MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Anr.

Judgment

[2014] 10 S.C.R. 1153 MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2545-2546/2012) OCTOBER 17, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Acquisition of land - Market Value - Determination of - Held: Market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of C comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. 0 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Acquisition of land - Market Value - Determination of - Comparable sales method for valuation of land - Held: Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred rather than methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or experl opinion method, because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at E which the willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issuance of notification u/s.

#4. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Determination of F Market Value on the basis of average price paid under sale transactions - Scope - Legal position - Discussed - Held: Where the lands acquired are of different type and different locations, averaging is not permissible - But where there are several sales of similar lands, more or less, at the same time, G whose prices have marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible - For fixation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded - If the number of 1153 H 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A sale deeds of the same locality and the same period with short intervals are available, average price of the available number of sale deeds shall be considered as a fair and reasonable market price - Ultimately, it is in the interest of justice for the land losers to be awarded fair compensation - B All attempts should be taken to award fair compensation to the extent possible on the basis of their accessibility to different kinds of roads, locational advantages etc. - On facts, the four perpetual lease deeds A-7 to A-10 relied upon by the appellants were of the same locality and related to the period c just prior to s.4(1) notification - High Court justified in taking average of the said four exemplars and approach adopted by the High Court in averaging the sale prices of Exs A 7 to A 10 cannot be said to be perverse.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Determination of D Market Value - Gap between "leasehold" price and "freehold" price - To be taken into consideration -Held: 'Freehold land' and 'leasehold land' are conceptually different - If a property subject to a lease and in possession of a lessee is offered for sale by the owner to a prospective private purchaser, the E purchaser being aware that on purchase he will get only title and not possession and that the sale in his favour will be subject to encumbrance namely, the lease, he will offer a price taking note of th'e encumbrances - Naturally, such a price would be Jess than the price of a property without any F encumbrance - But wtien a land is acquired free from encumbrances, the market value of the same will certainly be higher - On facts, Exs A 7 to A 10 were the perpetual lease deeds relating to the period from September 1995 to December 1996 and to get the perpetual lease deeds G converted as freehold, the holder of perpetual leasehold had to pay further amount to DOA - Having regard to the pen"od of Exs A 7 to A 10 and the date of issuance of s.4 notification dated 19.2.1997, addition of 20% to be added for arriving at the value of 'freehold' property.

H MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & ORS. v. UNION OF 1155 INDIA & ANR. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Determination of A Market Value - Auction sales of commercial I residential plots - If a true index - Deduction towards competitive bidding - Held: The general rule that the sale prices of the comparable sales should be relied upon for calculating the market value will not apply when the sale transactions relied s upon are auction sales - On facts, 20% deduction made for competitive bidding and value of acquired land fixed accordingly. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Determination of C Market Value - Deductions made for development - Essential components of - Held: Deduction towards development depends upon the nature and location of the acquired land - The deduction includes components of land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewage, electricity, parks and other common facilities and also D deduction towards development charges like laying of roads, construction of sewerage - Rule of one third deduction towards development appears to be the general rule - But so far as Delhi Development Authority is concerned, or similar statutory authorities, where well planned layouts are put in E place, larger land area may be utilized for forming layout, roads, parks and other common amenities - In the instant case, having regard to the extent of the land acquired and the development in and around Vasant Kunj area, it is appropriate to make 35% deduction towards utilization of the F land area in the layout for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities - So far as the expenditure for development of the large extent of land into a developed area by construction of proper roads, underground drainage, sewerage and erection of electricity lines, it is appropriate to G make further deduction of 25% towards development charges.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 28 and 34 - Award of compensation - Payment of interest - Held: Normally, Court awards interest if it enhances compensation in excess of the H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A amount awarded by the Collector, unless there are exceptional circumstances - Award of interest uls.34 is mandatory inasmuch the word used in the Section is 'shall' - Interest payable u/s.34 is statutory- Claim for interest u/s.28 proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having B been paid, the claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced compensation amount - Award of interest uls.28 is discretionary power vested in the Court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily - Use of the word "may" in s.28 does not confer any arbitrary discretion c on the Court to disallow interest for no valid or proper reasons - Both in terms of s.34 and s.28, interest at 9% per annum is payable for the first year of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter, if the amount of compensation was not paid or deposited within a period of one year or deposited thereafter.

D · Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.27 - Award of compensation - Payment of proportionate costs - Held: The language of s.27(1) is clear and very wide and it gives power to the courts to order costs to be paid by what persons and in E what proportions they are to be paid - In making order for costs uls.27(1), the court may have regard to the provisions of s.35 CPC -Ordinarily, when a litigant succeeds in part and fails in part, the equitable order made is that he should receive proportionate costs. F Kunhayammed and Ors. vs. State of Kera/a and Anr. c2000) 6 sec 359: 2000 (1) Suppl. scR 538 s. Gangadhara Palo vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602: 2011 (3) SCR 7 46; \liluben Jhalejar G Contractor vs.

State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789: 2005 (3) SCR 542 Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Ors. vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 164: 2009 (6) SCR 250; M. Vijaya/akshmamma Rao Bahadur vs. Collector (1969) 1 MLJ SC 45; State of Punjab - H and Anr. vs. Hans Raj (D) by Lrs. And Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 734; MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & ORS. v. UNION OF 1157 INDIA & ANR. Anjani Mo/u Dessai vs. State of Goa And Anr. (2010) 13 SCC A 710: 2010 (14) SCR 997; M.B. Gopa/a Krishna & Ors. vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1996) 3 SCC 594: 1996 (2) SCR 248; Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag And Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 246: 2011 (1) SCR 600; Raj Kumar And Ors.

B vs. Haryana State And Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 609: 2007 (9) SCR 455; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board And Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar And Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mui/a (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (2012) 7 c SCC 595; Special Tehsildar,. L.A. Vishakapatnam vs. Smt.A. Mangala Gowri (1991) 4 SCC 218: 1991 (2) SCR 472; Gu/zara Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 245: 1991 (2) SCR 472; Santosh Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 631: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 315; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO vs. Shaik Azam Saheb D etc. (2009) 4 SCC 395: 2009 (1) SCR 289; A.P. Housing Board vs. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707: 2010 (11) SCR 1107; Ashrafi & Ors. vs.

State of Haryana & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 527: 2013 (6) SCR 148; Kashmir Singh vs. State of E Haryana & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 165; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Deputy Director Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidua And Ors. AIR 2007 SC 740: 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 885; Mummidi Apparao (Dead by LR) vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506; F Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769: 2009 (13) SCR 622; Basavva (Smt.) And Ors. vs. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer And Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 640: 1996 (3) SCR 500 ; Kanta Devi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana And Anr. (2008) 15 SCC 201: 2008 (10) SCR 367; Subh Ram & Ors. G vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

(2010) 1 SCC 444: 2009 (15) SCR 287; Chandrasekhar (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. LAO & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 390: 2011 (15) SCR414; Lal Chand vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769: 2009 (13) H 1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.