The Special Tahsildar(L.A.) Krishna Water Supply Project, Unit-IV, Tiruvallur v. V.N. Palani Chetty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 11.08.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.Nos.403 & 404 of 1994andCross Objection Nos.99 of 1995 and 18 of 1996The Special Tahsildar(L.A.) Krishna Water Supply Project,Unit-IV, Tiruvallur... Appellants in both the appeals/Referring Officer and Respondent in Cross objection No.99/1995 and 18 of 1996 Vs. V.N.Palani Chetty.. Respondent in A.S.No.403 of 1994 /Claimant Cross Objector in Cross objection No.99/1995 V.P.Vasantha.. Respondent in A.S.No.404 of 1994 /Claimant Cross Objector in Cross objection No.18/1996 Appeals filed under section 54 of Land Acquitional Act andCross objection under order XLI Rule 22 of CPC against thejudgement and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur,passed in LAOP Nos.335 & 338 of 1986 dated 7.4.1993.For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Government Advocate (AS)For respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT Animadverting upon the judgement and decree passed by theSubordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, dated 7.4.1993 in LAOP Nos.335 &338 of 1986, in enhancing the compensation, the Land AcquisitionOfficer filed these appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessaryand germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus:The Government vide Notification dated 30.11.1983 madeunder Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended toacquire the land measuring an extent of 1.15 acre in SurveyNos.124/2B, 142/1A, 145/1B and 145/3 and an extent of 0.40 acre inSurvey Nos.125/1 and 143/2B, respectively in Pondhavakkam Village,Uthukottai Taluk for the purpose of Krishna Water Scheme, so as tosay for laying channel for taking water. After complying with theprocedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land andpassed an award dated 16.9.1985 assessing the compensation in a sumof Rs.85.00/- per cent. 4. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation,the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .5. During enquiry, before the trial Court one Palani wasexamined as C.W.1 and Gopal was examined as C.W.2 and Ex.C1 andEx.C7 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the landAcquisition Officer one Srikantharao was examined as RW1 and nodocuments were marked on the side of the respondent. Ultimatelythe Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Re.85.00/- per centto Rs.500/- per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement,the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals on variousgrounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (a) The judgements and decrees in both the matters areagainst law and weightage of evidence;(b) The Sub Court, without any basis, simply awardedRs.100/- per cent towards loss of income, another sumof Rs.100/- per cent for damages to crop and Rs.50/-per cent for compulsory nature of acquisition. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer prayed for setting asideof the judgements and decrees of the trial Court.7. However, the land owners filed cross-objections, raisingthe following grounds:-(a) the lower Court should have awarded a sum ofRs.750/- per cent; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) the lower Court awarded lesser compensationtowards damage caused to the crop and also expenditurefor digging well.Accordingly, the land owners prayed for enhancing the compensation.8. The point for consideration is as to whether the SubCourt enhanced the compensation without any sound basis?.9. The learned Additional Government Pleader drawing theattention of this Court to various portions of the judgement of thelower Court, would highlight that the judgement is fraught withinconsistencies and improbabilities. 10. At the out set itself I would like to point out thateven the appellant, perhaps, mis-understood the actual purport ofthe judgement and decree and aired the grievance as though thecompensation was enhanced from Rs.85/- per cent to Rs.250/- percent, but in fact, it was enhanced to Rs.500/- per cent by thereference Court. 11. The land owners themselves have placed reliance onEx.C2-the sale deed dated 30.9.1983 apart from other documents.The reference Court correctly placed reliance on Ex.C2, dated30.9.1983 and held that as per Ex.C2, per cent of land was assessedin a sum of Rs.230/-. However, immediately after giving such afinding, the lower Court, without any basis simply observed asthough per cent was worth Rs.250/-. At the most it could only betaken as a typographical error on the part of the Sub Court. 12. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 30.11.1983and Ex.C2 emerged on 30.9.1983, so as to say exactly two monthsanterior to such Section 4(1) Notification. The purpose of havingacquired the land is for Krishna Water Scheme, so as to say forlaying channel to take water and not for any habitation purpose.As such, the sample land, as contemplated in Ex.C2 and the landacquired both belonged to the same category, namely, agriculturalland and in such a case, the question of potentiality andprobability of using the land for habitation purpose would notarise and the same need not be taken into consideration and thelower Court also has correctly not took into account thepotentiality of the land for being used for habitation etc. 13. The trial Court would have done well to award a sum ofRs.230/- per cent of land as compensation without enhancing thecompensation under imaginary heads.14. Relating to L.A.O.P.No.335/86(A.S.403/94) the followingadditional compensation amounts were awarded by the referenceCourt: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)Rs.100/- per cent towards inability on the part ofthe land owners to use motor pumpsets because of thepart of the land was acquired;I am at loss to understand as to how a compensation ofRs.100/- per cent could be given for the acquired landunder that count.(ii) Rs.100/- per cent plus Rs.50/- per cent towardsloss of income were awarded, which again is totallyunknown to law. (iii) Rs.100/- towards loss of damage to Gingili cropwas awarded, which could be affirmed as such. (iv)Rs.10,000/- towards change of electricityconnection and for sinking a new well was awarded,which again is not contemplated under law; 15. Relating to L.A.O.P.No.338 of 1986 (A.S.No.404 of 1994)the following additional compensation amounts were awarded by thereference Court:The amounts under the sub heads (i) and (ii) above arefound in this case also and which are untenable.However, the sum of Rs.200/- awarded for damage topaddy crops could be confirmed. 16. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that on imaginarygrounds the Sub Court simply awarded an additional sum of Rs.250/-per cent over and above the value of Rs.250/- per cent for theland. At this juncture my mind is redolent with the followingdecisions of the Honourable Apex 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 ofIndia](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 LandAcquisition Officer and others] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. The ratio decedendi of these precedents would runcounter to the ratiocination adhered to by the lower Court.18. An excerpt from the decision of the Honourable ApexCourt in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC)(Tenneti Kamesam vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer), would run thus:"5. In the impugned order itself, it hasbeen mentioned that there was no dispute withregard to the fact that the land in question wassituated in a well-developed town surrounded byseveral structures, residential buildings and othercommercial establishments, apart from being locatednear a railway station and other facilities. Itis, therefore, evidence that the land was alreadysituated in a developed area and the question ofdeduction of development charges did not,therefore, arise".A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment would reveal that if landacquired is already a developed land, the question of deducting anyamount towards development charges would not arise. 19. Placing reliance on Ex.C2, the appropriate compensationwhich could be awarded is only Rs.230/- per cent and no deductiontowards development charge is required, as the land acquired isonly agricultural land and the purpose of acquisition also is onlyfor laying water channel and not for any other purpose. It is alsomade clear, as per the decisions reported in (i) 1996(6) SCC 197 –STATE OF BIHAR VS. MADHESWAR PRASAD and (ii) 1994(6) SCC 456O.JANARDHAN REDDY V. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR that no compensationfor Well could be awarded.20. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed modifying thejudgement and decree of the trial Court by reducing thecompensation to Rs.230/- per cent. The sum of rupees one hundredawarded for damage to gingly crop in L.A.O.P.No.335 of 1986 andanother sum of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) awarded towardsdamage to paddy crops in L.A.O.P.No.338 of 1986 are confirmed. Theland owners are entitled to other statutory benefits as per law.In view of the ratiocination adhered to in allowing the appeals,the cross-appeals are dismissed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. The learned Additional Government Pleader made anextemporary submission that as per the earlier order of this Court,some amounts were deposited in the respectively L.A.O.Ps.22. In view of the above submission, I make it clear thatthe Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to withdraw from the Courtthe amounts deposited over and above the amount awarded in thisappeal.MskSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 104.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR Nos.44162 & 44163VM(CO)SR/11.11.2008A.S.Nos.403 & 404 of 1994