3. Land acquisition – Deduction towards development charges

In K.S. Shivadevamma & Others v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer & Another (1996) 2 SCC 62 it was observed that: the Supreme Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made.

In Kasturi & Others v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 the Supreme Court extensively dealt with this aspect and observed that:

"..... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped 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. ......."

In Saibanna `Dead' by LRs. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer decided by the supreme Court on 19/08/2009 the appellant was aggrieved by the deduction at the rate of 53% towards development charges . The acquired land was situated in a village at a distance of 2 Kms from municipal limits of Gulbarga city. Referring the aforesaid two decisions his Lordship Hon. Dalveer Bhandari, J speaking for the Bench, held that 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. His Lordship said that:

“In the instant case, neither the Reference Court nor the High Court has assigned any specific reasons for making deduction at a rate more than 33-1/3%. On consideration of the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi's case (supra) and in V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642 and in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, deduction at the rate of 53% is on the higher side and it should not be more than 33-1/3%.”

However, the Court emphasized that there cannot be any hard and fast or a rigid rule in this regard. Every case has to be decided on its individual facts taking into consideration various facts and circumstances. 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.