The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)National High Ways Scheme,Madras-90 v. Rambai Ammal

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 02.07.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANA.S.No.340 of 1997The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)National High Ways Scheme,Madras-90... Appellant / Referring OfficerVs.Rambai Ammal .. Respondent / ClaimantPrayer :- This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act against the decree and judgment dated 20.07.1994 inLAOP.No.23 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government PleaderFor Respondent : Mr.M.S.Subramani, Advocate JUDGMENTThis appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.23 of1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu (LandAcquisition Tribunal).2.The Government has acquired 0.05 cents land in S.No.94/2B4A, forthe purpose of extending the NH-45 road at Guduvancherry village. TheLand Acquisition Officer after issuance of Notification dated22.12.1986, lastly notified in the Villages on 20.1.1987, under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'theAct'), and after following the formalities contemplated under law, onthe basis of Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 data lands, had fixed the compensation forwet land at Rs.2,360/- per cent and for the dry land at the rate ofRs.1,191/- per cent along with the compensation for the superstructure,well, trees etc and also awarded solatium with interest. Aggrieved bythe said compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, theclaimant had preferred objection before the Land Acquisition Officer,who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to theLand Acquisition Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.3.Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge / LandAcquisition Tribunal, C.W.1 to C.W.9 were examined and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the GovernmentR.W.1 to R.W.4 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13 were marked. Theclaimant had based his claim for enhancement of compensation on thebasis of Ex.C.4-sale deed dated 14.5.1986 under which S.No.121/A/1B onecent of land was sold for Rs.6,453/- and on that basis the claimantclaimed that for the wet land the compensation may be enhanced toatleast Rs.7,000/- per cent. The claimant had also relied on Ex.C.2-sale deed dated 08.12.1986, under which once cent of land in S.No.94/5was sold for Rs.7,905/- and also Ex.C.3-sale deed dated 27.8.1986 underwhich one cent of land in S.No.94/4/9 was sold for Rs.7,347/-. So onthat basis the claimant had claimed that for punja land the compensationmay be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per cent and contended that thecompensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis ofEx.R.1 sale deed dated 29.8.1986 as Rs.2,360/- per cent for punga landand Rs.1,091 per cent for nanja land are inadequate and shall beenhanced.4.After taking into consideration the evidence both oral anddocumentary adduced, the Land Acquisition Tribunal taking intoconsideration the potentiality of the lands acquired and also on thebasis of Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 has fixed the compensation for the punja landas Rs.8,000/- per cent and on the basis of Ex.C.4 had enhanced and fixedthe compensation for the acquired nanja land as Rs.6,000/- per cent,besides fixing the reasonable compensation for the superstructure in theacquired land.5.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well as thelearned counsel for the respondent.6.The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that ifthere are two values shown in two different sale deeds, which weretaking into consideration as data lands by the Land Acquisition Officerand the Land Acquisition Tribunal then, the highest value shown in thedocument is to be taken for fixing the compensation for the landacquired. In support of this contention the learned counsel for therespondent would rely on 1969(1) MLJ (SC) 45 (Sri RaniM.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Renee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector ofMadras). In the said case by notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, the State Government has decided to acquire 1,145grounds of land comprised in an area roughly bounded by St.Mary's Roadon the north, by the Buckingham Canal in the east and south and byChamier's Road and Pugh's Road on the west in the city of Madras. TheLand Acquisition Officer divided the lands to be acquired into fivegroups – Group I to Group V according to what he considered to be thebest lands, the next best land and so on. For fixing the compensation,the sale prices in two sale deeds were taken into consideration, whichwere marked before the Tribunal as Ex.R.19 and Ex.R.27 respectively.Ex.R.19 was few months prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Under thesaid sale deed 11 grounds were sold at Rs.1,961/- per ground. Ex.R.27 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is another sale deed, which was also executed before Section 4(1)Notification, but after the execution of Ex.R.19-sale deed, under whichone ground of land was sold for Rs.1,096/-. But the Land AcquisitionOfficer as well as the Tribunal have without considering the highervalue contained in Ex.R.19-sale deed, fixed the compensation asRs.1,450/- per ground for Group-I land, Rs.1,400 per ground for Group-III land and Rs.1,660/- per ground for Group-IV land etc. When thematter was taken before the Apex Court by the claimant on the groundthat the compensation fixed by the High Court as well as the LandAcquisition Tribunal are not reasonable, the Honourable Apex Court hasheld as follows:-"Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair thatwhere sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied onbehalf of the Government, that representing the highest valueshould be preferred to be rest unless there are strongcircumstances justifying a different course." The same view was confirmed in 1972(1) MLJ 58 (V. Hanumantha Reddy(Dead) By LRS Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer).7.Relying on a ratio (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 584(Thakarshibhal Devjibhai Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another)the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the quantum ofcompensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot bereduced without any just cause and would contend that if the qualityincluding potentiality of two areas of land is similar then distancebetween the two would not by itself lead to a change in their respectivemarket value, and where holding of each landholder in the acquired areais small, there is no justification for clubbing together the individualholdings, treating them as a large area, differentiating them fromsimilar land thereby and then applying a lower market value to suchholdings. The exact observation in the said dictum at para 11 runs asfollows:-"As we have said above the High Court fell into error byreducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reductionhas been made for two reasons, one, that the present acquisition isof larger area and second, the distance between the land underacquisition and in Ext.16 is about 5 k.m. with reference toquestion of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, whenwe scan we find for the acquisition of each landowner, it could notbe said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness ismerely when each landholder's land is clubbed together then thearea becomes large. Each landowner's holdings are of small area.Even otherwise, visioning in line with the submission for the Statewe find Ext.16 is about two hectares of land which cannot be saidto be of a small piece of land. So far as the other question ofdistance between the two classes of lands is concerned, that byitself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there aresome such others materials to show that quality and potentiality ofsuch land is inferior." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would furthercontend that taking into consideration the potential value of the landonly the Government had acquired the land which is appurtenant to theexisting GHT road for the purpose of extending the GHT road and that theLand Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.3 and Ex.C.4 has fixedthe compensation for the wet land as Rs.6,000/- per cent and dry land asRs.8,000/- per cent and that in the absence of any material placed bythe Government for any other data land, the compensation fixed by theLand Acquisition Tribunal shall not be reduced. In support hiscontention, the learned counsel for the respondent would rely on (2003)12 Supreme Court Cases 642 (V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. Vs. LandAcquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer), wherein the relevantobservation of the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows:-"It is contended by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned SeniorCounsel for the appellants that the land so acquired has highpotentialities. National Highway 7 is being intervened by thepetrol bunk and the premises of State Bank of India. There arehouses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of theacquired land. The developmental activities are towards Kurnoolwhere the land at Survey No.386 has been acquired. The learnedSenior Counsel, therefore, urged that the sale instances reliedupon by the Reference Court ought not to have been disturbed by theHigh Court. We are unable to sustain this submission of thecounsel. The land may be having high potentialities or it may beproximate to the developed land, but that itself would be no groundfor not deducting the developmental charges. This Court in Kasturiv. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 720:1997 SCC (Cri) 283 held thatit is well settled that in respect of agricultural land orundeveloped land which has potential value for housing orcommercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has tobe deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on theacquired land subject to certain variations depending on itsnature, location, extent of expenditure involved for developmentand the area required for roads and other civic amenities todevelop the land do as to make the plots for residential orcommercial purposes. This Court also pointed out that there isdifference between a developed area and an area having potentialvalue, which is yet to be developed. It was further pointed outthat the fact that the land is developed or adjacent to a developedarea will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area alsodeveloped to be valued as a building site or plot. The facts ofthe present case are exactly the same as the situation in whichthis Court has made the above observation. In the present case,the undisputed facts on record would show that the acquired landwith National Highway 7 is intervened by a petrol bunk and thepremises of State Bank of India. There are also houses, shops andhotels on the north, south and west of the acquired land. Theacquired land is also about 100 yards away from National Highway 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No doubt, the acquired land may be having high potential value butthat itself per se cannot be claimed to be a developed land. Lotsof developmental activities are to be undertaken like laying ofroads, sewerage facility, water supply, etc. so that the land wouldbe made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, whichwould require enormous emount of expenditure."In the case on hand also there are houses, shops, compound walls, welland rice mills in the acquired land itself. Under such circumstances,it cannot be said that the land acquired by the Government are lackingpotentiality. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that theaward of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.23 of 1993 need not beinterfered with, and the same is hereby confirmed.9. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Nocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssvTo,1. The Additional Subordinate Judge,Chengalpattu.2. The Section Officer,V.R.Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.N.S.Subramani, Advocate, SR.34823.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34199.A.S.No.340 of 1997 RVL 25.07.2008