Summary
The Court restored compensation of Rs.70 per square foot, using the reliable small-plot exemplar with a fact-specific 50 per cent development deduction. It rejected the higher exemplar because the record contradicted its presentation as open land. Rather than remitting pre-acquisition occupation compensation, the Court awarded nine per cent annual interest on the assessed amount from the respective 1984/1992 possession dates to the Section 4 notification, invoking complete-justice principles. Other statutory benefits on Rs.70 per square foot were directed from the award until realisation.
Issues
- Which sale exemplar and development deduction properly valued the acquired tract.
- What relief should address the State’s possession long before formal acquisition and compensation.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court resolved compensation for pre-acquisition occupation rather than remit it, awarding the specified nine per cent interest as complete-justice relief. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Held
- The higher-price exemplar could not be treated as a reliable open-land sale: contemporaneous house-tax records and the construction permission’s issuance to the former owner contradicted that presentation. The highest-exemplar authority therefore did not require its adoption. The remaining reliable exemplar was in the same survey number. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Development deduction is contextual, accounting for land needed for facilities and development expenditure; no fixed one-third rule governs every acquisition. Considering the much larger rocky tract, its condition and circumstances of the sale, a 50 per cent deduction from Rs.137.76 per square foot was appropriate here, rounded to Rs.70 as awarded by the Reference Court. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The High Court’s drastic reduction lacked a reasonable basis, and the Reference Court’s Rs.70 per square foot valuation was restored. The valuation already took account of development following the State’s earlier possession. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Despite no evidence of prior productive use, possession without payment deprived the owners of use. Rather than remit the occupation-compensation issue, the Court awarded nine per cent annual interest on the Rs.70 per square foot amount from the respective 1984/1992 possession dates to the Section 4 notification. Other statutory benefits on that amount were directed from the award until realisation. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals disposed of restoring Rs.70 per square foot compensation, with nine per cent annual interest for the specified pre-notification possession periods and other statutory benefits as directed.