ANNAMMAL DIED Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. No.1085 of 1990 is an appeal preferred by the claimant and A.S.No.481 of 1991 is filed by the Special Tahsildar, separately in reference to the same land.

(2.) AN extent of 0.52 acres of lands in survey No.35/182 at Kadapei Village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the purpose of setting up Madras Export Processing Zone by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 23.1.1985. Award No.4 of 1986 dated 28.11.1986 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing a compensation for the land at Rs.1 1,274.50 at the rate of Rs.145.85 per cent for an extent of 52 cents of land. The respondent sought for a reference, and on reference, the Reference Court, in L.A.O.P.No.492 of 1987, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,04,000 at the flat rate of Rs.2,000 per cent. Aggrieved by this determination, both the above appeals have been filed.

(3.) IN K.S. Shiva Devamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (2) SCC 621, the Supreme Court held that when the lands possessed of potential value for building purposes, but the same cannot to put to immediate use for building purposes, the extent of deduction for development charges may be from 53% to 331"3%. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that under the building rules, upto 53% of the land in that case was required to be left out. The court has laid as a general rule that for laying he roads and other amenities, 331"3% is required to be deducted. Where development has already taken place appropriate deductions need to be made. It was held in that can outthought in view of the obligations on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for laying of roads and for other amenities and its requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply lines, electricity, etc., deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges at the rate of 331"3% as ordered by the High Court was found to be not illegal. IN K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 1995 (5) SCC 426, it was held that when adjoining and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine the market value, the same will not form the sole basis to determine the market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land. 40% deduction towards development charges was held to be proper. IN Hasan Ali Kanu Bai and sons v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (5) SCC 422, it was held that the High Court was justified in deducting 60% of the value for development charges. IN Smt. Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (9) SCC 640, when the land under acquisition situated in an undeveloped area and likely to take a long time for development, deduction between 331"3% to 53% of the market value for development charges was held to be valid by the Supreme Court and giving additional deduction of 12%, i.e. total deduction of 65% in the circumstances of the case was held to be valid.