Dharmalingam v. Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition)Revenue Divisional Office,Krishnagiri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 25.01.2008CORAM:The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.320 of 1997Dharmalingam... Appellant/Claimant-vs-Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition)Revenue Divisional Office,Krishnagiri.... Respondent/Respondent Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Actagainst the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1992dated 30.07.1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.For Appellant : Mr.Suresh Kumar for M/s. La Law For Respondent : Mr.V. Ravi, Spl. G.P. (AS)JUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment anddecree made in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1992 dated 30.07.1996 on the fileof Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.2.It is admitted that an extent of 14 cents of land inS.No.15/5A2 classified as dry land in Gurugapatti village,Uthangarai Taluk was acquired for the construction of a departmentalbuildings for Telephone Exchange and Staff Quarters. It is seenthat notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,was published in the Official Gazattee on 24.04.1989. As per theaward Ex.B1, the respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,Krishnagiri, after conducting enquiry, had fixed the market value ofthe acquired land. However, in the award, the respondent has statedthe market value of the acquired land at Rs.17,000/-per acre, butfixed the market value for the acquired 24 cents of land atRs.81,600/- and also added 30% additional amount of Rs.24,480/- andas such estimated the total compensation at Rs.1,06,080/-. Theappellant herein received the award amount under protest and at hisrequest the matter was referred to under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.It is seen from the impugned judgment that the appellantclaimant was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2. On theside of the appellant/claimant, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On theside of the respondents, the award passed by the land acquisitionofficer was marked as Ex.B1; the sales statistics relating to theperiod from 01.03.1987 to 28.02.1990, in Gurugapatti village, wasmarked as Ex.B2 and the topography showing the acquired land and thedata land was marked as Ex.B3. An advocate Commissioner wasappointed to inspect the property, who inspected the properties andfiled his report and sketch which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 4.Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for theappellant would contend that the Land acquisition Tribunal withoutfollowing the procedure had erroneously fixed the market value ofthe acquired land at Rs.50,000/- and additional amount, solatium andinterest were not awarded as per Section 23 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 5.On the side of the appellant/claimant documents relating tothe sale of similarly placed lands, prior to the date 4(1)notification have been marked. According to the learned counsel forthe appellant, the market value was fixed by the Tribunal, withoutany basis. It was further contended that as per the award Ex.B3, theland acquisition officer, based on the document No.1575/88 dated12.12.1988, has stated that 0.05 acres of land, in S.No.15/7B hadbeen sold for Rs.17,000/- and accordingly fixed the market value.However, in the award, the land acquisition officer erroneously tookthe market value at Rs.17,000/-per acre instead of 5 cents for thevalue of Rs.17,000/- and fixed the compensation, to be paid withsolatium additional amount and interest though the market valueshould have been fixed at Rs.81,600/-. It is seen that neither theclaimant nor the respondent had produced the aforesaid documentviz., sale deed, document No.1575 of 1988 dated 12.12.1988.Further, the land acquisition officer has stated that the saleconsideration for 5 cents of land is Rs.17,000/-, in Ex.A3 letterdated 24.04.1989. However, the Land Acquisition Officer, as per theTopo sketch, Ex.B3 has taken the data sale deed relating to the landin S.No.91, which is far away from the acquired land and thereforfixing the market value on the basis of the said data land cannotbe construed as just and reasonable. 5. As per the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear thatas per the sale deed, Ex.A1 relating to S.No.15/7B 10 1/4 cents ofland had been sold at Rs.35,000/- on 27.01.1989. Admittedly, thesale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification and theland shown in Ex.A1 relates to the very same survey number but, indifferent sub division. Under Ex.A2, Sale deed, on 11.10.1989 anextent of 5 cents of land had been sold for Rs.21,000/-. But, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admittedly, the sale had taken place subsequent to the date of 4(1)notification. Therefore, as contended by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondent, the subsequent saledeed Ex.A2 cannot be taken into consideration for deciding themarket value. Though the sale deed, Ex.A1 relates to the very samesurvey number and also for a similarly placed land and the sale hadalso taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification, the samewas not considered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. But,erroneously without any supporting documents the Tribunal has fixedthe market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre andtherefore, this Court is of the view that the appeal should beallowed and impugned judgment and decree are to be set aside. 6.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for therespondent submitted that while considering the market value as perEx.A1, that 1/3rd deduction to be made on the value of the landtowards developmental expenses. It is seen that as per Ex.A1, anextent of 10 1/4cent of land had been sold at Rs.21,000/- at therate of Rs.3,414.63 per cent. The extent of the acquired land inthe instant case, is 24 cents. Though the acquired land and theland described in Ex.A1 are similarly placed lands, in the samesurvey number, in different sub divisions, while considering Ex.A1,Sale Deed to decided the market value of the acquired land, thisCourt is of the view, to meet the ends of justice, to fix the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs.3,000/-per cent, by makingreasonable deduction towards developmental expenses, since the landdescribed in Ex.A1 is a house site and the acquired land is yet tobe converted as house site. 7.In the result, this appeal is allowed and the market value ofthe acquired land is fixed at Rs.3,000/-per cent. Accordingly, therespondent is directed to pay compensation for the acquired 24 centsof land at Rs.3,000/-per cent with 12% additional amount from thedate of 4(1) notification till the date of award and 30% solatium.The appellant is also entitled to get 9% interest for one year fromthe date of award and 15% subsequent interest for the balance amountto be paid. On the above terms, the appeal is allowed. Both theparties are directed to bear their own costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Smi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To,1.The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to M/s. La Law, Advocate, Sr.31511 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 3230A.S.No.320 of 1997JRG (CO)kk 26/5