JUDGMENT
1. We have heard the appellant’s learned Counsel and the learned Government Advocate on merits. In this case, the acquisition which had been undertaken in Sedam town in the year 1973 was the subject-matter of the reference before us. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs. 700/- per acre as compensation by virtue of his award dated 31-1-1979. The appellant had prayed for an enhancement at the rate of Rs. 157- per sq. yard or Rs. 72,600/- per acre. The learned Civil Judge after a detailed consideration awarded Rs. 10,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. In the present appeal that has been directed against that order the prayer is that the compensation be stepped upto Rs. 1.06 lakhs per acre with statutory benefits and the principal justification that has been pleaded is that there can be no better parameter for the Court to have used than the price at which these very plots were sold by the authorities. To that extent, this is a rather unusual case and we have examined the contention threadbare before according our approval to it.
2. The Reference Court has done a detailed evaluation of the rate at which the plots were ultimately sold by the Municipal Council and has very rightly worked out an average and having done so, the Court has arrived at Rs. 2.42 lakhs per acre. Thereafter, the Reference Court has considered the escalation for the 9 years and has worked out a figure of 10% per year and has deducted as much as 90%. In addition to this, the development expenditure at the rate of 53% has been deducted and the Court has ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre as compensation.
3. Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel who represents the appellant has submitted that this is a case in which there was no other material before the Reference Court for purposes of ascertaining the true and correct market value other than the rates at which the plots in question which had been carved out of this very land had been sold P.Ws. 3 and 4 were examined because they are purchasers of two such plots apart from which, the information was sought for from the Municipal Council and the authentic figures were obtained by the Reference Court. Mr. Shankar submits that the formula adopted by the Reference Court cannot be faulted and that as far as the base figure is concerned, that he accepts the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate has seriously found fault with the formula that has been adopted because it is his contention that the ultimate selling price and that too after a period of almost one decade has elapsed can never be worked out and then notionally regulated to the relevant year. His submission is that in the absence of other material, because in this case there is no such material, if the average price had been worked out then the Trial Court was fully justified in having deducted the escalation at the rate of 10% per year. As far this argument is concerned, we need to record that the Trial Court has perhaps overpitched the case insofar as even if escalation does in fact take place it is necessary to do a realistic appraisal. We have some guidance available from the decision in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr., wherein after a careful discussion, under more or less similar circumstances the Supreme Court approved of deduction of 7%. In our considered view, this would be a fair and accurate percentage and we have accordingly modified the deduction of 90% which has been worked out by the Reference Court to 63% which would be a more reliable and correct figure,
5. As far as the head of development expenditure is concerned, Mr. Shankar submitted on the basis of the material that was before the Reference Court that this was not an undeveloped area and he demonstrated to us that it had already been built up, that the KEB office was located in the immediate vicinity and consequently infrastructural development did not have to come from a long distance but that it was available virtually next door. He has drawn our attention to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Court should be rather circumspect with regard to the deduction under the head of development expenditure and that in the instances where the development is reasonably high or in the instances where the development has come up to a full development level that the deduction under this head would have to be considerably pruned down. In the case in question, the Supreme Court approved of a deduction of 20% under this head and Mr. Shankar advanced a strong plea that this should be the maximum extent of deduction. As against this position, the learned Government Advocate cited several other decisions which we do not need to reproduce, in support of his contention that this very High Court as also the Apex Court have approved of deduction of upto 55% in appropriate cases and he submits that since the land was agricultural land that merely because there might have been some buildings close-by that the Court ought not to make any allowance and that the deduction of 53% applied by the Reference Court must be confirmed. We have assessed the facts of this case because it is really the facts and circumstances that vary from case to case. We have also taken note of the development of the law on the subject and, we desire to add one other aspect viz., the fact that the authorities mechanically insist on deductions under the head of development expenditure but it is the said experience of the Court that the level and the quality and nature of development is so very minimal and so very poor that there is precious justification for arbitrary deduction of such a high figure. This is an aspect that has perhaps not been focused upon by the Court, but we have taken full cognisance of this and it is in this background that we have effected the deduction of 40% as far as this head is concerned. Having reworked out the figures, we arrive at a sum of Rs. 53,724/- per acre which is rounded off to Rs. 55,000/-.
6. The appeal accordingly succeeds. The order of the Reference Court stands modified insofar as the claimants would be entitled to the revised figure of Rs. 55,000/- per acre apart from the statutory benefits. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant would be entitled to proportionate costs.