Madras High Court
Union Of India vs D.Thanikachalam on 28 June, 2021
A.S.No.336 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.336 of 2015
1. Union of India
Rep. By Secretary to Government
(Revenue), Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue)
(South) cum Land Acquisition Officer,
Pondicherry. ..Appellants
Vs.
D.Thanikachalam
S/o. Dhanapal ..Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 54 o Land
Acquisition Act praying to set aside the order dated 30.04.2013 made in
L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry.
For Appellants : M/s.V.Usha (AGP)
For Respondent : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
ORDER
This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Order dated
30.04.2013 made in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional
District Judge, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
2. The respondent is the claimant in the LAOP. The appellant herein
acquired the subject land for the provision of free house sites to landless
labourers in Pudukuppam Village. On the notification issued under Section
4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, this subject property was acquired and
award has been passed on 21.03.2003, thereby fixed the value at
Rs.16,140/- per Are. It was approached by the claimant. As such, it was
referred before the referral Court in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008. The claimants
claimed that the acquired land is situated in the heart of the well developed
residential area and it is above the road level. The Land Acquisition Officer
had taken into consideration Item No.12 in the sale particulars, the sale deed
dated 29.04.2004 and thereafter the market value at the rate of Rs.19,432/-
per Are and deducted 20% for the development charges and fixed the
market value at Rs.16,140/- per Are, which is the guideline value.
Considering the same, the referral Court determined the value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.19,432/- per Are with the proportionate
solatium, interest and costs. The referral Court further observed that the
Land Acquisition Officer while computing the compensation could not have
deducted 20% of the market value towards development charges. It was
further observed that if the acquired land and the lands in the retained sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
deed are agricultural lands, the deduction towards development charges
does not arise. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal suit was filed by the
appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly
the acquired land was agricultural land. Therefore, the minimum deduction
should be made for development of the said land since the acquisition was
made for issuing house sites to the landless labourers in Pudhukuppam
Village. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer rightly deducted 20% for
development charges. Inspite of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment reported in AIR 2020 SC 2354 (Sajan Vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors.)
16. Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general
rule. But epending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note
of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost
may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards
development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in
Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may
be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic
infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The 11 percentages
mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the
contrary.) …….
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development
authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage
treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition
to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds
and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid
examples is only to show that the “deduction for development”
factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself
being very wide from 20% to 75%.”
4. It is held that the Rule of one-third deduction towards development
is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and
taking note of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction cost may vary
from 20% to 75%. In this case on hand, the Acquisition Officer had taken
notification of Item No.12 in the sale particulars which ought to have been
evicted for the identical nature and the potential to fix the value for the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
which was acquired by the Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the market
value of land involved in the said sale deed is the highest value at the rate of
Rs.19,432/- per Are. The nature of the land is an agricultural land and the
purpose for acquisition is providing the house sites to the landless
labourers. Therefore, the land should be developed by way of layout,
drainage, etc. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer rightly deducted the
development charges towards infrastructure at 20% and fixed the value of
Rs.16,140/- per Are. Without considering the above, the referral Court
fixed the value at Rs.19,432/- per Are for the acquired land without any
deduction.
5. In view of the above, the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008
on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry is set aside and
the vale of the land is fixed at Rs.16,140/- per Are with the proportionate
solitium interest and costs.
Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed on condition that the appellant is
directed to deposit the award amount to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.71 of
2008, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
28.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dh
To
The II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.336 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
dh
A.S.No.336 of 2015
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
