In Brief
The appellants challenged a High Court judgment in a land acquisition case on two grounds: compensation for wells and a 60% deduction for development charges. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants failed to produce credible evidence about the wells and they were found to be in dilapidated condition, no additional compensation was warranted. Regarding development charges, the Court found the 60% deduction unreasonable for land abutting a developed residential area (Mandal Headquarter with bank, school, hospital, etc.). The Court reduced the deduction to 30%, which was the figure used by the Land Acquisition Collector itself. The appeal was partly allowed with statutory benefits from the re-fixation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.