The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (LA)Madras, Madras 1 v. Dr.M.S.Gopalakrishnan & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED:14.07.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.1000 of 1991The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (LA)Madras, Madras 1... Appellant/Referring Vs. 1.Dr.M.S.Gopalakrishnan2.M.S.Venkataraman.. Respondents /ClaimantsAppeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,against the judgment and decree of the learned 10th Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Madras and made in LAOP No.12 of 1982 dated5.4.1988.For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS)For respondents : Mr.A.Venkatesan JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated5.4.1988 in LAOP No.12 of 1982 passed by the learned 10thAssistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in enhancing thecompensation. For convenience sake, the parties are referred tohere under according to their litigative status before the trialCourt.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3.The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The Government vide the Notification dated 26.5.1973 made underSection 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire theland measuring an extent of 86 sq.ft. in Survey No.356/4 and anextent of one ground and 733 sq.ft in Survey No.362/28 in Mc.NicholsRoad, for the purpose of widening the road. After complying with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land in respectof Survey Nos.356/4 and 362/28 and passed an award dated 6.9.1979 asdetailed below:S.No.356/4R.S.No.362/28Value of the land Rs. 680.83 Rs.25,119.58Value of Superstructure Rs.1,661.00 Rs. 5,332.54Value of the Trees - Rs. 40.00 Compensation Rs. 351.27Rs. 4,573.78 -------------- ------------Total Rs.2,693.10Rs.35,065.70Being aggrieved by the said assessment, the owners of the land andbuildings got the matter referred to the Court under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, one of the claimantsM.S.Venkatraman examined himself as P.W.1 along with oneMr.K.Narayana Iyengar, a retired Engineer as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the respondent, the land AcquisitionOfficer one T.Samuel was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 weremarked. Ultimately the Reference Court enhanced the compensation atRs.88,278/- as follows:1.Loss of frontage, Rs.10,000/- damages caused2.Gate Pillars Rs. 2,000/-3.Enamel Board Rs. 750/-4.G.I.Sheet and Rs. 1,800/- Gate Structure5.A.C.Sheet Rs. 1,661/- covered rost6.Watch Room Rs. 2,847/-7.Cow Shed Rs.1,305/-8.Trees Rs. 40/-9.Value of the Land Rs.67875/-5.Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the LandAcquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, thepith and marrow of them would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Reference Court simply adopted the valuation as setout in Ex.P1 relating to the building value and awarded theenhanced compensation. There are also various otherirregularities, which warrant interference of this Court.6.The points for consideration are as to:- (a)whether the Reference Court assessed the compensation for the land as per law ? (b)whether Reference Court assessed the compensation forsuperstructure adhering to the well settled principles in assessingthe Buildings ? and (c)whether there is any infirmity in the Judgement and Decree ofthe Reference Court ?POINT No.17. At the outset, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AS)would advance his argument to the effect that Ex.P1, the order of theAssistant Commissioner under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand Tax Act should not have been relied on by the Reference Court asit did not reflect the true value of the land acquired as on the dateof Section 4(1) Notification.8. However, the learned counsel for the land owners wouldconvincingly and correctly highlight the fact that the order passedby the said Assistant Commissioner does have the binding effect onthe Government which cannot have double standard, one under the TamilNadu Urban Land Tax Act and another under Land Acquisition Act. 9.I could see considerable force in the submission made by thelearned counsel for the owners for the reason that the perusal ofEx.P1 dated 1.7.1971 would reveal that the Statutory authority,namely, the Assistant Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Urban LandTax Act assessed the market value of the land concerned, whereassection 4(1) Notification in this connection was published on26.5.1973. Hence, it is apparent that the Land Acquisition Officershould have relied upon Ex.P1, but for no good reason he discordedit. However, the Reference Court correctly relied on Ex.P1.Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is nothing wrong in theassessment made by the Reference Court placing reliance on Ex.P1.10.The learned counsel for the land owners would cite thefollowing decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tenneti Kamesam vs.Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC) an excerptfrom it would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "5. In the impugned order itself, it has beenmentioned that there was no dispute with regard tothe fact that the land in question was situated in awell-developed town surrounded by several structures,residential buildings and other commercialestablishments, apart from being located near arailway station and other facilities. It is,therefore, evidence that the land was alreadysituated in a developed area and the question ofdeduction of development charges did no, therefore,arise".A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment would reveal that if landacquired is already a developed land, the question of deducting anyamount towards development charges would not arise. However, at thisjuncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of theHon'ble Apex Court :(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, LandAcquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union ofIndia](3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others](4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. KrishnaGopal Lahoti and others](5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer and others]A perusal of the aforesaid decisions would amply highlight the factthat there should be at least some deductions towards developmentcharges. In fact in the Hon'ble Apex Court decision reported inLUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND OTHERSreported in (2008) 1 SCC 554, it is found highlighted, that there isa subtle distinction between an already developed area and the area,which is yet to be developed. Their Lordships, went to the extent ofdetailing and delineating the facts to the effect that simplybecause the surrounding lands are developed ones, one cannot jump tothe conclusion that the land acquired also should be treated on parwith the same.11.The pith and marrow of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court isthat the Court concerned should concentrate in finding out as towhether development took place in the land acquired itself. Hence,keeping this in view and also the one other decision of the Hon'bleApex Court cited supra by the learned counsel for the land owners, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is crystal clear that so far as the land acquired is concerned, ithad already been a developed land. In fact shops and residentialbuildings were there in Survey No.356/4 as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, whereas in Rs.NO.362/28, as on the date of thatNotification, there were no buildings and therefore correctly theLand Acquisition Officer ignored the superstructure thereon forassessment of compensation. Even then it is clear that both thoseSurvey Numbers were developed by the land owners themselves and theyare abutting the already existing main road. In such a case there isno doubt at all that the land acquired in both these Survey Numberswere developed ones and in view of the ratio decidendi in both thedecisions referred to supra, there is no necessity to reduce anyamount from the market value towards development charges.12.The learned Government Advocate would draw the attention ofthis Court to para No.23 of the printed Judgment of the ReferenceCourt and develop his argument that absolutely there was no rhyme orreason on the part of the Reference Court in awarding a sum ofRs.10,000/- towards damages for the alleged loss of frontage to thebuildings concerned. 13.In paragraph No.17 of the Judgment of the Reference Court,there is reference to the fact that the land owners expressed theirgrievance to the effect that because of a portion of their front ofthe building was severed from the rest, they lost the facade of thebuilding.14.What this Court could understand from the sketch marked asEx.R3, is that the land and building acquired from the land ownersare forming the front portion of their properties abutting thealready existing road. Hence, it is obvious and apparent thatbecause part of the front portion of their properties were takenaway, naturally they would have suffered loss of the facade of thebuilding and there resulted shrinkage in the enjoyment of theirproperty. Having that in view, presumably the Reference Courtawarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which warrants no interference.Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the land owners andas against the Government and the findings of the Reference Court onthis count is confirmed.15.The learned Government Advocate would draw the attention ofthis Court to paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Printed Judgmentof the Reference Court and develop his argument to the effect thatsimply without any reason, the compensation was enhanced fromRs.400/- to Rs.2,000/- towards demolition of the Gate Pillars and asum of Rs.750/- was awarded by enhancing it from Rs.300/- towardsEnamel Board.16.A mere perusal of the Judgment of the Reference Court wouldreveal that without citing any reason, simply the Reference Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrived at such a conclusion and enhanced the compensation underthose sub heads. Even in the report Ex.P5 of the retired Engineerwho was examined on the side of the land owners, nothing is founddelineated relating to the value of those items.17.Hence, I am of the considered opinion that Reference Court wasnot justified in enhancing the compensation over and above what wasawarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award relating to thesuperstructures. Hence under that count, the compensation awardedrelating to superstructures by the Land Acquisition Officer shallstand restored and the Reference Court findings thereon and theenhancement for the superstructures shall stand deleted.18. With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rpaToThe 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.Copy to:The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr.A.Venkatesan, Advocate SR NO.37317+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 36994A.S.No.1000 of 1991VM(CO)SRA(08/08/2008)