate.

For example, where there is no other material itmay in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison ofthe prices paid for small plots ofland. However, in such cases necessary deductions/ adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. 17. In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, (1989) 1 SVLR (C) '. 399 in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels ofland do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value ofthe land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part ofthe owner. It is an accepted principle as laid } / r down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue 'A Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, AIR (1939) P. C.

98 that the compensation must be detennined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value, disinclination ofthe vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity ofthe purchaser to buy it must alike 4 I be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any } compulsion. The value ofthe land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does. not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish ofaparticular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value ofthe land on the date ofthe publication ofthe notification under Section 4(1 ).

Similarly, Section 24 ofthe Act enumerates the matters ).. which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the ') compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 ofthe Act that the am01. ~nt ofcompensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits ofimagination. Impracticability ofdetermining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount ofguess work involved while determining the potentiality. 18. It can be broadly stated that the element ofspeculation is reduced to minimum ifthe underlying principles offixation ofmarket value with i: reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time ofthe date ofnotification under Section 4(1); I (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; ,_,.

( (iii) it should be ofthe land acquired or ofthe land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. ) --1 19. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (See The Special LandAcquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T Adinarayan ? etty, A! R (1959) SC 429). 20. These aspects havlbe~_n highlighted in Ravinder Narain and Anr. v. Union ofIndia, [2003] 4 SCC 481. 21. The deduction to bemade towards development charges cannot be proved in any strait-jacket formula. It would depend upon the facts of each case. · 22.

It is well settled that in respect ofagricultural land or undeveloped land which has-potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3~d amount ofcompensation has to be deducted out ofthe amount ofcompensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent ofexpenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst ofa developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount ofexpenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies.

A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence ofsuch evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent ofthe acquired land is large and even ifa small portion ofthe land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character ofa developed area. In 84 acres ofland acquired even ifone portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying ofinternal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civil amenities etc. However, in cases ofsome land where there are certain advantages by virtue ofthe developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage ofcut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account.

There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than I/3rd and in some cases less than I/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as building site or plot, particularly, when vast tracts are acquired, as in this ' case, for development pwpose. 23. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kasturi and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, [2003] 1 SCC 354. 24. A reference may also be made to what has been stated in Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and Anr. , [2004] 10 SCC 745, State ofWest Bengal v.

Kedarnath Rajgarhia Charitable Trust Estate, [2004] 12 SCC 425 and V Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by Lrs. v. LandAcquisition Officer & Manda/ R. Officer, [2003] 12 sec 642. 25, Keeping in view the general principles and the factual scenario as evident from the materials brought on record, we sustain the market value fixed (i. e. Rs. 8/- sq. ft. ) but instead of25% development chargeSone-third has to be deducted. The entitlements shall be worked out on that basis. 26. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as } to costs. B. B. B. Appeal partly allowed.