The Special Tahsildar(LA)Chengam v. Padmanabha Naidu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.04.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.515 of 1997The Special Tahsildar(LA)Chengam... Appellant / Referring OfficerVs.1.Padmanabha Naidu2.Selvarani3.Meena4.Ganga5.Samundeeswari6.Gandhi7.Ramesh8.Mani9.Rajamannar (Died)10.Jayaraman11.Neela12.R.Rajanbabu13.R.Moorthy14.R.Suresh @ Pandian15.R.Anandh...Respondents / Claimants(Respondents R11 to R15 broughton record as LRs of the deceased9th respondent vide order ofCourt dated 21.04.2008 made inC.M.Nos.767 to 769 of 2008)This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act as against the Judgment and Decree of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai made in L.A.O.P.No.69/1994 dated31.07.1996.For Appellant: Mr.V.Ravi Special Govt Pleader (AS)For Respondents: Mr.Arivudainambi R11 to R3 Mr.A.Velusamy, R1 to R8 R9 – Died R10 – No Appearance.JUDGMENTThis appeal is directed against the judgment and award (decree)dated 31.07.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.69/1994. The Government has acquired anextent of 1.35 acres (0.54.5 hectares) comprised in Survey No.78/2D,78/2E, 78/2F1 and 78/2F2 in Kottakulam village, Chengam Taluk,Thiruvannamalai District, which form the single block, for providing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ house sites to the members of Adhi Dravida community of the saidvillage. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct was approved by the Government on 17.09.1991 and was published inthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.10.1991. The same waspublished in the area on 03.11.1991 and enquiry under Section 5A wasconducted on 09.12.1991. The proposal to acquire the land wasconfirmed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct was approved by the Government and the same published in the TamilNadu Government Gazette on 30.10.1992 and in local vernacular dailieson 30.10.1992 and 31.10.1992. The same was published in the area on23.11.1992. 2. Thereafter award enquiry was conducted by the Land AcquisitionOfficer in which the Land Acquisition Officer considered particularsof 48 sales that had taken place in and around acquired land within 3years prior to the date of publication of the notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisitionofficer has taken into consideration only one sale deed and discardedremaining sale deeds as not reflecting the correct market value ofthe acquired property for various reasons cited in his award. A saledeed dated 30.03.1989 bearing document No.722/1989 of the Office ofthe Sub-Registrar, Chengam under which an extent of 0.34 acre of wellirrigated dry land comprised in Survey No.34/10 had been sold for asum of Rs.5,780/-, shown as item 8 in the sales statistics collectedby the Land Acquisition Officer was taken as the data sale reflectingthe correct market value of the property acquired. On the basis ofthe said sale deed, the market value of the acquired property wasfixed at Rs.17,000/- per acre (Rs.170/- per cent). Accordingly, forthe above said acquired land of 0.54.5 hectare (1.35 acre), the LandAcquisition Officer has awarded compensation as follows:Market value of the property (1.35acres) at the rate of Rs.17,000/-per acre: Rs. 22,950.00Solatium at 30%: Rs. 6,885.00Value of the Well: Rs. 22,601.00Value of Teak and EucalyptusTrees: Rs. 1,350.00Increase in market value @ 12% perannum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award/the date on which possession was taken, whichever is earlier (30.10.91to 18.03.94):Rs. 6,549.00----------------Total Compensation payable:Rs. 60,335.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by theLand Acquisition Officer, the respondents herein/claimants receivedthe amount under protest and requested for a reference being made tothe court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly areference was made to the court below under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act for fixing the correct and reasonable amount ofcompensation to which the appellants therein/claimants would beentitled.4. Before the Land Acquisition Officer and before the courtbelow, the appellants herein/claimants claimed that the market valueof the acquired property should be fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- percent and the well should be valued at Rs.50,000/-. On the other hand,the Referring Officer contended before the court below that what wasawarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was perfectly reasonable andno enhancement of compensation should be awarded. Based on the saidpleadings, the court below conducted trial in which three witnessesincluding the first respondent herein/first claimant were examined asPW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 was marked on the side of the respondents herein/claimants. On the side of the appellant/referring officer, two witnesswere examined as RW1 and RW2 and four documents were marked as Ex.B1to Ex.B4. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge,Thiruvannamalai considered the evidence and allowed the claim forenhancement of compensation. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that themarket value reflected in the sale deed relied on by the LandAcquisition Officer as the data sale would be taken as the basis onwhich the market value of the acquired land as on the date ofpublication of Section 4(1) notification could be ascertained. At thesame time, the learned Subordinate Judge held that since the said saletook place 3 years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, it wasappropriate to fix the market value of the acquired property as on thedate of 4(1) notification by allowing a substantial increase from thevalue reflected by the data sale relied on by the Land AcquisitionOfficer. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market valueof the acquired property at Rs.3,924/- per cent (Rs.3,93,400/- peracre) and on that basis awarded enhancement of compensation asfollows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Market value of the property fixedat the rate of Rs.3,924/- per centfor 1.35 Acre: Rs. 5,29,740.00Solatium at 30%: Rs. 1,58,922.00Value of the Well: Rs. 22,601.00Value of Teak and EucalyptusTrees: Rs. 1,350.00Increase in market value @ 12% perannum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award/the date on which possession was taken, whichever is earlier (30.10.91to 18.03.94):Rs.1,51,505.65----------------Total Compensation payable:Rs.8,64,118.65The total amount awarded by theLand Acquisition Officer and received by the respondents/claimants : Rs. 60,335.00The enhanced compensation to whichthe respondents/claimants are entitled : Rs. 8,03,783.65The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annumfrom 19.03.1984, the date on which possession was admittedly taken,for the period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annumthereafter.6.Being aggrieved against the enhanced compensation awarded bythe learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.69/1994dated 31.07.1996, the appellant herein/Referring officer has preferredthe present appeal in A.S.No.515 of 1997 in this Court.7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is :-Whether the amount fixed by the court below as compensationis excessive requiring downward revision? 8. This Court heard the arguments of Mr.Arivudai Nambi, learnedcounsel for the respondents/claimants and the rival submissions madeby Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing theRespondent. The materials available on record were also perused.9. A total extent of 1.35 acres (0.54.5 hectares) comprised inSurvey No.78/2D, 78/2E, 78/2F1 and 78/2F2 in Kottakulam villageforming a single block was acquired for providing house sites to themembers of Adhi Dravida community of the said village. The Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acquisition Officer relied on the sale that took place on 30.03.1989in respect of 34 cents of land comprised in Survey No.34/10 as thedata sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land andfixed the same at the rate of Rs.170/- per cent (Rs.17,000/- peracre). The correctness of the selection of the data sale as the onereflecting the market value of the acquired property was questioned bythe respondents herein/claimants before the court below. The courtbelow, on an appreciation of evidence adduced on both sides, came tothe conclusion that such a selection was not proper. The reasonsassigned are:1)The property sold under Ex.B3 was admittedly situated at adistance of more than a kilometer from the acquired land;2)The said land is not comparable with the acquired land as theacquired land lies in between the grama natham of the villageand the then existing harijan colony; And3)The acquired land was potential for being developed into housesites.For the very same reasons, the court below chose to accept Ex.A1,the certified copy sale deed dated 28.08.1991, as the document basedon which the market value of the acquired property could be fixed.Under the said sale deed, an extent of 1118 sq.ft. in grama natham ofthe above said village bearing Survey No.77/2B had been sold for aprice of Rs.10,000/-. However, the market rate quoted in the said saledeed was a little more, namely Rs.10,062/-. Taking the said sale asthe data sale reflecting the market value of the acquired property,the court below has fixed the market value at Rs.9/- per sq.ft. Asalready pointed out, the property sold under Ex.A1 was not only nearerto the acquired property but also was comparable to the same in allrespects because the acquired property is admittedly abutting thegrama natham on one side and the colony on the other side. Thepurchaser under Ex.A1 has also been examined as a witness on the sideof the claimant (PW3), who spoke to the effect that the said sale wasgenuine and the price quoted therein was the correct market value.Therefore this court is not able to find any defect or infirmity inthe selection made by the court below between Ex.B3 and Ex.A1. Thecourt below righttly held that the document Ex.A1 alone reflected thecorrect market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1)notification. The decision made by the court below to fix the valuethe acquired property as a property having the potential for beingdeveloped into house sites and taking a sq.ft. as the unit does notcall for any interference. 12. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedSpecial Government Pleader that while assessing the market value of alarger property taking its potentiality to be developed into housesites, necessary deductions for developmental charges should have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made and that the award passed by the court below requiresinterference in this regard, as no deduction was made by the courtbelow. Admittedly an extent of 1.35 acres as a single block belongingto the respondents/claimants was acquired for being assigned to themembers of Adhi Dravida community of the said village as house sites.If such a large extent of land is to be developed into a lay-out ofhouse sites, at least 20% of the land shall be set apart for formingstreets and roads. That apart minimum expenditure should be incurredfor developing the said land into pucca house sites to be comparedwith a land which had already been developed into house-sites.Therefore, this court sees force and substance in the contentionraised by the learned Special Government Pleader that while adoptingthe value found in Ex.A1 to calculate the market value of the acquiredland, deduction for development of the said land into house sitesshould have been made. Taking into consideration the extent of land,situation of land and all other attending circumstances, this courtfeels that it shall be just and reasonable to allow a deduction of 20%from the total market value calculated on the basis of the marketvalue reflected in Ex.A1. For the above said reasons, this court comesto the conclusion that the decree of the court below is liable to bemodified to the extent indicated above so far as the calculation ofmarket value of the land is concerned. Regarding the fixation of thevalue of the well and value of the standing trees, the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader conceded that the appellant did not have anygrievance. Hence the same has got to be confirmed. Accordingly, thecompensation to which the respondents/claimants shall be entitled isfixed as follows:Value of the land calculated atthe rate of Rs.9/- per sq.ft.- (minus) deduction at 20% =Rs.7.20 per sq.ft. Therefore, the market value of1.35 acre (58804.90 sq.ft.)Rs.7.20 x 58804.90: Rs. 4,23,395.28Solatium at 30%: Rs. 1,27,018.58Value of the Well: Rs. 22,601.00Value of Teak and EucalyptusTrees: Rs. 1,350.00Increase in market value @ 12% perannum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award/the date on which possession was taken, whichever is earlier (30.10.91to 18.03.94):Rs.1,21,088.86----------------Total Compensation payable:Rs.6,95,453.72 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and received by the respondents/claimants : Rs. 60,335.00The enhanced compensation to whichthe respondents/claimants are entitled : Rs. 6,35,118.72The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annumfrom 19.03.1984, the date on which possession was admittedly taken,for the period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annumthereafter.13. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and the award ofthe court below is modified by reducing the enhanced compensationpayable to the respondents/ claimants to Rs.6,95,453.72 fromRs.8,64,118.65. In all other respects, the award of the court belowshall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to cost.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarasrTo1) The Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai2) The Special Tahsildar(LA), Chengam3) The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+2 cc to Mr.P.Arivudainambi, Advocate, SR.No.24005.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.23824.Ksj (co)krd / 25.6.08Judgment in A.S.No.515 of 1997