High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 07.03.2008CORAM:The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.247 of 19971.Mohammed Saifuddin2.Tmt.Ameena Begum3.Mohammed Nooruddin4.Mohammed Shamusudeen5.Mohammed Jalaluddin6.Tmt.Mymuna Begum7.Tmt.Sameena Begum... Appellants/Claimants-vs- The Special Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Department,Krishnagiri. ... Respondents/RespondentsAppeal is filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Actagainst the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.221 of 1992 dated18.01.1996 on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Court ofSubordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.For Appellants : Mr.T.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi, Special G.P. JUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment anddecree made in L.A.O.P.No.221 of 1992 dated 04.01.1994, on the fileof Land Acquisition Tribunal Court of Subordinate Judge,Krishnagiri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.It is an admitted fact that a total extent of 1.51 acresof land, in S.No.118/2B Byanapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk,Dharmapuri District, was acquired for the purpose of providing housesites for Adi Dravidars. It is seen from the records thatnotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, waspublished in the Official Gazattee on 06.09.1989. After enquiry, therespondent/Land Acquisition Officer, had fixed the market value ofthe acquired land at Rs.19,660/-per acre. The appellants/claimantshad received the amount under protest and at their request, thematter was referred to, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3.The first appellant being the first claimant was examinedas C.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A4. On the side of therespondent no witnesses was examined. However, Exs.R1 to R4 weremarked by consent of the claimants. The Court below considering theoral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by bothsides decided the market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/-peracre and accordingly, directed the respondent to pay the compensationwith 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest as per Section23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which, the claimantshave preferred this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.4.Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for theappellants submitted that the acquired land is situated abutting theHosur-Krishnagiri Main Road, in a developed area nearby, residentialhouses whereas the land acquisition officer considered the data landwhich is far away from the acquired land for deciding the marketvalue. According to the learned counsel, even the Land AcquisitionTribunal, has not considered the document available on record to fixproper market value of the property. It is not in dispute that asper Ex.A1, dated 29.04.1988 one Munir Ahmed had sold the land inS.No.39/1, an extent of 4700 sq.ft. at Rs.1,05,000/- per acre as perEx.A2 dated 10.07.1989, Mohammed Saifuddin, the first appellant hadsold his land, an extent of 50 cents in R.S.No.118/2, forRs.75,000/-. As the sale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1)notification relating to a similarly placed land according to thelearned counsel for the appellants the market value could have beenfixed as per Ex.A2. It is seen that Ex.A3 is an un-registered saleagreement, therefore, the same is rightly rejected by the TrialCourt. As per Ex.A4, on 20.02.1991, an extent of five cents of landhad been sold by the first appellant to one Elambarudhi forRs.31,500/-. Based on Ex.A4, the appellants herein have claimed themarket value for the acquired land at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 5.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearingfor the respondent strenously resisted the aforesaid contention thatthe sale deed marked as Ex.A4, relates to a smaller extent of landand further the sale had taken place only subsequent to the date of 4(1) notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 06.09.1989. But, Ex.A4,Sale has taken place only on 20.02.1991 much latter to the date of 4(1) notification and further a minimum extent of five cents of landwas sold by the first appellant as per the sale deed and therefore,Ex.A4 cannot be considered for deciding the market value of theacquired land.7.The Honourable Apex Court in a decision in MehtaRavindrarai Ajitrai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1989 SC 2051it has been held that whether the sale of land adjacent to theacquired land was cited as instance for determination of marketvalue, the same could not be altogether rejected, merely because itwas a post-acquisition sale, when there was no other evidence,indicating that there was sharp or speculative rise of the land afteracquisition. 8.In the instant case, to decide the market value of theacquired land apart from Ex.A1 and A2, B2 Sales Statistics relatingto Bynapalli Village for the period from 29.09.1987 to 28.08.1988 hasbeen marked as Ex.B3, apart from the topo-sketch of the villageshowing the acquired land and the other lands and further, as perEx.A4 nearly two years after the date of 4(1) notification, only aminimum extent of five cents of land was sold by the first appellantfor Rs.31,500/-. Therefore, I am of the view that the aforesaiddecision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is notapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Under Ex.A2, an extent of 50 cents of land had been soldfor Rs.75,000/- prior to the date of 4(1) notification by the firstappellant herein. It cannot be said that an minimum extent of landhad been sold with an intention to claim exorbitant compensation forthe acquired land. As per Ex.A1 one year prior to the date of Ex.A2a similar land had been sold at the rate of Rs.1,08,869/-per acre.The sales statistics register marked by the respondent as Ex.B3, alsoshows that there was reasonable increase in the market value of thelands in the area of the acquired land and therefore, I am of theview that the Court below, could have considered Ex.A2, Sale Deed,for fixing the market value of the acquired land. While expressingthe view in the open Court, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special GovernmentPleader submitted that reasonable deduction to be made in fixing themarket value, if it is fixed as per Ex.A2.10.It is seen from the topo-sketch, Ex.B3, that the landdescribed in Ex.A2 and the acquired land are similarly placed landsabutting the Hosur-Krishnagiri Main Road. The acquired land is anextent of 1 acre and 51 cents whereas the land sold under Ex.A2 was50 cents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Considering the same, to meet the ends of justice, thisCourt is of the view to deduct 20% of the market value of the landreferred in Ex.A2 while fixing the value of the acquired land.Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is fixed atRs.1,21,000/- per acre. The appellants are also entitled to get 12%additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification, till the dateof taking over possession of the acquired land by the respondent, 30%solatium, 9% interest for one year and also subsequent interest at15% as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent isdirected to pay the compensation accordingly after deducting theamount already received by the appellants. This appeal is disposedof accordingly, as per the aforesaid terms. However, there will beno order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.SmiTo,1.The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.13206A.S.No.247 of 1997ASM {CO}TP/31.7.08