S.M. Kandasamy & Ors. v. The Land Acquisition OfficerRevenue Divisional OfficerGobichettipalayamErode District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.12.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANA.S.No.364 of 19981. S.M. Kandasamy2. M.Rathinasamy Both sons of Muthusamy Gounder No. 261, AyapallithottamKottuveerampalayamSathyamangalam TalukErode District.. Appellants/claimantsVersusThe Land Acquisition OfficerRevenue Divisional OfficerGobichettipalayamErode District.. Respondent/RespondentPRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated30.07.1997 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge,Gobichettipalayam.For Appellants: Mr.V.BharathidasanFor Respondent:Mr.V.RaviSpecial Government PleaderJUDGMENTThe claimants have preferred this appeal against the judgmentand decree dated 30.07.1997 made in L.A.O.P.No. 1 of 1996 on the fileof the Sub Court, Gobichettypalayam. 2. The Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) ofThe Land Acquisition Act on 25.06.1992 for acquisition of the landscomprised in survey No.84/1 to an extent of 1.25 acres or 0.50.3hectares situated in Village No.31, Kottuveerampalayam,Sathyamangalam, Erode District for the purpose of construction ofHead works and treatment work under Sathyamangalam water supplyimprovement scheme. The lands of the claimants in Survey No.84/3 toan extent of 0.50.5 hectares was also sought to be acquired. Aftercomplying with the formalities, an award was passed on 11.10.1993fixing the compensation for the acquired lands to an extent of 1.25acres at Rs.76,172/-. The Land Acquisition Officer, taking intoconsideration the data sale deed in survey No.71/1 and 71/2, Ex.B5dated 23.08.1990 fixed the value for the acquired lands. The datasale deed was shown as item No.24 in the sale statistics taken by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved against the said fixation ofland value, the claimants have sought for reference under Section 18of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly reference was made and itwas taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court,Gobichettypalayam. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have marked Exs.C1 to C7 and CWs 1 to 5 were examined. On behalf of the LandAcquisition Officer, Exs. A1 to A6 were marked and one Arumugam,Village Administrative Officer was examined as RW1 and Velayudam,Retired Revenue Divisional officer was examined as RW2. TheReference Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentaryevidence produced by both sides, enhanced the compensation amountfrom Rs.61,500/- per acre to Rs,1,00,000/- per acre. Not beingsatisfied by the enhancement made by the Reference Court, theclaimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.4. Heard both the parties. The points for consideration inthis appeal are"1.whether the enhancement made by theReference Court is not in accordance with law2.Whether any deductions have to be given inrespect of the compensation fixed by theReference Court" 5. Before the Reference Court, it was contended by theclaimants that the acqired lands are fit enough for conversion intohouse site, there are houses situate in and around the acquiredlands, very near to the acquired lands the river Bhavani is flowingand Sakthi Bannari Road is situate. Further, there are schools,lorry sheds and other important buildings, including Municipal officeare located in and around the acquired lands. It was furthercontended that Exs. C1 to C3 reflect the true and correct value forthe acquired lands and therefore, the claimants prayed for fixing asum of Rs.25,000/- per cent as compensation. It was also contendedthat the lands in and around acquired lands were sold at the rate ofRs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per cent during the relevant time andtherefore fixing Rs.25,000/- per cent would be reasonable. It wasfurther contended that the claimants have examined CW2 to CW5, whoare the adjoining land owners, through whom documents have beenmarked to show that 4 cents of land were sold at the rate ofRs.20,000/- per cent during the relevant period in the area inquestion as they were treated as house-sites. Therefore if the saletransactions produced by the claimants in Ex.C1 to C3 are considered,the value of the acquired lands can easily be fixed at the rate ofRs.25,000/- per cent 6. Contra, before the Reference Court, it was contended onbehalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that the lands to an extent of0.50.5 hectares out of 2.06.0 hectares in Survey No.84/3 wereacquired from the claimants for the purpose of providing waterconstruction of Head works and treatment work under Sathyamangalamwater supply improvement scheme. For the purpose of fixing the valuefor the acquired lands, sale statistics relating to three years prior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) was takenfrom the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sathyamangalam and accordingly114 sale transactions have been taken up for consideration. Afterconsideration of the same, the transactions reflected in Serial Nos.23 and 24 were found suitable and equivalent with the acquired landsand therefore based on the value reflected therein, the value for theacquired lands have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.Therefore it was contended that the value fixed for the acquiredlands reflect the true and correct market value prevailing as on thatdate and prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued thatthe documents Exs. C1 to C7 were produced before the Reference Courtto show that the value of the acquired lands during the relevantpoint of time will not be less than Rs.25,000/- per cent andtherefore Reference Court ought to have fixed the value based on Exs.C1 to C7. The Reference Court ought to have accepted the documentsproduced by the claimants under Exs. C1 to C7 which are registeredprior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the LandAcquisition Act. The Reference Court ought to have taken note of thevalue reflected in Exs. C1 to C7 and more compensation ought to havebeen awarded. When the Reference Court has concluded that the dataland sale deed is not having the same tharam and locational advantageas that of the acquired lands, it ought to have given adequate amountas compensation considering the evidence available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the claimants further pointed outthat Ex.C1 is a sale deed dated 21.09.1990 in respect of 4 cents landwhich was sold for Rs.80000/-. Ex.C2 is a sale deed dated 15.11.1990wherein 4 cents of land was sold for Rs.80,100/-. Similarly Ex.C3 isa sale deed dated 28.10.1992 wherein 5 cents of land has been soldfor Rs.95,000/- and the market value is shown as Rs.1,10,500/-. Ex.C4is a sale deed dated 09.04.1990 wherein 4 cents of land was sold forRs.29,000/-. Then Ex.C5 is a sale deed dated 16.06.1990 wherein 4cents of land was sold along with a well for Rs.8,200/-. Ex.C6 issale deed dated 22.03.1991 whereunder the value of the land to anextent of 3/4 cents with a well and a 10 HP Motor valued atRs.10,000/- were sold for Rs.15,500/- . Lastly Ex.C7 is a sale deeddated 12.04.1991 wheeunder 216 sq.ft of land was sold for Rs.5,000/-.In order to substantiate the above documents, on behalf of theclaimants, PW2, PW3, PW4, who are vendors of Exs.C2 to C4 for wereexamined. In their cross-examination there was no suggestion made toshow that those documents were created for the purpose of acquisitionproceedings. Moreover, those documents have come into existence twoyears prior to the 4(1) notification. Therefore, the documents filedon behalf of the claimants need not be rejected and it can be takeninto consideration for the purpose of arriving at the valuation. Inany event, the compensation awarded by the Court below is very lowand not in accordance with the market value prevailing by then. 9. As far as deduction is concerned, the learned counsel forthe claimants would state that the Reference Court has not grantedany deduction since the purpose of acquisition is only to put up awater tank and there is no necessity for any development charges tobe incurred by the Government. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Contra, the learned Government Special Pleader vehementlyargued that the court below has rightly not given credence to Exs. C1to C3 which are relating to smaller extent of 4 cents of land sold atthe rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent and it cannot be taken intoconsideration at all in view of the fact that the land acquired wasan agricultural land. It was not developed land and it has not beenconverted as house-sites. There is no potentiality of the acquiredlands for being converted in to house-site. Merely because theadjacent lands were sold for higher rates, that by itself would notamount to seeking enhanced compensation on the basis of the valuationas per sq.ft basis. In this connection he relied upon the findings ofthe land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry under Section 5-A of theLand Acquisition Act, wherein the claimant himself has stated that",e;epyk; g[";ir njhl;l g{kp vd;Wk; ,jpy; 0/05/5 bcwf;nlh; epyk; rj;jpak';fy efuhl;rpf;Fifafg;gLj;Jtjw;F ml;nrgiz VJkpy;iybad epy chpikahh;fs; bjhptpj;Js;shh;fs;"Therefore it was submitted that the request of the claimant at thispoint of time to rely upon documents Exs. C1 to C3, which relates tosmaller extent 4 cents, 3 cents of land need not be considered at alland the amount awarded by the Reference Court is reasonable.11. It is seen from the records that the claimants haveproduced Ex.C1 to show that the lands in the area have been sold atthe rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent during the relevant period of time.The claimants have also produced Exs. C4 whereunder one cent of landwas sold for Rs.5,000/-. Curiously, under Ex.C5, four cents of landwas sold for a sum of Rs.3,200/ -. Therefore, it can safely beconcluded that the claim of the claimants that the lands in the areaare being sold at Rs.20,000/- per cent cannot be the correct andtrue market value and on the basis of the same, the value for theacquired land cannot be fixed. However, the value reflected in Exs.C4 and C6 can be taken into consideration for fixing the price of theacquired lands. 12. Now taking into consideration the sale statistics and thetopo-sketch of the area in which the acquired lands were situate, itis clear that the property in question is treated only as anagricultural land and it was not converted into housing plot. Thepotentiality of the land is one of the factors required to be takeninto consideration for determining the valuation of the property. Asstated by the Honourable Supreme Court, the value has to bedetermined by adhering to the principles "what a willing buyer wouldlike to pay and what a willing seller would like to sell". Underthose circumstances the only evidence available is the valuation inExs.C5, C6 viz., wherein one cent of land was sold at Rs.800/- andanother cent at Rs.1000/- per cent. Even in the data land sale inrespect of Survey Nos.71/1 and 71/2, an extent of 1.84.0 hectars hasbeen sold and on that basis, the valuation has been arrived atRs.1,51,905/-. 13. In any view of the matter, taking into considerationthe sale deed produced by the claimants themselves, especially Exs.C4 and C6, which in my view reflects the correct and fair value forthe acquired lands, even though it relates to a smaller extent ofland. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Singh(Dead)Through L.R.S and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supreme Court Cases 568 for determination of market value of largeextent of land, on the basis of exemplars of small pieces of land,the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the smallpieces of land could not be a ground to discard them especially whenexemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Following theprinciple laid down by the Supreme Court when no other document isproduced either by the Government or by the Claimants for fordetermining the correct value of the property, the value reflectedunder Exs. C4 and C6 can be taken into consideration for fixing theprice of the acquired lands. In order to prove the market value ofthe acquired lands, based on Exs. C4 and C6, the vendors of thedocument were examined to show that the area in question is fastdeveloping. Further more the lands are situated very near toSathyamangalam Municipality. 14. It is seen from the records that the acquired lands areagricultural lands. Merely because it was an agricultural land, thatby itself cannot be taken to hold that the lands are not having anypotentiality. Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court has heldthat the potential value has to be taken into considerationespecially in this case when there are prime properties situated inthe adjacent area. Therefore, taking into consideration the over allevidence available on record, this Court is of the view that theproperty in question can fetch easily Rs.2,00,000/- per acre 15.The learned Government Pleader argued on behalf of therequisition body also and contended that the property though situatedin the town itself, it was only an agricultural land. But the factremains the property is in the main town. The land would even fetchmuch more as beneficial house-sites. Hence when considering theenhancement, the court below ought to have taken into considerationthe other factors viz., the potentiality of the conversion of theproperty into housing plot. When this potentiality is looked into theenhancement at Rs.1,000/- per cent by the court below cannot be aproper amount and taking into consideration the sale deeds and theevidences let in both parties, it is clear that the acquired landsare situate in the town itself the valuation can be arrived atRs.2,000/- per cent instead of Rs.1,000/- per cent as fixed by courtbelow. If the valuation is arrived at Rs.2,000/- per cent orRs.2,00,000/- per acre the valuation would be proper and reasonable.Therefore in my considered view, the value of the acquired land canbe enhanced from Rs.1,000/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- peracre. Considering the fact the nature of the land, especiallysituated in the town and even the purpose for which it has beenacquired i.e, to put up the water tank for service to the peopleresiding therein, the value of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre is fair andreasonable. 16. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted thepotentiality of the acquired land need not be gone into at this stageas the land as on date remains an agricultural land. Contra, thelearned counsel for the claimants submits that when there are twosets of documents produced by the claimants to show the value of thelands at Rs.20,000/- per cent Rs.1,000/- per cent the court has to betake into consideration the best available price. No doubt theclaimants have produced not only the documents but also examined PW2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to PW4 vendors of the document to prove the valuation. Under thosecircumstances as stated by the Honourable Supreme Court the principal"what a willing buyer would like to pay and what a willing sellerwould like to sell" has to be adopted in this case. The lower Courttaking into consideration the documents C4 to C6 fixed the value onthe basis of Ex.C6 at Rs.1,000/- per cent enhanced the compensationto Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The Government has not preferred anyappeal against the same. As far as the claimants are concerned, theyhave filed the present appeal for enhancement. Therefore, in orderto strike a balance, fixing Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for the acquiredlands will be fair and reasonable.17. As far as the question of deduction is concerned, asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, thepurpose of acquisition is only for the purpose of putting up a watertank construction and there is no necessity or need for anyimprovement to be made and only the tank has to be built. Thereforethe Reference Court also rightly not granted any deduction 18. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing thecompensation from Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acreand in all other respect, the judgment of the lower Court isconfirmed. No costs. It is made clear that the appellant/claimant isentitled to all statutory benefits under Law.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrarr n sTo.1. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.2. The Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam.+ 1 CC to Mr.V.Bharathidasan,Advocate,SR.65967A.S.No.364 of 1998SGL(CO)EM/18.6.10