The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vellore v. A.Rahothaman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 30.1.2009CORAM:THE HON ‘BLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYAKARUPPIAHA.S.No.246,306 and 334 of 2000 The Special Tahsildar,Land Acquisition,Adi Dravidar Welfare,Vellore.… Appellant in all the Appeals/Referring Officer-Vs-A.Rahothaman ... Respondent in A.S.No.246 of 2000/ClaimantA.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondent in A.S.No.306 of 2000/ClaimantKuppammal ... Respondent in A.S.No.334 of 2000/ClaimantAppeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Actagainst the Judgment and Decree of the learned subordinate Judge ofRanipet, in LAOP.Nos.24/96, 22/96,23/96, respectively, dated 30thApril, 1999. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi AGP (AS) For Respondents : Mr.T.S.KannaiyanJ U D G M E N TThese appeals are directed against the Judgment and decree passedby the learned subordinate Judge, Ranipet made in LAOP.Nos.24/96,22/96 and 23/96 dated 30.4.1999 by the Land Acquisition Officer.2. (a) LAOP.No.24/96:The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land, insurvey No.22/7B measuring 0.12.0 hectare (0.30 acre) was belonging tothe claimant and the said land was acquired for the purpose ofproviding house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people by the LandAcquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Department and 4(1) notification wasissued for that purpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possessionof the land was taken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after thestatutory enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had alsofixed 30% of the solatium and 12% as the additional value for the saidland with interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated31.12.1988 and the claimant had refused to accept the same andaccordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the said caseto the Subordinate Court Ranipet for fixing the market value. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) LAOP.No.22/96:The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land insurvey No.22/7A measuring 0.11.5 hectare (0.28 acre) was belonging tothe claimant and the said land was acquired for the purpose ofproviding house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people by the LandAcquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Department and 4(1) notification wasissued for that purpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possessionof the land was taken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after thestatutory enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had alsofixed 30% of the solatium and 12% as the additional value for the saidland with interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated31.12.1988 and the claimant had refused to accept the same andaccordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the said caseto the Subordinate Court Ranipet for fixing the market value.(c) LAOP.No.24/96:The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land inSurvey No.12/15 A, an extent of 0.02.0 hectare, 22/4 B an extent of0.18.0 hectare, in survey No.22/5 F, an extent of 0.09.0, in surveyNo.22/6 an extent of 0.24.5, in survey No.22/8 an extent of 0.05.0hectare in survey No.23.2A, an extent of 0.42.5 and a total extent of1.01.0 hectare (2.49 acres) were belonging to the claimant and thesaid lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites tothe Adi Dravidar community people by the Land Acquisition Officer, AdiDravidar Welfare Department and 4(1) notification was issued for thatpurpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possession of the land wastaken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after the statutory enquirythe Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of theacquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had also fixed 30% of thesolatium and 12% as the additional value for the said land withinterest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988 and theclaimant had refused to accept the same and accordingly, the LandAcquisition Officer had referred the said case to the SubordinateCourt Ranipet for fixing the market value.3. The lower court had enhanced the compensation for the acquiredlands from Rs.123.08 per cent to Rs.400 per cent after perusing theevidence produced before the lower court. Aggrieved by the decisionof the lower court, the Land Acquisition Officer had preferred all thethree appeals.4. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S) for theappellant and T.S.Kanniyan for the respondents.5. On a perusal of the records of the lower court and Judgmentand decree passed by the lower court and arguments advanced on eitherside, this Court finds the following points for disposal in theseappeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) Whether the finding of the lower court in fixing themarket value at Rs.400 per cent on the date of 4(1) notification viz.,23.12.1987 for the acquired lands are liable to be set aside ormodified?(ii) to what relief the appellants are entitled for?6. Point No (i) :In Palaiyanur village in Survey.No.22/7B an extent of 0.12.0hectare (0.30 acres); and in Survey No.12/15 A, an extent of 0.02.0hectare, 22/4 B an extent of 0.18.0 hectare, in survey No.22/5 F, anextent of 0.09.0, in survey No.22/6 an extent of 0.24.5, in surveyNo.22/8 an extent of 0.05.0 hectare in survey No.23.2A, an extent of0.42.5 and a total extent of 1.01.0 hectare (2.49 acres) and a wellsituated therein were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for thepurpose of disbursement of house sites to the Adi dravidar communitypeople and accordingly, 4(1) notification under the Land AcquisitionAct was published on 23.12.1987 and after following the normalprocedures under the said enactment and after the enquiry conducted bythe Land Acquisition Officer, he had fixed a sum of Rs.123.08 per onecent towards the compensation along with 30% solatium and 12%additional value and with usual interest and passed an award inA.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988. The claimants/respondents did notaccept, the said fixation of the market value by the Land AcquisitionOfficer. Therefore, the cases were referred to Subordinate Judge,Ranipet for fixing the correct market value of the acquired lands.Accordingly, the lower court had examined the witnesses and had cometo a conclusion of fixing the market value of the acquired lands atRs.400 per cent with 30% solatium and 12% additional value andinterest given under the Act.7. Learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S) would submit thatthe lower court in its Judgment had referred various evidence adducedon either side but it had not followed anything as a proved fact andno document produced on either side was taken for fixing the marketvalue but it had come to a guess work by fixing a sum of Rs. 400 percent. He would further submit that the documentary evidence in Ex.C.1produced by the claimant was in respect of house site but LandAcquisition Officer had followed the same in respect of the Punjalands and fixed the value at Rs.123.08 per cent and therefore, thevalue fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be upheld. Hewould therefore, request the court to set aside the order of the lowercourt in fixing the market value at Rs.400/- per one cent and to allowthe appeal.8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimantswould submit in his arguments that the oral evidence adduced on eitherside would go a long way, to show that the valuation of the propertyfixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low and the documenthe relied upon cannot be used for ascertaining the value of theacquired lands since the said land was away from the acquired lands,whereas the property in Ex.C1 was only four survey numbers away fromthe acquired lands. As per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, this value of the house site even though smaller in extent hasto be adopted by following the deduction procedure. Accordingly, thevalue of one cent in Ex.C.1 was Rs.667 and suitable deduction of 20%can be applied to fix the correct market value and then if so fixed,it would be a justifiable one and the value fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer would not meet the ends of the justice.Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the appeals. 9. After giving anxious considerations to the arguments advancedon either side, we could see that in all the three cases, the lowercourt had admitted Ex.C.1 a sale deed dated 30.12.1985 in which threecents of house site was sold for a sum of Rs.2000/-. To prove thesale deed, P.W.2 was examined and it was also upheld by the lowercourt. Even though, the said document was proved before the lowercourt, the said valuation was not adopted for fixing the value of theacquired lands by the lower court. However, it had come to aconclusion and awarded a sum of Rs.400 per cent without any basis. Theproperty in the said sale relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officerwas admittedly away from the acquired lands, despite the said propertywas a Punja land. It is a settled law that when there was no sale deedavailable within the proximity of the acquired lands for the largerand similar extent, smaller extent of lands, could be compared withthe acquired lands and the sale deeds containing smaller extent ofsale can be applied for fixing the value for larger extent by usingthe deductions method. Therefore, in such circumstances , the lowercourt ought to have adopted the value mentioned in Ex.C.1. Accordingto the Ex.C.1, one cent of land was sold in the year 30.12.1985 forRs.667/-. The said extent of land was a house site and it is a smallerextent when compared with the acquired lands. The date of sale deedwas two years prior to 4(1) notification viz., 23.12.1987. If weconstrain to adopt the said valuation, suitable hike should be givenfor fixing the value as on the date of 4(1) notification. If it isconsidered to be 10% per year, 20% hike has to be ordered towards thevalue as an 4(1) notification date. As regards, the deduction ofvalue towards the developmental charges of Punja land into house site,it could be fixed at 40%. Since proper area has to be left out forfurther development of Punja land into house site such 40% deductionis required. When the increase in respect of price and the deductiontowards developmental charges are compromised and over all deductionof 20% should be made from its original value. When it is reduced by20%, it comes to Rs.133.4 and when it is deducted out of Rs.667/-, theactual value per one cent would be at Rs.533/-. However, the lowercourt had fixed the value at Rs.400 per cent only. Therespondents/claimants have not filed any cross objection forenhancement of the compensation. Therefore, this Court cannot enhancethe compensation from 400 per one cent to Rs.533 per one cent. In theaforesaid circumstances, there is no other way except to confirm theorder passed by the lower court even though it was not properlyarrived at by the lower court. Much less, it is below the market valuearrived at in this appeal. Accordingly, the Judgment and award passedby the lower court are confirmed and all the appeals are dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In fine, the Judgment and decree passed by the lower court areconfirmed and the appeals preferred by the appellants are dismissed.There is no orders as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.KuaToThe subordinate Judge of Ranipet.Copy to The Section Officer, V.R.Section Officer, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC to Mr.T.S.Kannaiyan,Advocate,SR.NO.4605+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.NO.4700 to 4702A.S.No.246,306 and 334 of 2000CK(CO)EM/11.2.09