IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 31.08.2010 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Appeal Suit Nos.608 to 630 of 2010, 632 to 636 of 2010, 638 to 662 of 2010 and 664 to 686 of 2010 and connected MPs A.S.No.608 of 2010:- The Special Tahsildar(LA) SIPCOT Unit Sriperumbudur .. Appellant in all As -vs- P.Ranganathan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.608/10 Kandeepan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.609/10 Mani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.610/10 Krishnan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.611/10 Padmavathy ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.612/10 Arumugam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.613/10 Emarose ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.614/10 Andal Ammal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.615/10 Baskaran ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.616/10 N. Devendiran ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.617/10 P. Renganathan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.618/10 1.. Thirugnanasambamoorthy 2.Velayutham 3. Bala undaram 4. Palani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.619/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kamalakannan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.620/10 Vaduvambal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.621/10 Baskaran ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.622/10 N. Anandhan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.623/10 A. Cyril Jospeh ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.624/10 Dhanabakkiam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.625/10 1. M.S. Mani 2. M. Rajeswari ...1st& 2nd Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.626/10 V. Periyasamy (deceased) 1. Valliammal 2. Minor Jeevarathinam 3. Minor Harikrishnan 4. Minor Mohana ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.627/10 K. Kuppan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.628/10 Devadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.629/10 D. Kubendiran ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.630/10 Irusammal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.632/10 Krishnan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.633/10 G. Radha ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.634/10 G. Revathy ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.635/10 P. Suryaprakash ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.636/10 R. Venkatesan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.638/10 Cyril Joseph ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.639/10 Kistappa Naicker ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.640/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Mariammal 2.Sarojammal 3. Annammal ...Respondents 1 to 3/ Claimant in A.S.641/10 V. Rajan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.642/10 Dhanapakkiam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.643/10 Sampoornaammal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.644/10 Bakthavatchalam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.645/10 Vadivambal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.646/10 Kishappa Naicker ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.647/10 1. Tmt. Valliammal 2. Minor Jeevarathinam 3. Minor Harikrishnan 4. Minor Mohana ...1to 4th Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.648/10 V.S. Subramani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.649/10 Ramadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.650/10 V. Ramakrishnan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.651/10 P. Selvaratinam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.652/10 S. Murugan ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.653/10 Cyril Joseph (G.P.A) ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.654, 655/10 Arumugam ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.656/10 V. Dhandapani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.657/10 Rakkammal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.658/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Devadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.659/10 Leo.J. Periah ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.660/10 A. Rajivi ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.661/10 Cyril Joseph (G.P.A) ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.662/10 E. Sivakumar ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.664/10 Devadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.665/10 P. Sooriya Prakash ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.666/10 N. Dhatchayani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.667/10 Perumal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.668/10 Pottiammal ...1stRespondent/ Claimant in A.S.669 & 670/10 Cyril Joseph (G.P.Holder) ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.671/10 Cyril Joseph ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.672/10 V. Dhandapani ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.673 & 674/10 Kistappa Naicker ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.675/10 Cyril Joseph (G.P.A) ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.676, 679 & 680/10 Padma ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.677/10 Cyril Joseph (G.P.H) ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.678, 679, & 680/10 Cyril Joseph ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.681/10 Devadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.682/10 Nagammal ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.683, 684/10 R. Govindadoss ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.685/10 A. Cyril Joseph ...1st Respondent/ Claimant in A.S.686/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Chairman/Managing Director SIPCOT 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road Egmore, Chennai-8 ..2nd Respondent in A.S. 608/10 to 618 & 620 to 625, 628 to 630/10, 632 to 636, 638 to 640, 642 to 647, 649 to 662, 664 to 686/10 and 3rd respondent in A.S.626/10, 4th respondent in A.S.641/10 and 5th respondent in A.S.619, 627, 648/10 Prayer Appeal suit filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-V, Chengalpet at Thiruvallur in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 2003, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 213, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 284, 424, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1581, 1582,/03, 168, 169, 170, 197, 201, 208, 203, 204, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 977/04, 21, 25, 26, 27,/05 211/04, 258/05, 282/04, 283/04, 538, 624, 625, 632, 958/04, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 60, 67, 194, 199, 203, 259, 260, 262, 285/05 290/05 dated 19.11.2007. For Appellant in all AS : Mr.V.Ravi Special Govt.Pleader(AS) For respondents : for R2 in AS.608 to 626/2010, AS.628 to 647/2010 and AS.654 to 686/2010 : Mr.M.Devaraj for SIPCOT for R1 in AS.608 to 625/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand for R1 in AS 626 and 628 to to 636/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R1 to R4 in AS.627/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R5 in AS.627/2010 : Mr.M.Devaraj, SIPCOT for R1 in AS.638 to 647/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand for R1 to R4 in AS.648 to 653/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for R5 in A.S.648 to 653/2010 : Mr.M.Devaraj, SIPCOT for R1 in AS.654 to 658/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand for R1 in AS.659/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R1 in A.S.660/2010 to AS.662/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand for R1 in A.S.664 to 667/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R1 in As.668 to 681/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand for R1 in AS.682 to 684/2010 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R1 in AS.685 to 686/2010 : Mr.A.S.Vijayanand COMMON JUDGMENT Heard Mr.V.Ravi, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS), Mr.M.Devaraj, learned Standing counsel for SIPCOT, the requisitioning authority, Mr.G.Karthikeyan and Mr.A.S.Vijayanand, learned counsel for the claimants/land owners. 2. These 76 appeals arose out of a common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court V, Thiruvallur in various LAOP.Numbers dated 19.11.2007. The following table would show the Appeal Suit numbers, corresponding LAOP numbers and the claimant connected with the said LAOP. Sl.No A.S.No. L.A.O.P.No. Name of the claimant 1 608/2010 19/2003 P.Ranganathan 2 609/2010 20/2003 Kandeepan 3 610/2010 21/2003 Mani 4 611/2010 22/2003 Krishnan 5 612/2010 23/2003 Padmavathy 6 613/2010 24/2003 Arumugham 7 614/2010 25/2003 Emarose 8 615/2010 26/2003 Andalammal 9 616/2010 27/2003 Baskaran 10 617/2010 213/2003 Devendran 11 618/2010 276/2003 Ranganathan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12 619/2010 277/2003 Thirugnana Sambanda Moorthy, Velayutham, Balasundaram, Palani 13 620/2010 278/2003 Kamalakannan 14 621/2010 280/2003 Vaduvambal Sl.No A.S.No. L.A.O.P.No. Name of the claimant 15 622/2010 281/2003 Baskaran 16 623/2010 282/2003 N.Anandhan 17 624/2010 284/2003 A.Cyril Joseph 18 625/2010 424/2003 Dhanabakkiam 19 626/2010 1579/2003 Kuppammal 20 627/2010 1581/2003 R.Venkatesan 21 628/2010 1582/2003 Cyril Joseph 22 629/2010 168/2004 Kristappa Naicker 23 630/2010 169/2004 Mariammal, Sarojammal, Annammal 24 632/2010 197/2004 Dhanabakkiyam 25 633/2010 201/2004 Sampoornammal 26 634/2010 203/2004 Vaduvambal 27 635/2010 204/2004 Kistappa Naicker 28 636/2010 208/2004 Bakthavatchalam 29 638/2010 282/2004 Leo.J.Periah 30 639/2010 283/2004 A.Rajini 31 640/2010 538/2004 Cyril Joseph 32 641/2010 549/2004 Cyril Joseph 33 642/2010 21/2005 Cyril Joseph 34 643/2010 25/2005 Cyril Joseph 35 644/2010 26/2005 Arumugam 36 645/2010 27/2005 Dhandapani 37 646/2010 29/2005 Perumal 38 647/2010 30/2005 Pottiammal 39 648/2010 32/2005 Pottiammal 40 649/2010 33/2005 Cyril Joseph 41 650/2010 35/2005 Cyril Joseph 42 651/2010 36/2005 V.Dhandapani 43 652/2010 37/2005 V.Dhandapani 44 653/2010 38/2005 Kistappa Naicker 45 654/2010 41/2005 Cyril Joseph 46 655/2010 60/2005 Padma 47 656/2010 67/2005 Cyril Joseph 48 657/2010 194/2005 A.Cyril Joseph 49 658/2010 199/2005 A.Cyril Joseph 50 659/2010 203/2005 A.Cyril Joseph 51 660/2010 285/2005 R.Govindhadoss 52 661/2010 290/2005 A.Cyril Joseph https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 53 662/2010 1162/2003 M.S.Mani, M.Rajeswari Sl.No A.S.No. L.A.O.P.No. Name of the claimant 54 664/2010 1164/2003 K.Kuppan 55 665/2010 1165/2003 Devadoss 56 666/2010 1166/2003 D.Bubendiran 57 667/2010 1167/2003 K.Kuppan 58 668/2010 1168/2003 Irusammal 59 669/2010 1169/2003 Krishnan 60 670/2010 1170/2003 G.Radha 61 671/2010 1171/2003 G.Revathy 62 672/2010 1172/2003 Suryaprakash 63 673/2010 624/2004 Sivakumar 64 674/2010 625/2004 Devadoss 65 675/2010 632/2004 Surya Prakash 66 676/2010 958/2004 N.Dhatchayani 67 677/2010 959/2004 1.V.Periyasamy (died) 2.Valliamma 3.Minor Jeevarathinam, 4. Minor Harikrishnan 5. Minor Mohana (Minors 3 to 5 represented by the 2nd claimant) 68 678/2010 960/2004 V.S.Subramani 69 679/2010 961/2004 Ramadoss 70 680/2010 962/2004 V.Ramakrishnan 71 681/2010 963/2004 P.Selvarathinam 72 682/2010 977/2004 S.Murugan 73 683/2010 258/2004 Devadoss 74 684/2010 259/2005 Devadoss 75 685/2010 260/2005 Nagammal 76 686/2010 262/2005 Nagammal 3. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), a Tamil Nadu Government owned Corporation and at the request of the State Government, large scale lands were acquired in various villages in and around Sriperumbudur Taluk. In the present batch of Appeal Suits, the lands were acquired in Sirumangadu No.154 in Block Numbers 9 and 10. The proposal sent by the SIPCOT and accepted by the Government is set out in the award proceedings are as follows:- “The Government considered the proposal of SIPCOT with several multi national companies, Non-Resident Indians and local entrepreneurs evincing keen interest in Tamil Nadu especially near Chennai accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries (MID- II) Department Date 24.02.1997 for the acquisition of patta lands measuring 935.52.0 Hectares covering the above nine villages, invoking the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pursuant to the Government orders the SIPCOT requisitioning body has furnished the required requisition to District Collector, Kancheepuram District. The Government have also sanctioned special staff for attending the Land Acquisition work vide G.O.Ms.No.121 Industries (MID-II) Department dated 06.05.1997.” 4. Pursuant to the said proposal, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) on various dates starting from 05.06.1998. The State Government exercising the emergency clause dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act by invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, a draft declaration was issued on 29.07.1999. Finally, awards came to be passed in Award No.4/2000 dated 08.05.2000, 5/2000 dated 31.08.2000, 7/2001 dated 27.09.2001 and 8/2000 dated 05.03.2001. The possession of the lands were taken over from the land owners from 10.12.1999 onwards. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.227/- per cent. The aggrieved land owners objected to the low rate of compensation. Consequently, reference were made for the determination of market value by the jurisdictional reference court. In respect of the very same village, the acquisition covered by L.A.O.P.1156/2008 to 1172/2008 were sent for determination of the market value to Sub Court, Kancheepuram. The LAOPs covered by these cases were initially referred to the Sub- Court, Thiruvallur and under the orders of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, these cases were transferred from Sub-Court, Thiruvallur to the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court V, Thiruvallur. The LAOPs were grouped together and common evidence was let in in LAOP.No.19/2003. 5. Before the reference court, on behalf of the claimants, K.Ranganathan, claimant in L.A.O.P.No.19/2003 was examined as C.W.1 and on the side of the claimants, 6 documents were filed and marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6. On the side of the acquiring authority, the topo-map of the village was marked as Ex.R.1 and two witnesses were examined viz., Tmt.Varalakshmi, the then Special Tahsildar SIPCOT as R.W.1 and Mr.Sridhar, Manager SIPCOT as R.W.2. 6. The reference court on an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the market rate fixed by the acquiring authority was on the lower side and therefore, had arrived at the market value at the rate of Rs.5,250/- per cent and after giving deduction of 25%, it fixed the market rate of Rs.3,938/- and in order to round off the said figure, it was further reduced to Rs.3,900/-. The said amount was directed to be paid together with Solatium, additional compensation and interest to which, the claimants are entitled to. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Though this determination of market value has taken place as early as 19.11.2007, the Appeal suits were came to be filed defectively and subsequent to the orders of this Court, those Appeal Suits were directed to be numbered and grouped together. 8. The acquiring authority, while determining the market rate of compensation considered the various sale transactions that took place in that area for a period of three years before Section 4(1) notification, however, number of sale transactions were rejected on the ground that either they were wet lands or wet and dry lands combined together or poramboke land ; in some cases, either they were covered by sale by mortgage or sale by agreement. Even in respect of the dry and Manavari lands, those sale deeds were discarded. Finally in respect of 198 sale transactions, regarding dry lands, they were rejected on the ground that they are different tharam and assessment. Finally, the data land was taken into account, which was found in the statistical data viz., item no.17 to the extent of 5.04 acres in Survey No.136/2 and it was found that the said land was sold for a sum of Rs.1,76,4000/- vide Document No.652 dated 13.02.1997. The said data was recommended for determination to the Commissioner of Land Administration for fixing the market value in respect of all the lands covered by the acquisition and the following passage found in the award proceedings can be usefully extracted as follows:- ”Data Land sales:- In item No.17 an extent of 5.04 acres in Survey No.136/2 has been sold for Rs.1,76,400/- vide document 652 dated 13.02.1997 has been recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for fixing the market value. But the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration vide in his proceedings Rc.Z1/17112/99 dated 03.11.2000 to fix the market value for Rs.227/- per cent or Rs.560.69 per Are in item No.18 of the sale statistics an extent of 0.44 cents in Survey No.10/1B1 has been sold for Rs.10,000/- in Document No.789 dated 19.02.1997. This sale is one of the lands under Acquisition. All the lands inclusive of this are barren and looks like mamool wate lands with velikathan bushes scatteredly. All the lands are similar one to each other not only on ground but also in records. This is reasonable sale and reflecting the real market value. Hence this sale is taken up as “Data” Land for fixation of market value of the lands covered in this award.” 9. As opposed to the document relied on by the acquiring authority, the claimants filed three exhibits viz., Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.6, which had come into existence admittedly before Section 4 (1) notification. In the oral evidence given by C.W.1 on behalf of the claimant, he has stated that up to 1992-1993, agriculture was carried on in that village, from 1995 onwards, various lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the village were put on lay out scheme and sold as house sites. Most of the land owners are having some extent of land and the village is situated closer to the Chennai-Bangalore National Highway No.4 ; on the western side in the Mambakkam village, lands were also acquired ; likewise on both sides of the Highways, lands were acquired including in Thirumangalam village. Speaking about the data land relied on by the authorities, S.No.136 and 10/1, C.W.1 in his evidence stated that he has visited that land and it is a deep pit even before 1993, soil was taken from that land and even now, it was only a deep pit and if such lands are sold, they will reduced to price since neither agriculture can be carried on nor it can be sold as house sites. With reference to the land acquired, it is having red soil and the soil tharam and quality are similar. In respect of Survey Nos.146 to 149, 156, 161 to 163, 166, 167, 171 and 178, they were all having lay out approval and in respect of Survey Numbers 135, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160, they are also covered by approved lay outs. When C.W.1 wanted to file a lay out approval, the filing of the document was opposed by the acquiring authority. Speaking about Ex.C.4, witness said C.1 relates to Survey No.365/4, wherein, on 14.07.1997, a cent of land was sold out for Rs.8,216/- , likewise, Ex.C.5, which was sold on 21.04.1997 in Survey No.155, a cent of land was sold at Rs.7,675/-. In Ex.C.6, it was sold at Rs.5,520/- per cent. The witness also said that earlier, lands were also sold to Saint Gobain Glass Factory and the same is working in that area ; Ashok Leyland also intended to purchase 300 acres as a single lot. When a suggestion was put to him in cross examination that lands in Mambakkam, the market rate was fixed by the reference court at Rs.4,000/- per cent, he claimed ignorance. 10. The acquiring authority viz., Varalakshmi, the then Special Tahsildar in her cross examination stated that in the sale consideration, 490 sale deeds were relating to sale of house sites and that with reference to the data land, she was not aware whether they were un-fit for agriculture or for selling it as house site. She agreed that the land in that village were sold as house sites, whereas, they did not calculate the market rate on the basis as house site and in normal circumstances, the acquiring authority did not calculate the lands on the basis of house sites. She also stated that while Survey No.155 is found in the centre of acquired land, Survey No.365, 366 did not come within the acquired lands. 11. On behalf of the requisitioning authority, the Manager SIPCOT in his cross examination feigned ignorance about the fact that 95% of the villages were sold as house sites, whereas, even the sale transactions that took place, the lands were sold in the classification as Manavari Punjai land ; except by stating that huge sums of money were spent for the development of lands, with reference to classification particulars, he informed the court that the details should be found only by the acquiring authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. The court below on the basis of these evidence rejected the data land furnished by the acquiring authority. After referring to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the guidelines of market value and after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in paragraph 17, the court below referred to the evidence of R.W.1 and going by the admission held that the data land in Survey No.136/2 did not have the quality or soil comparable to the lands that are acquired and no evidence was let in by the acquiring authority with reference to the said land, whereas, his action in discarding other lands and reliance placed on Survey No.136/2 is erroneous. The court below placed reliance on Ex.C.4 to C.6 and held that they are more comparable to the land that are acquired and having found in Ex.C.6, which was the last sale consideration in Survey No.366/2, wherein, per cent of land found in Ex.C.6 was sold for Rs.5,250/- was taken as a basis. It also found that Ex.C.6 was document prior to 4(1) notification and in considering that these are dry lands, it went to reduce 25% of the sale consideration without giving any further reasons and reduced to Rs.3,938/- and in order to make it a round figure, further Rs.38/- was also reduced and ultimately fixed the compensation at Rs.3,900/- and the said amount was directed to be paid along with other statutory payments. 13. Assailing the common judgment dated 19.11.2007 in the grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that reliance placed upon Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.6 was improper and that granting of 25% deduction towards development charges was not fair and it should have been reduced to 65%. The court below should have granted two separate deductions, one for the small extent of land and another for the development charges. In support of the submissions, Mr.V.Ravi, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in MOHAMMAD RAOFUDDIN VS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367 and also referred to paragraph 14, which is as follows:- “ 14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it.” Therefore, he emphasized that ultimately, public funds have to be spent for acquisition and therefore, proper compensation has to be fixed by the court. He has also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in SAIBANNA (DEAD) BY LRS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in (2009) 9 SCC 409 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to paragraph 10 to 13 and emphasized that atleast there should have been 33 1/3% deduction towards development charges and the same are usefully extracted as follows:- “ 10. This Court in Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana has extensively dealt with this aspect and observed in para 7 as under: (SCC p.35) “7. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or underdeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for development purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area.” 11. This Court in Kasturi case also observed that there is a difference between a developed area and an area which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in that area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired. In substance, the ratio of the judgment in Kasturi is that the deduction would depend on several factors, particularly the extent of land in question, location of the said land and the proximity of the land from the municipal limits. 12. In the instant case, the land in question is within the municipal limits of Gulbarga City since 1965. Taj Sultanpur Village is located only at a distance of 2 ½ km from Gunj locality of Gulbarga City and, therefore, it is located within the close vicinity of Gulbarga City, Taj Sultanpur Village is adjoining Shak Roza and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vakkalgera limits of Gulbarga City which are part and parcel of Gulbarga City for a long period. So the cost of development is not likely to be very high. 13. As laid down in K.S.Shivadevamma case, as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Deduction at the rate of 53% as laid down in the impugned judgment seems to be on the higher side and is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by this Court.” 14. This court is