D.Ramachandran v. The Sub Collector Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 11-03-2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANA.S.NOs.150 AND 704 OF 1997A.S.No.150 of 1997:D.Ramachandran...AppellantVs.1. The Sub Collector Coimbatore2. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Metro, Coimbatore – 641 012. 3. Minor Rajadurai4. Minor R.Lalitha...Respondents A.S.No.704 of 1997:The Sub CollectorCoimbatore ...AppellantVersus1. D.Ramachandran2. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Metro, Coimbatore – 641 012. 3. Minor Rajadurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Minor R.Lalitha...Respondents Respondent NO.2 was impeladed as partyrespondent in the above appeals vide order dated 8.9.2006 madein C.M.P.Nos.9565 and 9566 of 2006respectively.Respondents Nos.3 and 4 being minors represented by their guardian/mother Mrs.Suganthamani and they were impleadedas parties to the above appealsas per order dated 15.2.2008made in C.M.P.Nos.284 and 285 of 2008respectively.For Appellant :: Mr.S.Parthasarathyin A.S.No.150 of 1997 and for RespondentNo.1 in A.S.No.704of 1997For Respondent :: Mr.P.S.Raman,Addl.AdvocateNo.1 in A.S.No. General for Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P.1`50 of 1997 andfor appellant inA.S.No.704 of 1997For Respondent :: Mr.J.RamakrishnanNos.3 and 4 inboth AppealsPrayer: Appeal suits in A.S.Nos.150 and 704 of 1997 is preferredagainst the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No.6 of1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore.JUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.The Appeal suits in A.S.Nos.150 and 704 of 1997 are preferredagainst the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No.6 of1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore.A.S.No.150 of 1997 is filed by the claimant for enhancement ofcompensation. A.S.No.704 of 1997 is filed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer representing the Government disputing that the compensationfixed by the reference Court as very high. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The Land Acquisition Officer- Sub-Collector Coimbatore acquired anextent of 6.67 acres of land in S.Nos.522, 523 and 55 of Sowripalayamvillage of Coimbatore District from the claimant for the purpose oferection of 110 KV sub station under urgency provision. Notificationunder Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and direction underSection 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as"the Act") have been published in the Government Gazette dated20.4.1983. The land was taken possession on 1.2.1979. There were as manyas 608 sales during the period from 1.1.1981 to 19.4.1983, out of which228 sales have been rejected as they were sales in respect of housesites either in approved or unapproved layouts. The sales covered underother 15 documents have also been discarded as the Land AcquisitionOfficer was of the opinion that they have purchased for fancy price forerecting small factories. The remaining sale deeds are pertaining toagricultural lands and the rate per acre was ranging from Rs.30,000/- toRs.75,000/-, out of which two sale deeds have been taken forconsideration under which an extent of 3.60 acres in Survey Nos.20 and21 has been sold through seven documents for one and the same rate atthe rate of RS.75,000/- per acre. Hence, out of the seven sales, thesale covered by document No.3263 dated 24.7.1982 has been taken as adata document. Under that document, an extent of 0-60 acres in SurveyNos.20 and 21 has been sold for Rs.45,000/- at the rate of Rs.75,000/-per acre. On that basis, the value of the land has been determined atRS.75,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer and the total valuefor 6.67 acres has been arrived at RS.5,00,250/-. In addition to that,30 percent solatium i.e., Rs.1,50,075/- and additional amount at 12percent per annum from 20.4.1983 to 19.9.1986 in a sum ofRs.2,05,102.50ps, has been granted, totalling in all Rs.8,55,427.50ps.The claimant feeling aggrieved that the compensation awarded is too lawprice prevailing during the relevant period sought for reference underSection 18 of the Act. The Reference so made has been taken on file inL.A.O.P.No.6 of 1987.3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on two saledeeds dated 10.11.1982 and 11.10.1982 which were marked as Exs.C.1 andC.2 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per cent.4. The Reference Court after considering the evidence, both oraland documentary and after hearing the argument of the partiesconcerned, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- percent and held that the claimants are not entitled to the additionalamount of 12 percent under Section 23(1A) and further held that they arenot entitled to interest over the solatium.5. The Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order of theReference Court filed an appeal in A.S.No.704 of 1997. The Claimant intheir turn filed appeal in A.S.No.150 of 1997 for further enhancement of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the compensation.6. During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the LandAcquisition Officer sought to file two documents by filing C.M.P.No.9021of 2006. This Court by order dated 8.9.2006 taking note of thejudgments of the Supreme Court in the case of K.VENKATARAMIAH VS.A.SEETHARAMA REDDY AND OTHERS, AIR 1963 SC 1526 and A.P.STATE WAKFBOARD, HYDERABAD VS. ALL INDIA SHIA CONFERENCE (BRANCH), A.P. AND OTHERS(2000) 3 SCC 528, transmitted the material case bundle to the referenceCourt and directed the Reference Court to record the evidence of theparties by giving the parties liberty to adduce evidence and render afinding thereon so as to enable this Court to proceed further. Pursuantto the same, the reference Court by its proceedings dated 6.11.2006recorded a finding and transmitted the case bundle.7. The Land Acquisition Officer assailed the order of the referenceCourt on the ground that the enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe reference Court is very exorbitant. Without any reason, thereference Court rejected the data sale deed adopted by the LandAcquisition Officer for arriving at a compensation. The reference Courtalso has not taken into consideration of the extent of land coveredunder Ex.C.1 filed by the claimant. Hence, the enhancement is liable tobe set aside.8. On the other hand, the claimant sought to assail the order ofthe reference Court contending that the reference Court has committederror in rejecting the sale deed produced on behalf of the claimants inExs.C.1 and C.2 and commercial potentiality of the land has not beentaken into consideration. The reference Court committed serious error inholding that the claimants are not entitled to additional amount at therate of 12 percent under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The reference Courterred in finding of fact that the extent of land acquired from theclaimant was 6.67 acres, but the total extent acquired was 6.72 acres.The evidence adduced by R.W.1 has been totally lost sight of and soughtfor enhancement atleast at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent. 9. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side andperused the material on record.10. On a reading of the award, we are not able to approve that thedocument No.3263 dated 24.7.1982 can be taken as a document reflectingthe correct value. The said document is in respect of an agriculturalland over an extent of 0.60 acres in Survey Nos.20 and 21. The said landcame to be possessed by the vendor for the purpose of doing certainendowment by an endowment deed dated 18.2.1930. The land was a manavariland and not yielding any income at all that the vendors were not ableto do the endowment as required under the endowment deed and the vendorswere of the view that in spite of keeping the land without deriving anyincome if the lands are sold out of the sale consideration they could https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perform the endowment as required under the deed. Thus, it is evidentthat the sale deed was effected on compelling reasons. So, the saiddocument cannot be regarded as a transaction between a willingpurchaser conveying the property to a willing seller. It is a wellestablished legal principle that a free sale by willing seller to awilling purchaser can only be regarded as transaction genuinelyreflecting the market value. Further, the documents Exs.C.1 and C.2 havenot been taken to their face value by the reference Court for enhancingthe compensation as contended by the Government Pleader. Hence, thecontention on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that Ex.R.1 hasbeen rejected without assigning any reason and Ex.C.1 has been adoptedin its entirety has to be rejected and the same is rejected.11. On behalf of the claimants, much reliance has been placed onExs.C.1 and C.2. Under Ex.C.1, an extent of 87 cents and 164 sq.ft., andwith Bungalow bearing Door No.366 has been sold. The said propertysituated in Krishnarayapuram village. From the schedule of property, itcould be seen that it is virtually in the Coimbatore City bounded byKuppuswaminaidu Hospital, Avinashi Road, vacant site belonging toKuppuswami Naidu and bungalow. Under Ex.C.2, an extent of Ac.2.34 centsin Krishnarayapuram village has been sold for a sum of Rs.26 lakhs andpurchased by South India Viscose Limited. It is stated that the landscovered under Ex.C.1 and C.2 were valued at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.32,000/-respectively per cent. As per the evidence on record, two propertiescovered under these documents Exs.C.1 and C.2 are one kilometre away onthe western side of the acquired land, which comes within the CoimbatoreCity Corporation. Even in respect of the properties in the CoimbatoreCorporation limit, the value is depending upon the nearness of theproperty to the city. The acquired land is in the eastern side of theCoimbatore city. The value of the lands which are situated in theeastern side of the Coimbatore City, which is away by one kilometre fromthe Coimbatore corporation limits would fetch only a lesser amount thanthe land situated in the western side towards the city. By consideringthese evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded these twodocuments also, however fixed the value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- percent. The evidence adduced by the claimants shows that the acquired landis situated within the Coimbatore Corporation limits and severalindustries such as Santha Industries, Suguna Kalyanamandapam, Nava Indiaand Ramakrishna Industries are situated nearby the acquired land.Laskmi Textile Mill is situated within 1 kilometre on the west of theacquired land. The residential houses in Bharathi Colony is on thenorth of the acquired land and there are several bungalows in the abovecolony and P.S.G.College is about 200 yards on the east of BharathiColony .Ex.C.7 plan also corroborates the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 3. Aboveall, the evidence of R.W.1 would establish that the land acquired issituated in the industrial area abutting National High Way calledAvinashi Road within the Corporation limits and surrounded by variousindustries, institutions, housing colonies and cinema theatres.Siruvani water is also available to the acquired land. Such facilities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are available within a short distance. In addition to that, one moreimportant and equitable factor is that the land has been takenpossession more than four years prior to the issuance of the 4(1)notification. The claimants were deprived of the benefit arising out ofthe property for more than four long years. Taking into consideration ofthe evidence establishing that the facilities are available to the landand having regard to the fact of year of taking possession of theproperty and the further fact of deduction to be allowed as regards tothe larger extent of area under acquisition, while accepting the actionof the reference Court in rejecting two documents Exs.C.1 and C.2 fordetermination of the compensation of the acquired land as correct, weare of the considered view that the compensation should have beenatleast fixed at RS.11,000/- per cent, which would roughly come nearerto 1/3rd of the value reflected under Exs.C.1 and C.2. The fixation ofthe above amount would take into account in itself the usual deductionfor development charges and the deduction for larger extent of acquiredland.12. We have gone through the findings recorded by the learnedreference Court in respect of Exs.R.8 and R.9. As the finding stands toreason to the effect that earlier the said two documents have beendiscarded by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, and the evidenceadduced by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of marking thedocuments is also as vague as anything and no particular evidence worthconsideration has been adduced to take the documents for consideration,the documents now marked as Exs.R.8 and R.9 would not in any way advancethe case of the appellant. 13. The other contention that the claimants are entitled toadditional amount of 12 percent under Section 23(1-A) of the Act fromthe date of taking possession cannot be considered in favour of theclaimants on the face of the statutory provision and in the light ofthe interpretation of the said provision by the Supreme Court. As perthe statutory provision 23(1-A), the Court is mandated in every case toaward an amount calculated at the rate of 12 percentum per annum on themarket value for the period commencing on and from the date ofpublication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of awardof the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Thus, it is clear that the starting point forcalculation of 12 percentum is the date of 4(1) notification. However,there are two terminal points. One is the date of award and the other isthe date of taking possession of the land. If the two terminal pointsare available after the 4(1) notification, the terminal point, whichoccurs earlier shall be taken up for calculation of the amount. So faras the present case is concerned, one of the two terminal points is notavailable i.e., taking over of possession subsequent to 4(1)notification, as possession has been taken on 1.2.1979 much prior tothe issuance of 4(1) notification. The one and only terminal point https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ available is the date of passing of the award by the Collector. So theamount should be calculated from the date of Section 4(1) notificationto the date of passing of the award. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI ANDANOTHER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER, (2002) 1 SCC142, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference byreason of the contrary views taken by two Benches of two learned judgesin SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), P.W.D.SCHEMS, VIJAYAWADA VS. M.A.JABBAR,(1995(2) SCC 142) and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, SUB-DIVISION, GADAGVS. MATHAPATHI BASAVANNEWWA (1995(6) SCC 355) on the other has ruled asfollows:"3. Section 23(1-A) reads as follows: “23. (1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, asabove provided, the court shall in every case award an amountcalculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on suchmarket value for the period commencing on and from the dateof the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the awardof the Collector or the date of taking possession of theland, whichever is earlier.Explanation.—In computing the period referred to in thissub-section, any period or periods during which theproceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up onaccount of any stay or injunction by the order of any courtshall be excluded.4. It is the contention of learned counsel for theappellants that the appellants are entitled to compensationfor the period 1-6-1977 to 8-3-1991 i.e. from the date onwhich possession of the said land was taken till the date ofpublication of the Section 4(1) notification. He findssustenance for this contention in the decision of this Courtin Mathapathi Basavannewwa case (1995(6) scc 355) where asimilar contention was upheld. The provisions of Section 23(1-A) were analysed but, said the Court, “strict constructionleads to unjust result, hardship to the owner and defeatslegislative object”. In its view, therefore, the expression“whichever is earlier” in Section 23(1-A) had to be construedin that backdrop and the claimant was entitled to theadditional amount from the date of taking possession. Sinceadvance possession was taken before the publication of thenotification under Section 4(1), “the claimants, by necessaryimplication are entitled to the payment of the additionalamount by way of compensation from the date of taking overthe possession for loss of enjoyment of the land” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. This Court in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v.M.A. Jabbar1 (1995(2) SCC 142, quoted Section 23(1-A) andsaid: “In other words, the owner of the land who has beendeprived of the enjoyment of the land by having been partedwith possession, the Act intended that the owner becompensated by awarding an additional amount calculated atthe rate of 12 per centum per annum on the enhanced marketvalue for the period between the date of notification and thedate of award or date of taking possession of the landwhichever is earlier. Admittedly, possession having alreadybeen taken on 15-2-1965, before publication of thenotification under Section 4(1) on 6-3-1980, the award ofadditional amount for the period from 6-3-1980 to 30-9-1983,i.e., the date of making the award under Section 11 isperfectly correct.6. It is, as we see it, clear from Section 23(1-A) thatthe starting point for the purposes of calculating the amountto be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum perannum on the market value, is the date of publication of theSection 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose iseither the date of the award or the date of takingpossession, whichever is earlier. In the present case,possession of the land having been taken prior to thepublication of the Section 4 notification, that terminal isnot available. The only available terminal is the date of theaward. The High Court, therefore, was in no error in holdingthat the appellants were entitled to the additionalcompensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period 8-3-1991 to6-2-1993.7. Section 23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than themeaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room herefor any construction other than that given above. It is onlywhere a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leadsto a result that is more just can be adopted. Having regardto its clear terms, Section 23(1-A) must receive the onlyconstruction it can bear. We are of the view, therefore, thatthe law has been correctly laid down in the decision inSpecial Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar (1995(2) SCC 142) and that it has not been correctly laid down inAsstt. Commr., Gadag Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa(1995(6) SCC 355) and, for that matter in State of H.P. v.Dharam Das (1995 (5) SCC 683)." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, in this case, the claimants are entitled to additionalamount under Section 23(1-A) for the period from the date of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award.15. In respect of the payment of interest on solatium, we are of theview that the order of the reference Court cannot be countenanced, asit has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in thecase of SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA, 2001 Suppl. (3) SCR 176, that theexpression "compensation" awarded would include not only the total sumarrived at as per Section 23(1) but the remaining sub-sections thereofas well. Thus, it is clear from Section 34 that the expression "awardedamount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordancewith the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. The Supreme Court ruled that in calculating theinterest as mentioned in the provisions of Sections 34 and 28 of theAct, the amount of solatium envisaged in Section 23(2) of the Act shouldbe included. Thus, claimant is entitled to interest on solatium also.16. In respect of the dispute of extent of the area acquired fromthe claimant, it could be seen from the award that though the totalextent in Survey Nos.522/2, 523/2, 524/1, 525/1, 525/2 is for an extentof 6.72 acres, the notification has been issued only for 6.67 acres. Inrespect of the uneconomical bit of 0.05 acres in Survey No.525/1, actionwas stated to be perused separately under Land Acquisition Act and thepresent Acquisition was in respect of 6.67 acres. Hence, the contentionthat the land acquired under the notification and the award is 6.72acres is not correct. 17. As regards the claim of compensation for severance of theacquired land from other lands, the claimant deposed that he was owning3.00 and 10.00 acres of land on the southern and eastern siderespectively of the acquired land. He however admitted that there is a40 feet public road available to reach the land. From the evidence onrecord, it cannot be said that the claimant sustained any damage byreason of severing the acquired land from the other lands. Hence, we areof the view that the reference Court rightly rejected the claim ofRs.25,00,000/- restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the LandAcquisition Officer in A.S.No.704 of 1997 is rejected and the appealfiled by the claimant in A.S.No.150 of 1997 is allowed to the extentindicated above i.e., the compensation in respect of the land acquiredfrom the claimant is enhanced by Rs.1,000/- per cent and the issue as tothe interest on solatium is decided in favour of the claimant vide https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA, 2001 Suppl. (3) SCR 176. The claimants areentitled to additional amount of 12 percent per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of Section 4(1) notification to the dateof passing of award, vide SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIALLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER, (2002) 1 SCC 142. However, thereis no order as to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Prl.Subordinate JudgeCoimbatore.2. The Record Keeper,V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.2 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.13453, 133842 cc To M/s.Sarvabhuaman Associates, Advocate, SR.13645, 13644.A.S.NOs.150 and 704 of 1997 MDR(CO)RVL 14.07.2008