Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1993 (ALL)

U. P. AVAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD v. JAWAHAR LAL

2015-07-21

RANJANA PANDYA, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Navaneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nawal Kishore Mishra and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocates for the claimant-respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) has arisen from the award/judgment and decree dated 10.10.2003 delivered by Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh, Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Ghaziabad adjudicating on the question of market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation in Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as L.A.R.) No. 656 of 1998, Jawahar Lal son of Narsingh v. State of U.P. and others. Court below has determined market value of acquired land at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard besides solatium and interest at the rate provided in the statute. Dispute is confined only to the market rate of acquired land determined by Court below. 3. At the instance of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as UPAEVP), a notification under Section 4(1) of Act 1894 read with Section 28 of UPAEVP Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Act, 1965) was published on 26.6.1982 proposing to acquire 1229.914 acre of land in villages Arthala, Jhandapur, Prahladgarhi, Makanpur, Mahiuddinpur kanawani and Sahibabad, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad for developing a residential colony namely, Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grihsthan Yojana-3, Ghaziabad. The notification under Section 6(1) of Act, 1894 read with Section 32 of U.P.Act, 1965 was published in U.P.Gazette dated 28.2.1987. The total acquired land included some land of Gram Samaj also, therefore, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’) made an award dated 27.2.1989 determining market value for the purposes of compensation, for 1157.895 acres of land (72.019 acres of land was under the management of Gram Samaj). SLAO followed the circle rate prescribed for the area. It held that for the purpose of stamp duty, prescribed rate is Rs. 50/- per sq. yard and after making 25% deduction, the net rate comes to Rs. 37.50/- per sq. yard and the same was applied and followed by aforesaid award dated 27.2.1989. The tenure holders/land owners being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, made applications under Section 18 of Act, 1894 for reference to District Judge for determination of market value. 50/- per sq. yard and after making 25% deduction, the net rate comes to Rs. 37.50/- per sq. yard and the same was applied and followed by aforesaid award dated 27.2.1989. The tenure holders/land owners being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, made applications under Section 18 of Act, 1894 for reference to District Judge for determination of market value. Pursuant thereto L.A.R. No. 656 of 1998 was registered under Section 18 of Act, 1894 and has been adjudicated by means of impugned award dated 10.10.2003. 4. The disputed land of claimant-respondent No. 1 lies in village Prahladgarhi and detailed as khata No. 303, khasra No. 546, 553, 554 Minjumla, 557/1 Minjumla, 558 Minjumla, 561/2 Minjumla, 648, 650, 660, 661, 663, total area 19-10-2-2/3 bigha ie. 59014.45 sq. yard. 5. The claimant contended before the Reference Court that proposed land fall under municipal limits of developed city of Ghaziabad, quite near to Rajaswa Ling Road, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Municipal Vegetable Market and some renowned Industrial Institutes of India, such as B.E.L. and C.E.L. Moreover Dabur Factory and Kaushambi project is also in progress near the scheme proposed to be developed by UPAEVP. In the vicinity of village and acquired land, there are several institutions of national repute like Mohan Meekins and Harsha Tractor. Several educational institutions and amenities like Mohan Nagar Hospital etc. are also available in the area. There situated a new bus stand of Roadways, Depot and also a market place. The land, therefore, is lying in an already developed area. There is Link Road, where buses and other means of transport are available all the time. The land is just at the distance of two to three kilometres from Delhi Border and at a distance of about 10 minutes travel to Ghaziabad District Court, market and hospital. The land has its significance for residential purposes not only in 1982 but earlier thereto also. Area in question continues to have pressure from Delhi and has several residential colonies nearby. The claimant stated that market value of acquired land should not be below Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. The Reference Court examined the matter and has ultimately determined market value at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. 6. Before the Court below, the claimant submitted nine documentary evidences, whch included six registered sale-deeds and three awards in other references. 400/- per sq. yard. The Reference Court examined the matter and has ultimately determined market value at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. 6. Before the Court below, the claimant submitted nine documentary evidences, whch included six registered sale-deeds and three awards in other references. The details of awards in other land references are as under : (i) LAR No. 495/90 and 496/90 decided on 27.5.1993 by Second Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. (ii) LAR No. 58/92 to 64/92, 67/92 and 466/91 decided on 13.4.1998 by 8th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. (iii) LAR No. 160/95, 112/95 to 114/95, 116/95, 147/95 to 152/95 decided on 2.11.1998 by 8th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. 7. The claimant also examined himself as D.W.1. 8. On behalf of defendant-respondent State of U.P., no documentary or oral evidence was D.W. 2 cited. However, the appellant got Sri J.K. Sharma, Junior Engineer, examined as and also cited five documentary evidences, which included the decision dated 5.2.1997 given by District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No. 202/95. The appellant got three witnesses examined and besides Sri J.K.Sharma, it examined Sri Mohan Singh Batra as D.W.1 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Sharma as D.W.3. 9. After examining the evidence, Court below has relied on already developed conditions of nearby area of acquired land, which was admitted by appellant as also the sale-deed dated 26.12.1980, paper No. 48(c) executed by one Anand Kumar Gupta in favour of Surjeet Kaur transfering 130 sq. yard land in village-Sahibabad at the rate of Rs. 180/- per sq. yard and two other sale-deeds dated 12.5.1982 and 19.6.1982 wherein rate of land transferred by sale was Rs. 150/- per sq. yard and after taking average thereof found market value at Rs. 160/- per sq. yard. Thereafter, it applied 25 per cent deduction and has determined ultimate market rate at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. 180/- per sq. yard and two other sale-deeds dated 12.5.1982 and 19.6.1982 wherein rate of land transferred by sale was Rs. 150/- per sq. yard and after taking average thereof found market value at Rs. 160/- per sq. yard. Thereafter, it applied 25 per cent deduction and has determined ultimate market rate at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. The three documents relied by Reference Court are detailed as under: 1& cSukek }kjk vkuUn dqekj xqIrk cgd lqjthr dkSj fn0 26&12&80 ckcr 130 oxZxt fLFkr xzke lkfgckckn] nj 180@&:0 izfr oxZxt ¼dkxt la0 48x½] 2& cSukek }kjk frfFk flag cgd ys[kk flag fn0 12&5&80 ckcr 125 oxZxt fLFkr xzke lkfgckckn] nj 150@&:0 izfr oxZxt ¼dkxt la0 49x½ 3& cSukek }kjk Jherh xqjpjuh diwj cgd ';ke flg fn0 19&6&82 ckcr 242 oxZxt fLFkr xzke lkfgckckn] nj 150@&:0 izfr oxZxt ¼dkxt la0 50x½ 1- Sale-deed dated 26.12.1980 executed by Anand Kumar Gupta in favour of Surjeet Kaur dated, in relation to 130 square metre located in village Sahibabad, at the rate of 180 per square yard (paper No. 48C). 2. Sale-deed dated 12.5.1980 executed by Tithi Singh in favour of Lekha Singh, in relation to 125 square metre situated in village Sahibabad, at the rate of 150 per square yard (paper No. 49C) 3. Sale-deed dated 19.6.1982 by Smt. Gurcharani Kapur in favour of Shyam Singh, in relation to 242 square metre situated in village Sahibabad, at the rate of 150 per square yard (paper No. 50C). (English translation by this Court) 10. At the outset, counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that determination made by SLAO ought have been followed by Reference Court and it has committed a manifest error. He further contended that Court below has acted illegally by relying on the exemplars relating to very small piece of land for the purpose of determining market value, which is illegal and placed reliance on Apex Court’s decisions in Dr. Shivarao Shantaram Wagle and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 952 and Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 . It is submitted that the Court below has miserably failed to make proper determination of market value and rate determined by it, is highly excessive, unjust and inequitable. It does not disclose correct market value and hence impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 . It is submitted that the Court below has miserably failed to make proper determination of market value and rate determined by it, is highly excessive, unjust and inequitable. It does not disclose correct market value and hence impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that though the market value determined by Court below is not adequate but since they have not filed any cross appeal or cross objection, therefore, they are supporting the impugned award, though their valuable land has been acquired forcibly on a very meagre and petty rate by appellant. 12. In the present case, we find that S.L.A.O. in discharge of its duties for determining compensation payable to tenure holders has not determined market value by looking into relevant factors but simply has founded his award on the basis of circle rate. We are constrainted to observe here that circle rates fixed by Collector for the purpose of stamp duty have been held as not to be made the basis for determining market value. We are fortified in observing so, in view of the law laid down in U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 124 and Lal Chand v. Union of India and others, (2009) 15 SCC 769 (para 35 and 36). However, these judgments are posterior, when S.L.A.O. made award, therefore, he may not be held responsible in committing this illegality. 13. Now coming to merits of the matter, the only point for determination which has arisen in this appeal is, whether the market value determined by Reference Court is excessive, unjust or unreasonable; and, whether it has failed to look into the relevant factors in arriving its conclusion to determine market value of acquired land. 14. In this regard we notice that the principle on which market value is to be determined have been considered and there is a chain of authorities of Apex Court laying down various guidelines and factors which will weigh to determine the market value of a land acquired by State forcibly under Act, 1894. It is also held that material placed before SLAO or the award given by SLAO would not be relevant to be considered by Reference Court. 15. It is also held that material placed before SLAO or the award given by SLAO would not be relevant to be considered by Reference Court. 15. An award passed by SLAO is like an offer and not to be treated as a judgment of trial Court. It is well-settled, when the land holders are not agreeable to accept the offer made by Land Acquisition Officer, they have a right to approach Collector under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, by a written application, for referring the matter to Court, for determination of the amount of compensation or if there is any dispute regarding measurement of land for that also. In the present case the references in question were made at the instance of claimants for determining the amount of compensation. However, the award of the SLAO by itself is not to be looked into as a piece of evidence by the reference Court since the proceedings of reference are totally independent. The evidence, if any, considered by SLAO is not to be followed as such by the reference Court unless it is cited there and proved it in accordance with law. 16. We also find it appropriate to notice some of the authorities laying down the principles on which market value is to be determined. 17. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751 , the Court has said that a Reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimants are in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose the Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in award, unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. The Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the award of Land Acquisition Officer. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before the Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before the Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. the Court is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e., date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sell land on reasonable price shall be presumed. The Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflated in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from time angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valuated in terms of price variation, as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors. 18. Some of the illustrative examples of plus and minus factors given by the Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) are as under: Plus factors Minus factors 1 Smallness of size Largeness of area 2 Proximity to a road. Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3 Frontage on a road. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4 Nearness to developed area. Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3 Frontage on a road. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4 Nearness to developed area. Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5 Regular shape. Remoteness from developed locality. 6 Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7 Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. 19. The size of the land, therefore, would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. The Court said that in such matters, the factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots. 20. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots. When we talk of concept of a prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual total and collective large area which is sought to be acquired. 21. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 302 , the land acquired by notification dated 6.7.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. The Court observed, when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. The Court observed, when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so the Court further said “ though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined”. 22. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) SCC 152 , 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.8.1965 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context the Court said “the reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. when land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously no”. 23. It cannot be doubted that where a large chunk of land is required, the exemplar relied by the land owner if pertains to a very small piece of land normally it should be avoided or if there is no evidence otherwise available, then appropriate deduction should be made which Apex Court has found valid depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case in the range of 20 per cent to 75 per cent. 24. A deduction however, has to be made by not confusing the total area of land subject-matter of transfer under the exemplar. It is quite obvious that when a large area of land is acquired belong to a number of land owners, so far as the individual land owner is concerned, their entire land goes, whether it is a small piece or larger. It is quite obvious that when a large area of land is acquired belong to a number of land owners, so far as the individual land owner is concerned, their entire land goes, whether it is a small piece or larger. The application of number of small piece of land in the exemplar has to be considered in the light of the area of land of tenure holder, which is being acquired and when there are large number of tenure holders, a reasonable average can be taken but if we apply the exemplar of small piece of land vis-a-vis the entire area of land acquired, it would cause a great injustice to the land owners, since in most of the cases the area transferred in an exemplar would be totally a mismatch to the total area acquired. 25. We have already examined the authority of Apex Court showing therein a big area of land was acquired, which belong to a single owner and in that case the aforesaid deduction was applied but not where the area of land of tenure holders was also in small measurements. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the authorities in Dr. Shivarao Shantaram Wagle and others v. Union of India and others and Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (supra), but we find that after considering a large number of authorities on the subject recently a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 454 of 2003 and other connected matters, Meerut Development Authority through Its Secretary v. Basheshwar Dayal (since deceased) Through His L.Rs and another, decided on 1.8.2013 has crystallized the following factors, found on various authorities of Apex Court considered therein: (i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1), (ii) The method for determination of market value may be : (a) Opinion of experts, (b) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, (c) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. (Ref. (Ref. Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer and others, (1994) 4 SCC 595 para 5) (iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors : (a) Sale must be a genuine transaction, (b) the sale-deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land (e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. (f)if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land. (iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under : Positive factors Negative factors (i) Smallness of size (i) Largeness of area (ii) Proximity to a road. (ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. (iii) Frontage on a road. (iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. (iv) Nearness to developed area. (iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. (v) Regular shape. (v) Remoteness from developed locality. (vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. (vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. (iii) Frontage on a road. (iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. (iv) Nearness to developed area. (iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. (v) Regular shape. (v) Remoteness from developed locality. (vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. (vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. (vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (v) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. (vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount. (vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. (Ref. Valliyammal and another v. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition and another, (2011) 8 SCC 9, paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. (viii) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition.(Ref. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432 . (ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale-deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale-deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word ‘may’. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale-deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word ‘may’. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270 para 28 and 38). (x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors : (a) Existing geographical situation of the land. (b) Existing use of the land. (c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area, (d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land. (xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. (xii) The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. (xii) The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing. (xiii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of “development cost” is the concept used to derive the “wholesale price” of a large undeveloped land with reference to the “retail price” of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the “development cost”. (Ref. Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dead) and others, (2012) 7 SCC 595 paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22). 27. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down hereinabove, we find that three exemplars relied by Court below show market value of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 180/- per sq. yard. Since these exemplars were in respect of small piece of land, the Court applied deduction of 25% on its own and thereafter has come to the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. It is also not in dispute that the land in question falls in an area which is highly developed in various ways, as noticed above. 28. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the factum that the Court below has already applied deduction of 25%, we do not find any fault on the part of Reference Court in determining market value of acquired land at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. It can neither be said to be excessive or unreasonable, nor it can be said that appropriate principles in determining market value have not been considered by Court below. The two judgments cited by appellant do not help it in any manner since the principles laid down therein have already been noticed by Court below. 120/- per sq. yard. It can neither be said to be excessive or unreasonable, nor it can be said that appropriate principles in determining market value have not been considered by Court below. The two judgments cited by appellant do not help it in any manner since the principles laid down therein have already been noticed by Court below. In these facts and circumstances, in our view, the aforesaid point for determination formulated above is answered in favour of respondents and against appellant. 29. The appeal is devoid of merit. Dismissed with costs throughout.