The Special Tahsildar (LA)(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Salem v. Chellamuthu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15.04.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.969 of 1997The Special Tahsildar (LA)(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Salem...AppellantVs.1. Chellamuthu2. Tmt.Selvam3. Tmt.Savithri4. Sakthivel...RespondentsThis appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act as against the judgment and decree of the learnedAdditional Subordinate Judge of Salem dated 05.01.1994 made inL.A.O.P.No.2/1987.For Appellant: Mr.V.Ravi, Special Govt. Pleader (AS)For Respondent: Mr.V.Manisekaran(for R2 to R4) J U D G M E N TThis appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act isdirected against the judgment and award passed by the learnedAdditional Subordinate Judge, Salem on 05.01.1994 in LAOPNo.2/1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, namely the SpecialTahsildar (LA) (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Salem is the appellantherein. The claimants before the court below in the LAOP are therespondents.2. An extent of 0.34.5 hectare dry land (equivalent to 85cents) comprised in Survey No.84/12 in Keerapappambadi Village,Salem Taluk, Salem District was acquired by the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ following the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act(Central Act) for providing house sites to the Arunthathiars ofKeerapappambadi village. The notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the said land wasapproved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2423/SWD dated 30.10.1984and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 19.12.1984.As the said notification was not initially published in thevernacular language it was once again published in the vernacularlanguage on on 03.01.1985 and 04.01.1985. 3. After hearing the objections and overruling the same, theGovernment decided to proceed with acquisition and the declarationunder Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved bythe Government in G.O.Ms.No.1533/SWD dated 18.06.1986. The samewas also published in the Gazette on 20.06.1986 and the localdailies on 21.06.1986 and 22.06.1986. It was also published in thelocality by beat of tom-tom on 21.06.1986. After award enquiry,the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 06.11.1986 in hisproceedings Roc.No.1658/84(A) awarding compensation to the acquiredland fixing its market value at the rate of Rs.13,062/- per acre.The total award was arrived at as follows:Value of the land extending85 cents (of un-irrigated dry land) at the rate of Rs.13,062/- per acre:Rs.11,102.70PValue of Trees: 191.00-------------TotalRs.11,293.70PSolatium @ 30% 3,888.10P-------------TotalRs.14,681.80PAdditional market value @ 12% }per annum on the market value }from 24.06.1985 to 17.11.1986,}namely upto the date of award } 1,899.80P-------------Grand TotalRs.16,581.60P-------------4. The said amount was received by the respondentsherein/claimants under protest and with a contention that the valueof the property should be fixed at a higher rate, namelyRs.15,000/- per acre and a higher amount should be awarded ascompensation for the land. It was also contended by the claimantsthat the trees were valued at a lower rate and they should also bevalued at a higher rate. Based on the said contention, they prayed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894to be made to the court for determining proper compensation.Accordingly, a reference was made by the appellant herein to thecourt below (Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem) under Section 18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. The said reference was taken on file by the Sub court asLAOP No.2/1987. After the claim statement of the claimants andobjections of the referring officer were filed, the court belowconducted a trial, in which two witnesses were examined as CW-1 and2 and one document was marked as Ex.C1 on the side of theclaimants/respondents herein, whereas no witness was examined andno document was marked on the side of the Referring Officer, whofigures as the appellant herein. At the conclusion of trial, thecourt below considered the arguments advanced on either side andupon such a consideration, fixed the market value of the propertyat the rate of Rs.400/- per cent, deducted 25%, namely a sum ofRs.100/- from the same, as a smaller extent of land was comparedwith a larger extent for fixation of market value and directedpayment of compensation taking the market value of the property tobe Rs.300/- per cent. The court below has also enhanced thecompensation for the trees at the rate of Rs.250/- per yieldingpalmyra tree, Rs.150/- per non-yielding palmyra tree and Rs.50/-per palai tree. The court below has also directed calculation ofadditional market value at the rate of 12% from 24.06.1985 to17.11.1986 and solatium @ 30% of the market value. Interest @ 9%per annum for a period of one year from the date of award of theLand Acquisition Officer and there after @ 15% per annum tillpayment, was also ordered.6. Contending that the compensation fixed and awarded by thecourt below is excessive, the Referring officer/the appellantherein has come forward with the present appeal on various groundsset out in the Memorandum of Appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal areas follows:1) Whether the market value fixed by the court belowis erroneous?And2) Whether the compensation awarded by the courtbelow is excessive requiring downward revision?8. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader (AS) on behalf of the appellant andMr.V.Manisekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents 2 to 4 were heard. The materials available on recordwere also perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The property in question, namely 85 cents of dry landcomprised in Survey No.84/12 in Keerapappambadi Village, SalemTaluk, Salem District was acquired by the Government for providinghouse sites to Aruthathiars. There is no dispute that the saidland is abutting road. Though the Land Acquisition Officer haschosen to consider a number of sales included in the data sales, heultimately relied on a sale that took place in Survey Nos.116/4A,116/9B and 116/8 of the said village as per document No.1021/1984dated 13.12.1984 registered on the file of Sub Registrar,Tharamangalam. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has chosento discard a number of sales which have been included in the salesdata and selected the above said sale deed as reflecting thecorrect market value of the acquired property, the ReferringOfficer has not chosen to produce an authenticated copy of the saidSale Deed which was selected by him as the data sale, based onwhich the market value of the property was fixed by him. It hasnow been made clear that the Referring Officer in LAOPs are in theposition of defendants and the compensation awarded by the LandAcquisition Officer shall be nothing but an offer made by theGovernment for the compulsory acquisition of the property. It hasalso been held in clear terms in so many cases that unless acertified copy of the Sale Deed which is relied on by the LandAcquisition Officer as data sale is produced, the same cannot betaken into consideration by the court dealing with LAOP in fixingthe market value of the acquired property. 10. In the instant case, the only document produced before thecourt below in the LAOPs is the certified copy of a Sale Deed dated18.06.1982 executed by Mariappa Gounder, son of Andiappa goundar infavour of Alagu @ Seerangan, son of Rajappa Goundar in respect ofSurvey No.97/4 registered as document No.728/1982 in the office ofthe Sub Registrar, Tharamangalam and marked as Ex.C1. Based on thesaid document, the respondents herein/claimants had claimed thatthe acquired property should be valued at the rate of Rs.45,000/-per acre. In addition to the production of the said certifiedcopy of sale deed marked as Ex.C1, parole evidence has also beenadduced to the effect that the property conveyed therein was, inall particulars, comparable to the acquired land and that the saidsale transaction was a genuine one. One of the attesters of thesaid document has also been examined as CW-1 on the side of therespondents herein/claimants. The witnesses examined on the sideof the claimants, have in clear and unambiguous terms stated thatthe said land is situated nearer to the acquired land than the dataland selected by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the light of theabove said facts, more particularly when there is no evidenceeither oral or documentary on the side of the Referring officer andwhen the genuineness of the transaction made under Ex.C1 has notbeen successfully challenged, this court finds no defect orinfirmity in the procedure adopted by the court below in relying onEx.C1 as the data sale relevant for fixing the market value of theacquired property. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. It is true that under Ex.C1 a small piece of land havingan extent of three cents had been sold for a sum of Rs.1,300/-. Ifthe value is worked on the basis of the said rate, the value of onecent land comes to Rs.435/-. However, there seems to be acontradiction between the evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 as to whetherthe said property was sold as a house site or an agriculture land.CW-1, in his evidence would state that it was sold as anagriculture land and not as a house site. CW-2, in his evidencewould state that the said land was sold under the original of Ex.C1as house site. However, the fact remains that as on the date ofthe said sale, the property had not been classified to be a housesite and on the other hand it remained under the classification ofdry land. Taking into consideration the above said facts, thecourt below seems to have chosen to reduce 25% of the value forwhich the said land was sold under Ex.C1 to make it comparable tothe acquired land which was of a larger extent, namely 85 cents.Normally, when a larger extent of land is to be divided into housesites, a considerable portion is to be deducted as areas to be leftfor common use, like roads, streets, etc. So, when a large extentof property having the potential of being developed into house siteis to be valued on the basis of the value of another house site,then a deduction of 20 to 40% has to be made. In this case, thecourt below has chosen to allow a deduction of 25% alone. The sameseems to be quite reasonable. Therefore, there is no scope forinterference with the award of the court below regarding thefixation of the market value of the acquired land. 12. So far as the value of the trees is concerned, it has notbeen canvassed by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing on behalf of the appellant to be disproportionate orexcessive. In fact, the value fixed for yielding paymyra trees,non-yielding palmyra trees and palai palmyra trees by the courtbelow at the rate of Rs.250/-, 150/- and 50/- per treerespectively, by no stretch of imagination can be stated eitherexcessive or exorbitant. Therefore, the judgment and award of thecourt below regarding valuation of the land and trees do notdeserve any interference by this court in this appeal. 13. The court below has also rightly directed payment of 12%additional market value from the last date of publication of 4(1)notification till the date of award of the Land Acquisition Officerat the rate of 12% per annum and also solatium on the market valueat the rate of 30%. The court below has also rightly directedpayment of interest for a period of one year from the date oftaking possession of the Land (18.11.1986) at the rate of 9% perannum and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter. The same is inaccordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Therefore this court does not find any scope, whatsoever tointerfere with the judgment and award of the court below in respectof the additional market value and the interest and the samedeserve to be confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the appealdeserves to be dismissed.15. In the result, the judgment and award of the court beloware confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with cost. asr Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To1) The Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem2) The Special Tahsildar (LA) (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Salem+ 1 cc to The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, SR.14300+ 1 cc to Mr.V.Manisekaran, Advocate, SR.14317Predelivery Judgment inA.S.No.969 of 1997KA(CO)GS/13/07/09