The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)National High Ways Scheme v. S.Revathi

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 02.07.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANA.S.No.333 of 1997The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)National High Ways Scheme,Madras-90. .. Appellant/Referring OfficerVs.S.Revathi .. Respondent / ClaimantPrayer :- This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act against the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.15 of 1993on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government PleaderFor Respondent : Mr.M.S.Subramani, Advocate JUDGMENTThis appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.15 of1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu(Land Acquisition Tribunal).2.The Government has acquired 0.04 acre land in S.No.94/6D2A forthe purpose of extending the NH-45 road at Guduvancherry village.The Land Acquisition Officer after issuance of Notification dated22.12.1986, lastly notified in the Villages on 20.1.1987, underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as'the Act'), and after following the formalities contemplated underlaw, on the basis of Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 data lands, had fixed thecompensation for wet land at Rs.2,360/- per cent and for the dry landat the rate of Rs.1,191/- per cent along with the compensation forthe superstructure, well, trees etc., and also awarded solatium withinterest. Aggrieved by the said compensation fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objection before theLand Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same underSection 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal / AdditionalSubordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge / LandAcquisition Tribunal, C.W.1 to C.W.9 were examined and Ex.C.1 toEx.C.5 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of theGovernment R.W.1 to R.W.4 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13 weremarked. The claimant had based his claim for enhancement ofcompensation on the basis of Ex.C.4-sale deed dated 14.5.1986 underwhich S.No.121/A/1B one cent of land was sold for Rs.6,453/- and onthat basis the claimant claimed that for the wet land thecompensation may be enhanced to atleast Rs.7,000/- per cent. Theclaimant had also relied on Ex.C.2- sale deed dated 08.12.1986, underwhich once cent of land in S.No.94/5 was sold for Rs.7,905/- andalso Ex.C.3-sale deed dated 27.8.1986 under which one cent of land inS.No.94/4/9 was sold for Rs.7,347/-. So on that basis the claimanthad claimed that for punja land the compensation may be enhanced toRs.10,000/- per cent and contended that the compensation fixed by theLand Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.R.1 sale deed dated29.8.1986 as Rs.2,360/- per cent for punga land and Rs.1,091 per centfor nanja land are inadequate and shall be enhanced.4.After taking into consideration the evidence both oral anddocumentary adduced, the Land Acquisition Tribunal taking intoconsideration the potentiality of the lands acquired and also on thebasis of Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 has fixed the compensation for the punjaland as Rs.8,000/- per cent and on the basis of Ex.C.4 had enhancedand fixed the compensation for the acquired nanja land as Rs.6,000/-per cent, besides fixing the reasonable compensation for thesuperstructure in the acquired land.5.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well as thelearned counsel for the respondent.6.The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that ifthere are two values shown in two different sale deeds, which weretaking into consideration as data lands by the Land AcquisitionOfficer and the Land Acquisition Tribunal then, the highest valueshown in the document is to be taken for fixing the compensation forthe land acquired. In support of this contention the learned counselfor the respondent would rely on 1969(1) MLJ (SC) 45 (Sri RaniM.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Renee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector ofMadras). In the said case by notification under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government has decided toacquire 1,145 grounds of land comprised in an area roughly bounded bySt.Mary's Road on the north, by the Buckingham Canal in the east andsouth and by Chamier's Road and Pugh's Road on the west in the cityof Madras. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands to beacquired into five groups – Group I to Group V according to what heconsidered to be the best lands, the next best land and so on. Forfixing the compensation, the sale prices in two sale deeds were takeninto consideration, which were marked before the Tribunal as Ex.R.19and Ex.R.27 respectively. Ex.R.19 was few months prior to Section 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) Notification. Under the said sale deed 11 grounds were sold atRs.1,961/- per ground. Ex.R.27 is another sale deed, which was alsoexecuted before Section 4(1) Notification, but after the execution ofEx.R.19-sale deed, under which one ground of land was sold forRs.1,096/-. But the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Tribunalhave without considering the higher value contained in Ex.R.19-saledeed, fixed the compensation as Rs.1,450/- per ground for Group-Iland, Rs.1,400 per ground for Group-III land and Rs.1,660/- perground for Group-IV land etc. When the matter was taken before theApex Court by the claimant on the ground that the compensation fixedby the High Court as well as the Land Acquisition Tribunal are notreasonable, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:-"Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair thatwhere sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are reliedon behalf of the Government, that representing the highest valueshould be preferred to be rest unless there are strongcircumstances justifying a different course." The same view was confirmed in 1972(1) MLJ 58 (V. Hanumantha Reddy(Dead) By LRS Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer).7.Relying on a ratio (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 584(Thakarshibhal Devjibhai Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another)the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the quantumof compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannotbe reduced without any just cause and would contend that if thequality including potentiality of two areas of land is similar thendistance between the two would not by itself lead to a change intheir respective market value, and where holding of each landholderin the acquired area is small, there is no justification for clubbingtogether the individual holdings, treating them as a large area,differentiating them from similar land thereby and then applying alower market value to such holdings. The exact observation in thesaid dictum at para 11 runs as follows:-"As we have said above the High Court fell into error byreducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. Thereduction has been made for two reasons, one, that the presentacquisition is of larger area and second, the distance betweenthe land under acquisition and in Ext.16 is about 5 k.m. withreference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, theerror is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of eachlandowner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of alarge area. Largeness is merely when each landholder's land isclubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowner'sholdings are of small area. Even otherwise, visioning in linewith the submission for the State we find Ext.16 is about twohectares of land which cannot be said to be of a small piece ofland. So far as the other question of distance between the two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ classes of lands is concerned, that by itself cannot derogatethe claim of the claimant unless there are some such othersmaterials to show that quality and potentiality of such land isinferior."8.The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would furthercontend that taking into consideration the potential value of theland only the Government had acquired the land which is appurtenantto the existing GHT road for the purpose of extending the GHT roadand that the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.3 andEx.C.4 has fixed the compensation for the wet land as Rs.6,000/- percent and dry land as Rs.8,000/- per cent and that in the absence ofany material placed by the Government for any other data land, thecompensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal shall not bereduced. In support his contention, the learned counsel for therespondent would rely on (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 642 (V.Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & MandalR. Officer), wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable ApexCourt runs as follows:-"It is contended by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned SeniorCounsel for the appellants that the land so acquired has highpotentialities. National Highway 7 is being intervened by thepetrol bunk and the premises of State Bank of India. There arehouses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of theacquired land. The developmental activities are towards Kurnoolwhere the land at Survey No.386 has been acquired. The learnedSenior Counsel, therefore, urged that the sale instances reliedupon by the Reference Court ought not to have been disturbed bythe High Court. We are unable to sustain this submission of thecounsel. The land may be having high potentialities or it maybe proximate to the developed land, but that itself would be noground for not deducting the developmental charges. This Courtin Kasturi v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 720:1997 SCC (Cri)283 held that it is well settled that in respect of agriculturalland or undeveloped land which has potential value for housingor commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensationhas to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable onthe acquired land subject to certain variations depending on itsnature, location, extent of expenditure involved for developmentand the area required for roads and other civic amenities todevelop the land do as to make the plots for residential orcommercial purposes. This Court also pointed out that there isdifference between a developed area and an area having potentialvalue, which is yet to be developed. It was further pointed outthat the fact that the land is developed or adjacent to adeveloped area will not ipso facto make every land situated inthe area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot.The facts of the present case are exactly the same as thesituation in which this Court has made the above observation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the present case, the undisputed facts on record would showthat the acquired land with National Highway 7 is intervened bya petrol bunk and the premises of State Bank of India. Thereare also houses, shops and hotels on the north, south and westof the acquired land. The acquired land is also about 100 yardsaway from National Highway 7. No doubt, the acquired land may behaving high potential value but that itself per se cannot beclaimed to be a developed land. Lots of developmentalactivities are to be undertaken like laying of roads, seweragefacility, water supply, etc. so that the land would be made fitfor construction of houses for the needy people, which wouldrequire enormous emount of expenditure."In the case on hand also there are houses, shops, compound walls,well and rice mills in the acquired land itself. Under suchcircumstances, it cannot be said that the land acquired by theGovernment are lacking potentiality. Under such circumstances, Iam of the view that the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal inLAOP.No.15 of 1993 need not be interfered with, and the same ishereby confirmed.9. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Nocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssvTo1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,Chengalpattu.2.The Section Officer,V.R.Section,High Court,Madras-1041 CC To Mr.M.S.Subramani,, Advocate, SR NO.348201 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.34199.A.S.No.333 of 1997sgl(co)pmk/25.7.08.