Venkatachala Naidu (Died) & Ors v. The Revenue Divisional OfficerTiruvannamalaiTiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.945 of 19961.Venkatachala Naidu (Died)2.Kannammal3.Geetha4.Suguna5.V.Elangovan... Appellants/Claimants(Appellants 2 to 5 brought onrecord as LRs of the deceasedsole appellant vide order dated 11.01.2008 and15.02.2008 made in C.M.P.Nos.57 to 59/2008)Vs.The Revenue Divisional OfficerTiruvannamalaiTiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District... Respondent/Referring OfficerThis Appeal has been filed u/s 54 of the Land AcquisitionAct (Act I of 1894) as amended by Act 68 of 1984) as against theJudgement and Award (Decree) passed by the learned SubordinateJudge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District madein L.A.O.P.No.59 of 1994 dated 16.07.1996.For Appellants: Mr.M.SriramFor Respondent: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (A.S)JUDGEMENTThis appeal is directed against the judgement and award(decree) dated 16.07.1996 passed by the learned SubordinateJudge, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.59/1994. The Governmenthas acquired an extent of one acre out of the total extent of4.56 acres comprised in old Survey No.13/3B1 (new SurveyNo.13/13B/1D) in Thukkapettai village, Chengam Taluk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruvannamalai District (formerly part of North Arcot District)for the purpose of constructing a Telephone Exchange. Thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act wasissued on 14.03.1984. Out of the one acre land acquired by theGovernment for the above said purpose, 5½ cents was the propertybelonging to the Appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer,during the award enquiry collected particulars of as many as 143sales that took place within three years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, but relied on the sale deed bearing documentno.1867/82 dated 26.07.1982 pertaining to Survey No.9/4A1 as thedata sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquiredproperty, fixed the market value at Rs.300/- per cent (whichcomes about 69 Paise per square foot) and awarded a totalcompensation to the appellant herein as follows:-Market value of 5½ cents at the rateof Rs.300/- per centRs.1,650.00Solatium at 30% on the above saidamount495.00Increase in the market rate @ 12%per annum from the date of 4(1)notification till the date of award775.50-----------TotalRs.2,920.50-----------2. As the appellant herein was not satisfied with thecompensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimedmore amount as compensation, a reference was made to the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct. The same was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.59/1994. Beforethe Referring officer as well as the Court to which the referencewas made, the appellant herein put forward a claim for the awardof compensation at the rate of Rs.175/- per square foot. Theappellant/claimant had also made a claim of Rs.31,400/- ascompensation for the superstructure, namely, a building built up-to the basement level. The claim was resisted by the respondentcontending that the correct market value was adopted for awardingcompensation for the land acquired by the Government and hence norevision of the compensation could be made. It was alsocontended therein that though there was a building up-to thebasement level on the date of publication of notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, subsequent to the saidNotification, the appellant/claimant dismantled the structure andwhen the award enquiry was conducted and the date on which theaward was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, there was nostructure present in the land concerned in this appeal and hencethe Land Acquisition Officer had rightly disallowed the claim ofcompensation for the superstructure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. During the enquiry before the Subordinate Judge,Tiruvannamalai, one witness was examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 weremarked on the side of the appellants herein/claimants. Onewitness was examined and B1 to B4 were marked on the side of theRespondent/Referring Officer. At the conclusion of the enquiry,on an appreciation of evidence and after going through the entirematerials available on record, the learned Subordinate Judge,fixed the market value of the property acquired at the rate ofRs.6/- per square foot relying on an award passed in anotherL.A.O.P. (L.A.O.P.No.6/1990) concerning another piece of landcomprised in the very same Survey Number acquired under the verysame award and awarded enhanced compensation as indicated below:Value of property at the rate of Rs.6/-per square foot for 5½ cents Rs.14,355.00Solatium at 30% 4,306.50PIncrease in market value at 12% from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award or the date on which possessionwas taken over by the Government, whichever is earlier 3,301.65P ------------Total Rs.21,963.15P ------------Amount awarded by the LandAcquisition Officer was Rs.2,920.50PEnhanced of compensationawarded in the L.A.O.P. is Rs.21,963.15PThe said amount was directed to be paid along with aninterest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the dateof award of the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter at therate of 15% per annum. Not satisfied with the amount awarded ascompensation by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai,the appellant/claimant has approached this court by way ofpresent appeal.4. The point that arises for consideration in this appealare:-1)whether the value adopted by the Court below for theacquired land is far below the actual market value?3)Whether the court below has committed an error in notaccepting the sale noted in Sl.No.28 of the Sale dataprepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the samplesale reflecting the actual market value of the propertyacquired? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5)Whether the appellant are entitled to enhancedcompensation? If so to what extent?5. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Sriram,learned counsel for the Appellants and the rival submissions madeby Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing theRespondent. The materials available on record were also perused.Points 1 to 3:6) The erstwhile owner of the land which was acquired by theGovernment for the purpose of putting up a Telephone Exchange hascome forward with this appeal challenging the correctness of thejudgment and award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.59 of 1994 dated 16.07.1996 on areference made to the said Court under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. The bone of contention in this appeal seems tobe the basis on which the market value of the property acquiredshould have been fixed. Though more than 143 sales have beenscrutinized by the Land Acquisition Officer, item 70 in the saledata alone was taken into consideration for fixing the marketvalue of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge on thereference made to him by the Referring Officer, disagreed withthe Land Acquisition Officer so far as the selection of the datasale was concerned. The learned Subordinate Judge took note ofan earlier LAOP namely, L.A.O.P.No.6/1990, in which the marketvalue was fixed at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot in respectof another piece of land within the very same Survey Number. Thelearned Subordinate Judge in the said former LAOP relied on theadmission of the witness examined on the side of the ReferringOfficer that the guideline value as on the date of 4(1)Notification was Rs.6.35 per square foot. However, taking intoconsideration the fact that when the rate per square feet is tobe adopted for a larger extent namely 61½ cents in the said LAOP,the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai chose to allow adeduction of 35 paise per square foot and fixed the market valuefor the entire extent of 61½ cents at the rate of Rs.6/- persquare foot. The same rate was applied by the learnedSubordinate Judge in the case on hand unmindful of the fact thatthe property acquired from the appellants herein/claimants was asmaller extent, namely 5½ cents7) In case of such smaller extents no deduction fordevelopmental charges/open space to be made as would be done incase of larger extent. 8) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellants, the acquired land in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990, was a largerextent, namely 61½ cents and the said deduction was made for theopen space to be left if the same was to be converted into housesites. Similar situation does not arise in the case on hand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because, the property concerned in this case is only a smallpiece of land which was admittedly a house site even beforeacquisition. Therefore, even if the market value adopted by theSubordinate Court in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990 could be adopted in thepresent case, it should have been adopted without allowing anydeduction from the above said market value, namely Rs.6.35 persquare foot. In addition to the submissions, the learned counselfor the appellant also relied on the particulars found inSl.Nos.25 to 28 in the chart containing the sale data produced bythe Land Acquisition Officer. Of course, as per the sale data inSl.Nos.25 to 27 it has been shown as if the land in the verysame Survey number land was sold at the rate of Rs.6/- per squarefoot. The rates ranges from Rs.4.99 to Rs.6/- per square foot.Yet another sale relied on by the learned counsel for theAppellant is the one found in Sl.No.28 of the sales datacollected by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has noted thereinthat as per the said document a sale had taken place at the rateof Rs.21/- per square foot. Unfortunately, neither theappellants herein/claimants nor the Respondent herein/ReferringOfficer produced copies of any one of the above said sale deeds.9) Of course copy of the data sales relied on by the LandAcquisition Officer was produced. But the learned SubordinateJudge has rejected the said sale deed as not reflecting thecorrect market value, as the property sold there under could notbe equated with the acquired land besides, the land beingsituated at a far off place. In addition to the same, thelearned Subordinate Judge has also found that the said land didnot have the facilities like proximity to the main road. Thesaid finding has not been challenged by the Respondent/ReferringOfficer. The selection of the market value adopted by the verysame court in respect of another piece of land situated in thevery same Survey Number has also not been challenged by theRespondent/Referring Officer. Hence, we cannot find fault withthe learned Subordinate Judge for his selection of the awardpassed in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990 as the basis on which the acquiredland concerned in this appeal should be valued to find out itsmarket value. The admitted guideline line value was taken as thebasis in the LAOP No.6/1990 for fixing the market value. Whilecoming to the conclusion that the basis on which the market valuewas ascertained for the other piece of the land comprised in thevery same Survey Number should also be the basis of assessment ofthe market value of the land concerned in the case on hand, thelearned Subordinate Judge, as rightly pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the Appellants, has forgotten the important fact thatthe deduction allowed therein should not have been made in thecase on hand, as the property concerned in the case on hand isonly a small piece of land compared with a larger piece of landconcerned in the other LAOP. Therefore, this court comes to theconclusion that the admitted guideline value as on the date of 4(1) Notification should be the basis on which the market value ofthe property should be calculated. At the same time this Court is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also of the view that the deduction of 35 paise per square footallowed in the former case should not have been allowed in thecase on hand and the market value should have been fixed at therate of Rs.6.35 per square foot without any such deduction.Based on the above said finding regarding the market value, thecompensation to which the appellant/claimant is entitled to iscalculated as under.Market value of the property at the rate of Rs.6.35 per square foot for5½ Cents15,192.40PSolatium at 30% 4,557.70PIncrease in market value at 12% from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award or the date on which possessionwas taken over by the Government, whichever is earlier (from 14.03.1984to 25.01.88, date of award) 7,044.00Total26,794.10PRounded off to 26,794.00Amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as per his award Rs.2,920.50PEnhanced compensation to the appellant entitled tois Rs.26,794.00The above said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of9% per annum from 05.09.1998, the admitted date of takingpossession pursuant to the award of the Land AcquisitionOfficerthe date of the Land Acquisition Officer Award for aperiod of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the dateof realisation.10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Award ofthe learned Trial Court is modified by fixing the total amount ofcompensation at Rs.26,794/- in L.A.O.P.No.59/1994 as againstRs.2,920.50.11. After taking the amount awarded by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, the enhanced compensation is fixed at Rs.23,873.50Pwhich amount shall be paid with an interest at the rate of 9% perannum for one year from the admitted date of taking possession(05.09.1998) and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.asrTo1. The Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai.Tiruvannamalai District.2. The Section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Madras1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 183081 cc to Mr.M. Sriram, Advocate, Sr. 18320A.S.No.945 of 1996ASM (CO)kk 10/6