Civil No 1345 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
431 WITH WRIT PETITION Civil 111089 86990 74090 110090 19491 19591 26590 32791 33791 33491 33391 33091 32991 32291 43291 42091 43191 57391 18191 31691 38191 39091 23891 68691 68791  16791 RK Garg RKJain Govind Mukhoty Ved Prakash Gupta Suresh Chand Garg Ms Bharti Sharma Rani Chhabra BS Chauhan Gaurav Jain NK Goel DB Vohra Ms Abha Jain Vijay Hansaria AK Tiwari and CK Ratnaparkhi for the Petitioners
Yogeshwar Prasad Mrs SDixit GVRao AVRangam BParthasarthy and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
The liberalization for private sector operations in the Road Transport field under Section 80 and other provisions of The has been challenged in these bunch petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the existing operators primarily on the ground that they have been adversely affected in the exercise of their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India
It is necessary to notice the statutory provisions operating in the field of motor transport business prior to and after the coming into force of The hereinafter called the Act  The hereinafter called the old Act was enacted and en forced with the object of having closer control to establish a coordinated system of transport
The subject of Mechani cally Propelled Vehicles  being in List Ill of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution various amendments were made from time to time by several State Legislatures either adding to or modifying the provisions of the old Act
Chap ter IV of the old Act consisted of sections 42 to 68 provid ing control of transport vehicles
Sections 47 and 57 to the relevant extent are re produced as under 47Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carnage permit 1 A Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the following matters namely a the interest of the public generally b the advantages to the public of the serv ice to be provided 432 including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken c the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future whether by road or other means between the places to be served d the benefit to any particular locali ty or localities likely to be afforded by the service e the operation by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending f the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already pro viding passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognized in this behalf by the State Government or by any local authority or police authority within Whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies     3 A Regional Transport Authority may having regard to the matters mentioned in sub section 1 limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region
Procedure in applying for and granting permits 1 An application for a contract carriage permit or a private carrier s permit may be made at any time
2 An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier s permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect or if the Regional Transport Authori ty appoints dates for the receipt of such applications on such dates
3 On receipt of an application for a stage carnage permit or a public carrier s permit the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish the application or the sub  433 stance thereof in the prescribed manner to gether with a notice of the date before which representation in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from such publication on which and the time and place at which the applica tion and any representations received will be considered Provided that if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application or with modi fications would have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles operating in the re gion or in any area or any route within the region under the class Of permits to which the application relates beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under sub section 3 of Section 47 or sub section 2 of Section 55 as the case may be the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application without following the procedure laid down in this sub section
The old Act was repealed by the Act which came into force on July 1 1989
The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act is re produced as under The 4 of 1939 consolidates and amends law relating to motor vehicleS
This has been amended several times to keep it up to date
The need was however felt that this Act should now inter alia take into account also changes in the road trans port technology pattern of passenger and freight movements development of the road network in the country and particularly the improved techniques in the motor vehicles management
Various Committees like National Transport Policy Committee National Police Commission Road Safety Committee Low Powered Two wheel ers Committee as also the Law Commission have gone into different aspects of road transport
They have recommended updating simplification and rationalisation of this law
Several Members of Parliament have also urged for comprehensive review of the  to make it relevant to the modern day requirements
A Working Group was therefore constitut ed in January 1984 to review all the provi sions of the and to submit draft proposals for a comprehensive legislation to replace the existing Act
This Working Group took into account the suggestion and recommendations earlier made by various bodies and institutions like Central Institute of Road 434 Transport Automotive Research Association of India and other transport organisations including the manufacturers and the general public
Besides obtaining comments of State Governments on the recommendations of the Working Group these were discussed in a specially convened meeting of Transport Minis ters of all States and Union Territories
Some of the more important modifications so sug gested related for taking care of a     b      c the greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances d     e simplification of procedure and policy liberalization for private sector operations in the road transport field and f   
The proposed legislation has been prepared in the light of the above background
Some of the more important provisions of the Bill provide for the following matters namely a to f       g liberalized schemes for grant of stage carriage permits on non nationalized routes all india tourist permits and also national permits for goods carriages h to 1     
Chapter V of the Act substitute for Chapter IV of the old Act consisting of Sections 66 to 96 provides for co ntrol of transport vehicles 
Sections 71 72 and 80 to the relevant extent are reproduced as under 71Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit
1 A Regional Transport Authority shall while considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the objects of this Act Provided that such permit for a route of fifty kilometers or less shall be granted only to an individual or a State transport undertaking
435 2 A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carnage permit if it appears from any time table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time table so as to conform to the said provisions
3a The State Government shall if so directed by the Central Government having regard to the number of vehicles road condi tions and other relevant matters by notifica tion in the Official Gazette direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage car riages generally or of any specified type as may be fixed and specified in the notifica tion operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs    4 A Regional Transport Authority shall not grant more than five stage carriage permits to any individual or more than ten stage carriage permits to any company not being a State transport undertaking
5 In computing the number of permits to be granted under sub section 4 the permits held by an applicant in the name of any other persons and the permits held by any company of which such applicant is a director shall also be taken into account
Grant of stage carriage permits 1 Subject to the provisions of Section 71 a Regional Transport Authority may on an appli cation made to it under Section 70 grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application
Procedure in applying for and granting permits 1 An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time
2 A Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in 436 accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notifi cation in the Official Gazette under clause a of sub section 3 of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause a of sub section 3 of Section 74 Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter
 A comparative reading of the provisions of the Act and the old Act make it clear that the procedure for grant of permits under the Act has been liberalised to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irre spective of the number of operators already in the field
Under Sections 57 read with Section 471 of the old Act an application for a stage carnage permit was to be published and kept for inspection in the office of the Regional Trans port Authority so that the existing operators could file representationsobjections against the said application
The application along with objections was required to be decided in a quasi judicial manner Section 473 of the old Act further permitted the imposition of limit on the grant of permits in any region area or on a particular route
It is thus obvious that the main features of Chapter IV con trol of transport vehicles under old Act were as under 1
The applications for grant of permits were published and were made available in the office of the Regional Transport Authority so that the existing operators could file repre sentations 2
The applications for grant of permits along with the representations were to be decided in quasi judicial manner and 3
The Regional Transport Authority was to decide the applications for grant of permits keeping in view the criteria laid down in section 471 and also keeping in view the limit fixed under Section 473 of the Act
An application for grant of permit beyond the limited number fixed under Section 473 was to be rejected summarily
The Parliament in its wisdom has completely effaced the above features
The scheme envisaged under Section 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act
The right of existing 437 operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away
There is no similar provision to that of Section 47 and Section 57 under the Act
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalize the grant of permits
Section 711 of the Act provides that while considering an application for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the objects of the Act
Section 802 which is the harbinger of Liberalisation provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act
There is no provision under the Act like that of Section 473 of the old Act and as such no limit for the grant of permits can be fixed under the Act
There is however a provision under Section 713 a of the Act under which a limit can be fixed for the grant of permits in respect of the routes which are within a town having popula tion of more than five lakhs
The petitioners are existing stage carnage operators on different routes
They hold permits granted by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned
Mithlesh Garg petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No 134589 has stated that he holds a stage carnage permit and plies his vehicles on the Meerut Parikshitgarh Hasifabad Laliana and allied routes under the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut
According to him prior to the enforcement of the Act 23 permit holders were operating on the said route but thereafter under Section 80 of the Act the Regional Trans port Authority Meerut has issued 272 more permits in re spect of the same route
Similar facts have been stated in the other writ petitions
As mentioned above the petitioners are permit holders and are existing operators
They are plying their vehicles on the routes assigned to them under the permits
They are in the full enjoyment of their funda mental right guaranteed to them under Article 191g of the Constitution of India
There is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority to the enjoyment of their right to carry on the occupation of transport operators
There is no complaint of infringement of any of their statu tory rights
Their only effort is to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors
We see no justifi cation in the petitioners  stand
More operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system
Over crowded buses passengers standing in the aisle persons clinging to the bus doors and even sitting on the roof top are some of the common sights in this country
More often one finds a bus which has noisy engine old upholstry uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of black smoke from the exhaust pipe
It is therefore necessary that there should be plenty of operators on every route to pro vide ample choice to the commuter public to board the vehi cle of their choice and patronize the operator who is 438 providing the best service
Even otherwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits
Re stricted licensing under the old Act led to the concentra tion of business in the hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monopoly adversely affecting the public interest
The apprehensions of the petitioners that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession is without any basis
The transport business is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply
Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge invest ment
The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the economics underlying the profession
Only such number of vehicles would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable
In any case the transport system in a state is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public
The policy to grant permits Liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal
The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy compe tition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade
This Court in Jasbhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar  Ors  posed the following questions for its determina tion Whether the proprietor of a cinema theater holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a No Objection Certificate  granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules 1954 for short the Rules by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave
 Sarkaria J speaking for the Court an swered the question in the following words In the light of the above discussion it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right
He has not sustained injury to any legally pro tected interest
In fact the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something
He has not been subjected to a legal wrong
He has suffered no legal griev ance
He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on
While a Procrustean approach should be avoided as a rule the Court should not interfere at 439 the instance of stranger  unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests
Assuming that the appellant is a stranger  and not a busybody then also there are no exceptional circum stances in the present case which would justi fy the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance
On the contrary the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers in his favour will on balance be against public policy
It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality it will tend to prepetuate the appellant s monopoly of cinema business in the town and above all it will in effect seriously injure the fundamental rights of respondents 1  2 which they have under Article 191 g of the Constitution to carry on trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions  imposed by law
The instant case fails well nigh within the ratio of the this Court s decision in Rice and Flour Mills vs NT Gowda wherein it was held that a rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 the setting up of a new rice mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of section 83 c of the Rice Milling Industry Regulation Act 1958 because no right vested in such an appli cant is infringed
For all the foregoing reasons we are of opinion that the appellant had no locus standi to invoke this special jurisdiction under article 226 of the Consti tution
Accordingly we answer the question posed at the commencement of this judgment in the negative
 We therefore see on justification for the petitioners to complain against the liberalised policy for grant of permits under the Act
Article 191g of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business subject to rea sonable restrictions imposed by the State under Article 196 of the Constitution of India
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Saghir Ahmad vs The State of UP and Others  held that the fundamental right under Article 191g entitles any member of the public to carry on the business of transporting passengers with the aid of the vehicles
Mukerjea J speaking for the Court observed as under Within the limits imposed by State regula tions any member of the public can ply motor vehicles on a public road
To that extent he can also carry on the business of transporting passen 440 gers with the aid of the vehicles
It is to this carrying on of the trade or business that the guarantee in article 191g is attracted and a citizen can legitimately complain if any legislation takes away or curtails that right any more than is permissible under clause 6 of that article
 It is thus a guaranteed fight of every citizen whether rich or poor to take up and carry on if he so wishes the motor transport business
It is only the State which can impose reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 196 of the Constitution of India
Section 473 and 57 of the old Act were some of the restrictions which were imposed by the State on the enjoyment of the fight under Article 191g so far as the motor transport business was concerned
The said restrictions have been taken away and the provisions of Section 473 and 57 of the old Act have been repealed from the Statute Book
The Act provides liberal policy for the grant of permits to those who intend to enter the motor transport business
The provisions of the Act are in con formity with Article 191g of the Constitution of India
The petitioners are asking this Court to do what the Parlia ment has undone
When the State has chosen not to impose any restriction under Article 196 of the Constitution of india in respect of motor transport business and has left the citizens to enjoy their right under Article 191g there can be no cause for complaint by the petitioners
On an earlier occasion this Court dealt with somewhat similar situation
The Uttar Pradesh Government amended the old Act by the Motor Vehicle UP Amendment Act 1972 and inserted Section 43A
The new Section 43 A apart from making certain changes in Section 47 of the old A Act also omitted sub section 3 of Section 47 of the old Act Section 43A provided that in the case of non nationalised routes if the State Government was of the opinion that it was for the public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants it might by notification in the official gazette issue a direction accordingly
The necessary notification was issued with the result that the transport authorities were to proceed to grant permits as if sub section 3 of section 47 was omitted and there was no limit for the grant of permits on any specified route within the region
Section 43 A and the consequent notification was challenged by the existing operators before the Allahabad High Court
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions
On appeal this Court in Hans Raj Kehar  Ors
vs The State of UP and Ors  dismissed the appeal
Khanna Jspeaking for the Court held as under It hardly need much argument to show that the larger number of buses operating on different routes would be for the conven 441 ience and benefit of the travelling public and as such would be in the public interest
Any measure which results in larger number of buses operating on various routes would neces sarily eliminate or in any case minimise long hours of waiting at the bus stands
It would also relieve congestion and provide for quick and prompt transport service
Good transport service is one of the basic requirements of a progressive society
Prompt and quick trans port service being a great boon for those who travel any measure which provides for such an amenity is in the very nature of things in the public interest   
The conten tion that the impugned notification is viola tive of the rights of the appellants under article 191f or g of the Constitutionis equally devoid of force
There is nothing in the notification which prevents the appel lants from acquiring holding and disposing of their property or prevents them from practis ing any profession or from carrying on any occupation trade or business
The fact that some others have also been enabled to obtain permits for running buses cannot constitute a violation of the appellants  rights under the above two clauses of article 19 of the Consti tution
The above provisions are not intended to grant a kind of monopoly to a few bus operators to the exclusion of other eligible persons
No right is guaranteed to any private party by article 19 of the Constitution of carrying on trade and business without compe tition from other eligible persons
Clause g of article 191 gives a right to all citizens subject to article 196 to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business
It is an enabling provision and does not confer a right on those already practising a profession or carrying on any occupation trade or business to exclude and debar fresh eligible entrants from practising that profession or from carrying on that occupation trade or business
The said provi sion is not intended to make any profession business or trade the exclusive preserve of a few persons
We therefore find no valid basis for holding that the impugned provisions are violative of article 19
The identical situation has been created by Sections 71 72 and 80 of the Act by omitting the provisions of Section 473 of the old Act
It has been made easier for any person to obtain a stage carriage permit under the Act
The attack of the petitioner on Section 80 on the ground of Article 19 has squarely been answered by this Court in Hans Raj Kehar s case supra
It has been contended in the writ petitions that differ ent yard sticks have been provided for interregion intra region and inter State permits 442 under the Act
According to the petitioners the imposition of limit for grant of inter State permits is permissible under Section 885 of the Act whereas no such limit can be imposed in respect of intra region permits
The contention is that the provisions are discriminatory and are violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India
We are not impressed by the argument
The three categories of permit seekers cannot be considered to be belonging to the same class
Different criteria have been provided under the Act for granting permits in respect of each of the categories
It is nobody s case that Section 80 brings about discrimina tion in the matter of grant of permits between applicants belonging to the same class
The argument on the ground of Article 14 is thus wholly untenable and is rejected
This question also came for consideration in Hans Raj Kehar s case supra and this Court rejected the contention in the following words Argument has also been advanced that the deletion of Section 473 would have the effect of removing the limit on the number of permits for intra region routes but that fact would not prevent the imposition of a limit for the number of permits for inter region routes
This argument has been advanced in the context of the case of the appellants that the impugned provisions discriminate in the matter of issue of permits for intraregion routes and those for inter region routes and as such are violative of article 14 of the Constitution
We are not impressed by this argument for we find no valid basis for the inference that if there is no limit on the number _of permits for intra region routeslimit on the number of permits for interregional routes would  have to be imposed
The object of the impugned notification is to liberalise the issue of permits and we fail to see as to how such a liberal measure can have the effect of intro ducing strictness or stringency in the matter of grant of permits for inter region routes
Assuming that a different rule is applicable in the matter of inter region routes the differentiation is based upon reasonable classification
It is nobody s case that the impugned provision brings about discrimination in the matter of grant of permits between applicants belonging to the same class
The argument about the impugned provision being violative of article 14 is wholly trotenable The learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied upon a later decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad  Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Ors 1983 2 SCC 195 and have contended that the decision of this Court in Hans Raj Kehars case supra no longer holds the 443 field
There is no force in the contention
This Court on two occasions interpreted the old Act as amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh at the relevant times
The provisions of law which were interpreted in Hans Raj Kehar s case were entirely different than those which were before this Court in Rameshwar Prasad s ease
The legal position with which we are faced in these writ petitions is almost similar to that which was considered by this Court in Hans Raj Kehar s case
What happened in the State of Uttar Pradesh was that after the UP Amendment of 1972 to the old Act which was subject matter of interpretation before this Court in Hans Raj Kehars ease it was found that certain anomalies had arisean in the working of the liberal policy of granting permits
With a view to remedy the situation the UP Legislature amended the old Act again by the UP Act 15 of 1976 permit ting imposition of limit on the number of permits to be issued
In spite of the restrictions on grant of permits as provided in the UP Act 15 of 1976 the State Government issued notifications permitting grant of permits to all eligible applicants without any upper limit
This Court held in Ratneshwar Prasad s ease that the said notifications were inconsistent with the limitation as to the number of permits introduced by the UP Amending Act 1976 and as such were bad in law
Venkataramiah J as he then was speaking for the Court in Rameshwar Prasad s ease observed as under We may here state that any observations made in Hans Raj Kehar case would be inapplicable so far as these cases presently before us are concerned
In that case the court was con cerned with sub section 2 of Section 43 A of the Act as it stood then which was a provision enacted by the legislature
That sub section provided that without prejudice to the gener ality of the power contained in Section 43 A1 of the Act where the State Government was of opinion that it was in public interest to grant stage carriage permits except in re spect of routes or areas for which schemes have been published under Section 68 C or contract carriage permits or public carrier permits to all eligible applicants it may issue appropriate directions as stated there in
That sub section contained a clear legis lative policy which considered that there could be no public prejudice if all eligible applicants were granted permits
Without saying anything more on the point it may be slated that whatever this court may have observed while considering that provision would not apply now as there is a clear depar ture made by the legislature from that policy when it enacted the new sub section 2 of Section 43 A It is thus obvious that the reliance by the petitioners on the ratio and observations of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad s case is wholly mis 444 placed
The Parliament has under the Act made a clear departure from the policy and has reverted to the position which was before this Court in Hans Raj Kehar s case
Relying on Rameshwar Prasad s case the petitioners contend that it is in public interest  to limit the grant of permits on intra region routes and while fixing the limit various factors indicated by this Court in the said case are to be taken into consideration
We do not agree
The concept of public interest in relation to motor transport business as propounded by this Court in Rameshwar Prasad s case was only in the context of the old Act as amended by the UP Act
We are of the view that the Act having brought in complete change in the policy of granting permits the observations of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad s case are not relevant in the present context
The provisions of law for consideration before this Court in Hans Raj Kehar s case were almost similar to Section 80 of the Act
We are there fore bound by the law laid down by the four Judges Bench of this Court in Hans Raj Kehar s case
The petitioners have further contended that the condi tions of roads social status of the applicants possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators condi tions of hilly routes fuel availability and pollution control are some of the important factors which the Regional Transport Authority is bound to take into consideration while taking a decision on an application for grant of permit
These are the matters which are supposed to be within the comprehension of the transport authorities
The legislative policy under the Act cannot be challenged on these grounds
It is not disputed that the Regional Trans port Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons
It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasi judicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits
The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy
We therefore see no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners and as such we dismiss the writ petitions
The parties are left to bear their own costs
GN Petitions dis missed


Summary:
Certain plots of land of the appellant were acquired by notifications dated 1211978 2771978 and 1461979 issued under s41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
The Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 1061982 fixed the market value at Rs 42000 per acre with 5 per cent deduction towards development cost
In appellant s appeal the Civil Court fixed the market value at Rs200 per sq yard with a deduction of 5 per cent towards the development charges
On the appeal by the land acquisition officer the High Court reassessed the entire evidence and fixed the market value at Rs3 lakh per acre holding that if a deduction of 20 per cent was allowed the market value would come to Rs240000 per acre which worked out at Rs50 per sqyard and accordingly set aside the judgment and decree and determined the market value at Rs50 per sqyard
Dismissing the appeals of the appellant claimant this Court HELD 1
In fixing the compensation the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction but kept in view the market value of the land at the time of the notification under s41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
p 377 F 2
There was clear material and the High Court accepted it that price went up in the area after 1980
The notifica tions were within a range of a year or two from that time
Therefore the valuation after 1980 was not the guideline
 p 377 F G 376 3
In the instant case the Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent
The referee Court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one third put it at one fifth
The High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction
The appropriate market value fixed by the High Court per sq
yard was Rs 50 and if a 20 per cent deduction from out of Rs3 lakhs per acre was accepted it worked that way
The finding of the High Court need not be disturbed
p 377 E G