The Special Tahsildar (ADW)Thiruppattur,N.A.A.District v. Lakshmiammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 28.01.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.481 of 1998The Special Tahsildar (ADW)Thiruppattur,N.A.A.District.... Appellant Vs. Lakshmiammal ... Respondent Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learnedSubordinate Judge of Thirupattur in LAOP No.36 of 1990, dated21.04.1995.For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondent :: Mr.K.S.Karthik Rajan for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated21.04.1995 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Thirupattur made in LAOPNo.36 of 1990. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.2. Heard both sides.3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this LAOP would run thus:The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under theLand Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of0.83.0 hectares in S.No.112/1B in Madhanancheri Village, for thepurpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel.After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officerpassed an award assessing a sum of Rs.8,848/- per acre towardscompensation. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation,the matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of theLand Acquisition Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of theclaimant C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the sideof the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.C1 andC2 were marked as court exhibits.5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.8,448/- per acre to Rs.4/- per square foot.6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the SubCourt, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on variousgrounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:The Sub Court simply relied on Ex.A5 the sale deed dated07.11.1987 which emerged just one month anterior to publication ofSection 4(1) Notification on 16.12.1987 and such an approach isantithetical to the well settled proposition of law; only 20% deductionwas taken into account instead of 1/3rd; the Land Acquisition Officercorrectly for assessing the compensation took into account the natureof the land viz., agricultural land based on Ex.B1 dated 29.04.1985.Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of theSub Court. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing compensation from Rs.8,448/- per acre toRs.4/- per square foot.8. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) placingreliance of the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to theeffect that the Sub Court mainly relied on Ex.A4 which emerged only amonth before publication of Section 4(1) Notification and it is quiteobvious that such a document was brought about purely for the purposeof inflating the value of the land in that locality and to get morecompensation. 9. The learned counsel for the land owner would invite theattention of this Court to Ex.A5 dated 07.11.1987 and advance hisargument that the land covered under Ex.A5 is very near to the landacquired and it reflected the true market value; considering the valueas contemplated in Ex.A4 dated 11.07.1986, the value as contemplated inEx.A5 by no stretch of imagination could be termed or labelled asexcessive. Accordingly, he prayed for the disposal of the appeal.10. At the outset itself I would like to observe that eventhough there is some amount of proximity between Exs.A4 and A5 inspecifying the value of the land in that locality, nevertheless Ex.A5emerged only a month anterior to Section 4(1) Notification and hence itis not safe to rely on it. On the other hand, Ex.A4 the sale deedemerged on 11.07.1986 more than a year anterior to publication ofSection 4(1) Notification which was made on 16.12.1987 and the Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court could have very much relied on Ex.A4 instead of Ex.A5. Whereas Icould see no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondent in placingreliance on Ex.B1 the sale deed dated 29.04.1985 which emerged almosttwo years anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification withregard to agricultural land. It is a trite proposition of law that thepurpose of acquisition should be taken into account. Here indubitablyand unassailably the land acquired is for providing house sites to AdiDravidar community people and in such a case, the plot value should betaken into consideration. Ex.A4 reflects the plot value of the land asthe land acquired and the land conteplated in Ex.A4 are situated oneither side of the road.11. A bare perusal of the sketch available on record wouldevince that the land acquired in in survey No.112, whereas Ex.A4relates to the land situated in survey No.103. Both those lands aresituated on the either side of the road and nearer to each other.Hence Ex.A4 would be the proper document to be relied on. Accordinglyif viewed, Ex.A4 would contemplate an extent of 504 sq.ft. having beensold for a sum of Rs.1963/- which means per square foot was sold in asum of Rs.3.90 and it could be rounded to Rs.4/-. Since there didexist more than one year gap between Ex.A4 and publication of Section 4(1) Notification, 10% increase could be given. Accordingly if viewed,it would come to Rs.4.40. However, the learned Special GovernmentPleader (A.S.) would submit that 1/3rd has to be deducted. In myconsidered opinion, in all cases 1/3rd deduction need not be effectedand it could differ from case to case. Here the land acquired issituated in S.No.103 measuring an extent of 2.05 acres and it is verynearer to the main road and Ex.A4 would also show that the propertythere is more or less in developing vicinity.12. R.W.1 the Special Tahsildar concerned during crossexamination would candidly and categorically state that the landacquired is near to School, Palvadi and also nearer to the road; thereare also houses nearby the land acquired. Hence I am of the view that20% deduction would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, thefollowing formula emerges:Rate per sq.ft. - Rs.4.4020% deduction towardsdevelopment charges- Rs.0.88Net- Rs.3.52Rounded off to - Rs.3.5013. Accordingly the judgment of the Sub Court shall standmodified to the effect that per square foot compensation has to beawarded at the rate of Rs.3.50 and I make it clear that the claimant isalso entitled to other statutory benefits as per law including https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. However, thereshall be no order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The Subordinate Judge of Thirupattur.2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman,Advocate,SR.4144+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.4200A.S.No.481 of 1998KLT(CO)EM/25.2.