The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Chengam v. Raghupathy (died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 08.07.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.1282 of 1995The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Chengam ... Appellant/Referring OfficerVs. 1. Raghupathy (died)2. Rangaiah3. Bhagirathi4. Shanthi5. Ramesh Babu ... Respondents/Claimants(RR4 and 5 have been brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased firstrespondent vide order of Court dated 26.06.2001 in CMP No.9731 of 2000by PSDJ) Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned SubordinateJudge of Tiruvannamalai made in LAOP No.26 of 1993 dated 29.11.1994.For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondents :: Mr.T.R.Rajaraman JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated29.11.1994 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai in LAOPNo.26 of 1993. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Government published Notification under Section 4(1) of thethe Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of3.00 acres in S.Nos.27/1B and 27/3 in Kilanaikarai Village,Thiruvannamalai Taluk, North Arcot District for the purpose of providinghousing sites to the Adi Dravidar community people. After complyingwith the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land andassessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.9,524/- per acre (Rs.95.24 percent). Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the LandOwners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of theLand Acquisition Act.4.During enquiry before the Sub Court, C.W.1 was examined and nodocument was marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examinedand Ex.B.1 was marked.5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.95.24 per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the SubCourt, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on variousgrounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:Without any basis, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation.Absolutely no document was relied on by the Sub Court for awarding suchenhanced compensation. Accordingly, the learned Special GovernmentPleader would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the SubCourt.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.95.24/- per cent toRs.1,500/- per cent.8. Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would draw theattention of this Court that the land owners before the Sub Court didnot produce any evidence so as to highlight as to how they were entitledto get enhanced compensation. The Sub Court did not advert itself tothe law applicable relating to assessment of compensation in landacquisition matters whereas, the learned counsel for the land ownerswhile admitting that before the Sub Court no document was produced onthe side of the land owners to prove their claim for enhancedcompensation, nonetheless the sales statistics as contained in Ex.B.1itself would demonstrate that the land owner is entitled for enhancedcompensation. 9. Learned counsel for the land owners drew the attention of thisCourt to item 59 in Ex.B.1 and it is extracted hereunder:"59;1225;469/307; 20-4/87; 22/1A;g[d;bra;;8.4;8; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

0.12;2.68;1,20,000; 44716. ........ "However, it is relating to Survey No.22/1A which is far away fromthe land acquired, whereas, item 42 is nearer to the land acquired.There is also one other impediment for placing reliance on item 59 forthe reason that the land contemplated therein is meant for beingdeveloped as house sites, presumably by Real Estate Agent. Hence, suchan item was not relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and this Courtalso cannot rely upon it.10. He would also draw the attention of this Court to item No.43in Ex.B.1, which was relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer forarriving at the compensation of Rs.95.24 and advance his argumentcorrectly that such approach was totally wrong for the reason that thenearby item 42 in Ex.B.1 would highlight that per square foot of landwas sold for a sum of Rs.1/- as on 22.02.1987, almost an year anteriorto the passing of Section 4(1) notification. 11. A perusal of item 42 in Ex.B.1 would enable us to gather thefollowing particulars:"650; 465/95; 4-3/87; 26/22; g[d;bra; 8.4; 8; 0.13; 2.10;20000; 9524" 12. However, the Land Acquisition Officer simply ignored it onthe sole ground that it was relating to house site. At this juncture,my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt :"(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India](3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others](4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others](5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others]."13. A perusal of those judgments would clearly indicate that inthe absence of any other clinching document, even sale deeds relating tosmaller extent of plot area can be taken as the base for assessinglarger extent of agricultural land, provided necessary deductions areeffected. It is crystal clear that item 42 refers to S.No.27/2 whichis nearer to the land acquired and it emerged almost 10-1/2 months https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anterior to Section 4(1) notification. No doubt, it refers to housesite. It also clearly shows that the land acquired is having thepotentiality of becoming house sites. Hence, applying the standard aslaid by the Hon'ble Apex Court, per square feet of land can be taken asRs.1/- relating to the land acquired also. However, 1/3rd deductionshould be made. The purpose of land acquisition was to provide housesites to the Adi Dravidar community people. Those decisions cited suprawould also highlight that 1/3rd from the market value should be deductedtowards development charges. Accordingly, if viewed, the followingformula emerges:Market value per centat the rate of Rupee one per sq.foot - Rs.436.001/3 rd deduction towardsdevelopment charges- Rs.145.33 ---------------Net value Rs.290.67 per cent 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court shallstand modified to the effect that per cent of land should be assessed ina sum of Rs.290.67. Accordingly compensation should be worked out. Theland owners are entitled to other benefits as contemplated as per law.15. Learned Special Government Pleader would make an extemporarysubmission to the effect that earlier this Court passed an order of stayin C.M.P.No.10220 of 2001 in A.S.No.1282 of 1995 dated 13.07.2001 asunder:"C.M.P.10220 of 2001 has been filed for withdrawal ofthe amounts deposited to the credit of LAOP No.26/93. Thepetitioners herein are the L.Rs. of the 1st respondent havingbeen brought on record by orders in CMP 9731 of 2001 and theypray for withdrawal. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw25% of the amount deposited together with interest withoutfurnishing security and 25% upon furnishing security to thesatisfaction of the court below and the balance of 50% shall beinvested in a Nationalised Bank for three years in FixedDeposit."16. He would further develop his argument that in view of theorder passed supra, whatever amount is due in the deposit over and abovethe amount required to satisfy the claim of the claimant, as per thisorder, the remaining shall be permitted to be withdrawn by theGovernment. Such a submission is acceptable and accordingly it isordered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Sd/Deputy Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge,Tiruvannamalai.Copy toThe Record Keeper,V.R.Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate, SR.36121.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.35708.A.S.No.1282 of 1995 KGK(CO)RVL 10.10.2008