The Special Tahsildar (LA)Krishna Water Supply ProjectUnit-IV v. Maryappa Nadar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 29.07.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.Nos.400 and 401 of 1994The Special Tahsildar (LA)Krishna Water Supply ProjectUnit-IV, Thiruvallur TalukChengalpattu MGR District.. Appellant/Referring Officer in both the appeals Vs. Maryappa Nadar.. Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.400/94K.Perumal.. Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.401/94Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Tiruvallur and made in LAOP Nos.891 and 890 of1987 dated 07.05.1993.For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) in both the appealsFor respondents : Mr.K.S.Lakshmikumaran in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals are focussed as against the judgment anddecree dated 07.05.1993 made in LAOP Nos.891 and 890 of 1987 onthe file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. Forconvenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according totheir litigative status before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. A resume of facts that are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The Government vide the Notification dated 17.04.1985 madeunder Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the lands measuring an extent of 2.13 acres and 0.04 centrespectively in Survey No.118 in Kannammapettai Village, TiruvallurTaluk. After complying with the procedures, the Land AcquisitionOfficer acquired the land and passed an award dated 15.06.1987assessing compensation in a sum of Rs.40/- per cent. Beingaggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners gotthe matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, C.Ws.1 and 2were examined and Exs. CW1 and Exs.C1 to C13 were marked. On theside of the respondent, one Sathyanarayanan was examined as RW1 andno document was marked. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced thecompensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1500/- per cent.5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement,the Government has preferred these appeals on various grounds, thepith and marrow of them would run thus:Without any basis, the Sub Court simply relied onEx.C7, which emerged some seven years and three monthsanterior to Section 4 (1) Notification and notionally gave10% increase for several years and assessed the compensationin a sum of Rs.1,500/-, which warrants interference by thisCourt. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the SubCourt's assessment of compensation from Rs.40/- per cent toRs.1500/- per cent is justifiable and proper.7. At the hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader(AS), would correctly and convincingly draw the attention of thisCourt to Ex.C7 dated 04.01.1978 whereas the Section 4 (1)Notification is dated 17.04.1985. As such there was a gap of sevenyears and three months between the time, where for the document Ex.C7should not have been taken as the sample deed for assessing thecompensation.8. Learned counsel appearing for the land owners wouldsubmit that the Sub Court correctly relied on Ex.C7 because in theKannamapettai village, neither the land owners nor the landacquisition Officer could gather sales statistics, and in view of thesame, no sales having emerged during the relevant period. 9. It is ex-facie and prima facie clear from that the salesstatistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the documentsfiled by the land owners that only relating to Movur Village salesparticulars were available. Accordingly, if viewed, Ex.C7, whichemerged seven years and three months anterior to Section 4 (1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Notification should not have been relied on by the Sub Court and theSub Court should have gone for some other document available in thesales statistics itself furnished by the Land Acquisition Officer.Further more, Ex.C7 is relating to a small extent of plot area inMovur habitation area and it cannot be taken as the sample forassessing the agricultural land acquired for Krishna Water Scheme.Hence, I am having no hesitation in setting aside the judgment anddecree of the Sub Court in enhancing the compensation from Rs.40/-per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent based on Ex.C7.10. The learned Government Pleader would correctly draw theattention of this Court to the sales statistics gathered by the LandAcquisition Officer and in all fairness the learned GovernmentPleader himself would submit that among the 76 sales particularsgathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, item No.34 only refers tothe agricultural land having been sold at the rate of Rs.300/- percent and that could be taken as the criterion for assessing thecompensation.11. I could see considerable force in the submission made bythe learned Government Pleader. Item No.34 is relating to SurveyNos.294, 295/7 and 296/1 in Movur village referring to a total extentof 10 cents, which was sold for a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 28.04.1984.It is therefore crystal clear that the agricultural land per cent wassold in a sum of Rs.300/- per cent. It is quite obvious that from28.04.1984 till 15.06.1987, the date of award three years elapsedand for each year 10% increase could be given, taking intoconsideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in(2004) 6 SCC 533 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma andothers). An excerpt from it would run thus:"6. The lands which are the subject-matter of theseappeals are acquired for the same purpose as in theaforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981 i.e. subsequent toSection 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously,there would be escalation of prices in regard to theselands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5%increase in the market value in respect of the lands inthese appeals. In the result these appeals are alsoallowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducingthe amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard(amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 per bigha+ 5% escalation. The respondents are entitled to statutorybenefits available under the Act based on the amount ofcompensation as modified above. No costs.Civil Appeal No.4157 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The land which is the subject-matter of thisappeal is acquired for the purpose as in the aforementionedappeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Actwas issued on 24.11.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1)notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would beescalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, wethink it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in themarket value in respect of the land in this appeal. In theresult this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment ismodified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) toRs.76,550 per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent isentitled to statutory benefits available under the Actbased on the amount of compensation as modified above. Nocosts."if we work out, over and above Rs.300/- and 10% increase for threeyears, if added, it comes to Rs.399/- and it could be rounded off toRs.400/-.12. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants wouldsubmit that the entire land of the land owners have been taken awayand the same may be considered for enhancement.13. I am of the considered opinion that the 30% solatium andalso interest on solatium would meet the ends of justice. As suchthat would take care of the compuslory nature of acquistion involvedin the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, no deduction need bemade towards development charges. Here the land acquisition is notfor habitation purpose but only for the purpose of laying canal totake Krishna water. Hence, from out of this Rs.400/- no amount needbe deducted towards development charges. Further more, this Courtawarded only agricultural value to the land acquired and not plotvalue. In such a case no deduction at all has to be made from thesum of Rs.400/- per cent as assessed by this Court.14. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed and thejudgment and decree of the trial Court in awarding the enhancedcompensation of Rs.1500/- per cent is reduced to Rs.400/- per cent.I make it clear that the land owners are entitled to all statutorybenefits. For 'Well' a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded since as perthe well settled proposition of law for well alone separately nocompensation need be given, the same shall stand deleted. A sum ofRs.100/- was awarded towards loss of income and for loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compulsory acquisition and that also shall stand deleted as it isobvious that the same is untenable, and a sum of Rs.1000/- awardedtowards super structure shall stand confirmed. However, there shallbe no order as to costs. Vj2Sd/Deputy Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur•2 ccs to Mr. K. S. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate SR No. 41310, 41309•1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.40920A.S.Nos.400 and 401 of 1994SS(CO)SR/8.9.2008