Facts
Arguments Of Petitioner
Reasoning
Decision
Shimla Dev.authority
v.
Smt.santosh Sharma
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 15550 Of 1996 | 22-11-1996
1. Leave granted.
2. Notice was sent to the respondents as early as on 25-7-1991 but neither the unserved notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so far been received from the respondents. So notice must be deemed to have been served on them.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23-1-1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga of Tehsil and District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40, 000 per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1, 00, 000. On appeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in several judgments, this Court has confirmed deduction up to 40% of the compensation towards development charges and that, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and was approved. In this case the Division Bench has accepted thus.
4. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has correctly applied the principle and we find no ground to interfere with it.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
2. Notice was sent to the respondents as early as on 25-7-1991 but neither the unserved notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so far been received from the respondents. So notice must be deemed to have been served on them.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23-1-1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga of Tehsil and District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40, 000 per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1, 00, 000. On appeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in several judgments, this Court has confirmed deduction up to 40% of the compensation towards development charges and that, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and was approved. In this case the Division Bench has accepted thus.
"I am of the view that a deduction of 40% would be reasonable."
4. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has correctly applied the principle and we find no ground to interfere with it.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE G. B. PATTANAIK
HON'BLE JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
Eq Citation
JT 1996 (11) SC 254
AIR 1997 SC 1791
(1997) 2 SCC 637
LQ/SC/1996/2003
HeadNote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 54 — Deduction of 40% towards development charges — Proper — Held, High Court has correctly applied the principle
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
