The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Pondicherry v. D.Ramapathira Reddiar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act s. 4(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. The perusal of the judgement of the lower Court wouldexemplify that it had taken a cue from Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 and also tookinto account one unmarked Sale Deed dated 2.12.1987, which was reliedon by the land owner before the Land Acquisition Officer during awardenquiry…
- Para 1414. Accordingly, the point is decided to the effect that 20%towards development charges should be deducted from Rs.2561/. Assuch, the compensation awarded by the Sub Court at Rs.2561/- per areis reduced to Rs.2049/- per are. The claimant/land owner is entitledto solatium and interest on the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 13.08.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.582 of 19941.The Union of India, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Pondicherry.
Deputy Collector(LA),Pondicherry. ... Appellants/Respondentsvs.D.Ramapathira Reddiar... Respondent /PetitionerAppeal against the judgement and decree of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Pondicherry, passed in LAOP No.7 of 1993dated 22.2.1994.For appellant : Mr.R.Natarajan For respondents : Mr.U.Karunakaran JUDGMENT The appeal is focussed as against the judgement and decreedated 22.2.1994 in LAOP No.7 of 1993 passed by the learned PrincipalDistrict Judge, Pondicherry. For the sake of convenience, the partiesare referred to here under according to their litigative statusbefore the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government vide Notification dated 22.1.1987 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire theland measuring an extent of 46 ares in R.S.No.54/3-B in Karaiyampathoor (Sooramangalam Village) for the purpose ofconstruction of a Government Dispensary. After complying with theprocedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land andpassed an award dated 8.12.88 assessing the compensation in a sum ofRs.269/- per are.
Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, theland owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Land Acquisition Act .5. During enquiry, before the trial Court the plaintiffexamined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 were marked. On theside of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one G.RageshChandra was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked on the sideof the respondent. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced thecompensation from Rs.269/- per are to Rs.2802/- per are.
Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on variousgrounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (a) The judgement and decree passed by the referenceCourt is against law and weight of evidence; (b) the Sub Court erroneously placed reliance on Ex.A2-the Photocopy of the Award in LAOP.No.63/83;(c) the Sub Court wrongly took into account Ex.A5-thesale particulars, which emerged long after the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification;
The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.269/- per are toRs.2802/- per are?8. The learned Government Advocate would reiterate the groundsof appeal and contend that there is disproportionate enhancement, which cannot be countenanced as correct and furthermore, thereference Court has not even deducted any amount towards developmentcharges. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owner wouldsubmit that the evidence on record and more specifically thedeposition of the Land Acquisition Officer would exemplify that theland acquired is at the same level as that of the nearby main roadand no expenditure would be required to make the land fit forconstructing the hospital. It is also the contention of the landowner that the area is a well developed one in all aspects.9. No doubt the evidence on record would demonstrate that theland acquired is not in a low lying one and the vicinity is adeveloped one, over which there is no controversy. The core questionarises as to whether any amount has to be deducted towardsdevelopment charges. Before probing into the question of deductingamounts towards development charges, it has to be seen as to thatwhether the reference Court was justified in placing reliance onEx.A4 and Ex.A5-the copies of the notices issued by the LandAcquisition Officer, informing the compensation assessed relating tosome other land in the same village. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The perusal of the judgement of the lower Court wouldexemplify that it had taken a cue from Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 and also tookinto account one unmarked Sale Deed dated 2.12.1987, which was reliedon by the land owner before the Land Acquisition Officer during awardenquiry and as per which an extent of 4 are 53 ca was sold at therate of Rs.3,200/-. The reason given by the lower Court was that theprayer of the petitioner for awarding compensation in a sum ofRs.1,500/- per kuzhi would amount to paying for compensation ofRs.2,802/- per are and that sum is, in between the compensationcontemplated under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 on the one side and thecompensation contemplated under the unmarked Sale Deed dated2.12.2007. Accordingly, the Sub Court fixed the compensation in asum of Rs.2802/- per are.
The learned Government Advocate would convincingly andcorrectly argue that such reliance on the unmarked sale deed dated2.12.1987, is ex facie and prima facie wrong as it emerged longafter the date of Section 4(1) Notification, dated 22.1.1987, and assuch, the same should not be taken into consideration by thereference Court.
I am in full agreement with such an argument for thereason that Section 4(1) Notification was published in the gazette on22.1.1987 so as to say at the beginning of the year, but the unmarkedSale Deed, which the reference Court relied on was emerged at the fagend of the year i.e. On 2.12.1987. Furthermore, the said document, namely, Sale Deed dated 2.12.1987 was not exhibited during enquirybefore the reference Court. It is a trite proposition of law thatblindly such unmarked document, which emerged long after thepublication of Section 4(1) Notification should not be relied on. However, I could see some reason in the judgement of the referenceCourt in placing reliance on Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, which are relating tosome other land acquisition proceedings and which emerged anterior to Section 4(1) Notification, admittedly, as per the deposition ofR.W.1-the Land Acquisition Officer. In the absence of any otherclinching evidence, such reliance on Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 could be upheldas correct.
The land owner should not be prejudiced by taking thelowest value out of the two exhibits, namely, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Thehighest value is contemplated under Ex.A4, which would demonstratethat per are was assessed in a sum of Rs.2560/-. As such, revertingback to the discussion relating to deduction towards developmentcharges, I would like to refer to the precedents cited by thelearned Government Advocate as under:-"(i) An excerpt from the decision reported in AIR 2004 SupremeCourt 2006- kiral tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority andanother would run thus: "16. Shri Gupta has submitted that when the ReferenceCourt had not made any deduction in the compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount on account of internal development, there was nojustification for the High Court to allow 20 per centdeduction on that account. According to the learnedcounsel the land situate in a developed area whereelectricity supply, road and sewer lines were already inexistence and as such there was no occasion for anyfurther deduction from the market value of the land.
Normally, the principle is that when a large area isacquired and the area is not fully developed a deductionof about 33 per cent from the market value is made. Thisview has been taken in Vijay Kumar Motilal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1632, Sahib Singh Kalha v. 940and Special Tehsildar, Land Aquisition v. A.Mangla Gowri, AIR 1992 SC 666. The evidence on record indicates thatthe acquire land is situate in a developed area andapproach road to the land and also power lines areavailable. However, in construction of multi storeyedresidential flats as considerable portion of the land hasto be left out for internal roads, sever line, open spaceetc. In such circumstances the High Court was justifiedin directing deduction of 20 per cent from the marketvalue of the land. (ii) An excerpt from the precedent reported in 2008(1) L.W.117– Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and otherswould run thus: "22.
It is well settled that in respect ofagricultural land or undeveloped land which has potentialvalue for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rdamount of compensation has to be deducted out of theamount of compensation payable on the acquired landsubject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for developmentand the area required for roads and other civic amenitiesto develop the land so as to make the plots forresidential or commercial purposes. A land may be plainor uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hardbearing on the foundation for the purpose of makingconstruction; may be the land is situated in the midst ofa developed area all around but that land may have ahillock or may be low-lying or may be having deepditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurredin developing the area also varies. A claimant whoclaims that his land is fully developed and nothing moreis required to be done for developmental purposes, mustshow on the basis of evidence that it is such a land andit is so located.
In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is adeveloped area, is not enough particularly when theextent of the acquired land is large and even if a small https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ portion of the land is abutting the main road in thedeveloped area, does not give the land the character of adeveloped area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if oneportion on one side abuts the main road, the remaininglarge area where planned development is required, needslaying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civil amenities et. However, in cases of some land where there are certainadvantages by virtue of the developed area around, it mayhelp in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, asthe developmental charges required may be less on thataccount. There may be various factual factors which mayhave to be taken into consideration while applying thecut in payment of compensation towards developmentalcharges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd andin some cases less than 1/3rd.
It must be in someremembered that there is difference between a developedarea and an area having potential value, which is yet tobe developed. The fact that an area is developed oradjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto makeevery land situated in the area also developed to bevalued as a building site or plot, particularly, whenvast tracts are acquired, as in this case, fordevelopment purpose. "From the perusal of the above cited two judgements, it is crystalclear that there should necessarily be deduction towards developmentcharges, but it would fluctuate depending upon the facts andcircumstances involved in each and every case. At this juncture mymind is redolent with the following other decisions of the HonourableApex Court: (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) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others]. As such, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid decisions wouldclearly highlight that there should be deduction towards developmentcharges in cases of this nature. Here, the perusal of the depositionof RW1-the Land Acquisition Officer would unambiguously indicate thatthe land acquired is situated on par with the level of the main road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ namely, Suramangalam Main Road and the purpose of acquisition is forputting up a Primary Health Centre in that area. Taking advantage ofthe deposition of R.W.1, the learned counsel for the land owner wouldsubmit that no deduction at all is required because straight awayconstruction could be put up thereon in the land acquired; if at allthere should be any expenditure incurred for earth filling orlevelling the ground then naturally there should be deduction towardsdevelopment charges; but in this case, such requirements are notwarranted.
The ratio decidendi which could be deducted from theaforesaid catena of decisions would leave no doubt in the mind ofthis Court that from the point of view of the land owner the issueshould not be decided, but the Court has to look into the object orpurpose of acquisition, and if the compensation is awarded takinginto account the plot value of the land, naturally there should bededuction towards development charges. Unless the area acquired itcannot be put into beneficial use, for which the land is acquired towit for establishing a dispensary there.
In this case, the land acquired is not for carving outplots for habitation purpose and if so several roads should be laidand drainage facilities in large scale also has to be provided buthere for dispensary purpose much development charges might not berequired. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I wouldlike to hold that 20% deduction would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the point is decided to the effect that 20%towards development charges should be deducted from Rs.2561/. Assuch, the compensation awarded by the Sub Court at Rs.2561/- per areis reduced to Rs.2049/- per are. The claimant/land owner is entitledto solatium and interest on the solatium, in accordance with law.
With the above modification, this appeal is partlyallowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.mskSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1 The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry,2 The Record Keper, V.R.Section, High Court Madras1 cc To Mr.T.P.Manohaan, Advocate, SR.No.449051 cc To The Government Pleader, Pondicherry SR.No.44794A.S.No.582 of 1994KA(CO)SRA 22/10/2008
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act — s. 4(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 13 Aug 2008. The bench was G RAJASURIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.