Polleti Raghunadha Reddy vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Tahsildar, Nellore

This Review Petition has been filed to review the Judgment and decree dated 30-8-1988 passed in A. S. No. 419 of 1981.

The main ground taken for the review is that the Judgment in A.S. No. 419/81 is contrary to the judgment reported in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, . The contention of the petitioner is that in the above said judgment of the Supeme Court it is categorically held that only 20 to 33 per cent should be deducted towards development expenses. Nevertheless, in the judgment under review a deduction of 50% has been made towards development expenses, which is said to be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is also urged that in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, it was held that 53% should be deducted towards developmental expenses which is only a printing error. The Supreme Court has arrived at the said per centage of 53 relying on the Judgment in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, in terms of which it was not held that 53 per cent was deducted towards roads and other developmental expenses.

In the Judgment under review the learned Judges have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, and held that deudction for roads and other developmental expenses can together come up to as much as 53%. In that view of the matter a direction was given to make a deduction of 50% from the compensation amount towards developmental expenses incurred for the roads and other civic amenities etc. The learned Judges have also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, while discussing the question about the valuation of small bits of land providing guidelines for the determination of the market of lands consisting of larger areas.

In order to appreciate the contention raised by Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case, it would be necessary to refer to the decision in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, in which it was held as a well settled principle of valuation that where there is a large area of undeveloped land under acquisition, provision has to be made for providing the minimum amenities of town life such as water connections, well laid out roads, drainage facility, electric connections etc. The Supreme Court has further held that this process necessarily involve deduction of the cost of factors required to bring the undeveloped lands on a par with the developed lands and an extent of 20 per cent of the total land acquired is normally taken as a reasonable deduction for the space required for roads. This is apart from the cost of laying roads themselves and the cost of providing other amenities like electricity, water, underground drainage etc. The Supreme Court then referred to a decision reported in Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others Vs. Collector of Ranchi, in which a deduction of 33 1/3% was made towards the cost of development. After making such reference, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the cost of development may range from 20 to 33 per cent depending on the nature of the land, its situation and the stage of development etc. It is significant to note that the Supreme Court in this case has dealt with the question of 20% of the total land acquired being deducted for the space required for roads alone. In addition to that, it has been held that the cost of development may range from 20% to 33% depending upon the nature of land, its situation and the stage of development etc. It seems that the cost of development has been dealt with separately as against the deduction made for the space required for roads. Therefore, the total per centage of deduction, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, comes to 20% for the space required for roads plus a maximum of 33% towards the cost of development depending upon the nature of land, its situation and the stage of development etc. Adding these two per centages, i.e. 20% plus 33%, a total deduction of 53% is, therefore, held to be permissible depending, of course, on the various factors which may be involved towards the cost of development. In Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others Vs. Collector of Ranchi, the Supreme Court held that in order to develop an area at least the value of 1 / 3rd of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenities, which comes to 33 1 / 3%. As stated earlier, this case was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, while determining the percentage of deduction towards the cost of development. In Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, which has also been relied upon in the judgment under review, it has been held that in. accordance with the decision in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can together come up to as much as 53%. This figure has been arrived at by the Supreme Court apparently by the same reasoning that an initial deduction of 20% has to be made for the space provided for the roads and a deduction of 20 to 33 percentage has to be made depending upon the circumstances of each case towards the cost for development. Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, lerned counsel for the the petitioner, has submitted that the figure of 53% printed in the reporting of the case shall be treated as a printing error, for, according to him in Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust AIR 1982 SC 943 a deduction of 53% has not been provided under any head. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. A reading of the judgment in Sahib Singh Kalha''s case leads to the conclusion that two deductions have been provided for in that judgment, one deduction of 20% towards the space for roads and other deduction ranging between 20% to 33% towards the developmental charges. Adding these two percentage together, it cannot be said that the figure of 53% mentioned in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, is a printing error. It is no doubt true that a deductin of 53% from the compensation amount appears to be on a high side which will leave a total compensation of less than 50% in the hands of the land owner. But, the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, are clearly susceptible of this interpretation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment under review suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for an amendment in this review petition. The power of review can be exercised within certain definitive limits, such as discovery of new facts or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review when the order was passed. The power of review can be exercised also where the same mistake or error on the face of record is found or on such analogous ground. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case for review in this matter.

The Review C.M.P. is, therefore, dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.