The Special TahsildarAdi Dravidar WelfareErode, Erode District v. D.Sakthivel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 11-03-2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANA.S.NO.314 OF 1999The Special TahsildarAdi Dravidar WelfareErode, Erode District....AppellantVs.D.Sakthivel...RespondentFor Appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P.For Respondent :: Mr.N.DamodaranPrayer: Appeal suit is preferred against the judgment and decreedated 14.2.1999 made in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1996 on the file ofPrincipal Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode.JUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode filed theabove appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1999 made in L.A.O.P.No.32of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court,Erode.2. An extent of dry land measuring 1.03.5 hectares equivalent to2.56 acres in S.No.149/3B in Sivagiri village, Erode District hasbeen acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, l894(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the public purpose ofmaking provision of house sites to Adi Dravidars of ThalayanallurH/O. Sivagirji village. The Section 4(1) notification was publishedon 16.9.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer/appellant herein passed anaward in Award No.4 of 1993 on 30.3.1993. In the said award, thevalue of the land was determined to Rs.2,84,160/- at the rate ofRS.1,11,000/- per acre. In addition to that, the 30 percent solatiumin a sum of Rs.85,248/- and 12 percent additional amount from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.10.1992 to 13.3.1993 in a sum of Rs.15,042/-, in total a sum ofRs.3,84,449/- was awarded. The land owner/respondent feelingaggrieved that the compensation awarded was very low, by his letterdated 16.4.12993 sought for reference for enhancement of compensationunder Sections 18(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant tothe same, a reference has been made on 7.2.1994. The reference hasbeen taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1996. The Reference Court byits order dated 4.2.1999 has enhanced the compensation at the rate ofRs.25/- per square foot and consequently granted 30 percent solatiumand 12 percent of additional amount. The enhancement so made by theReference Court is put in issue in this appeal.3. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Government Pleader appearing for theappellant contended that none of the sale deeds taken intoconsideration by the Reference Court could be taken as a validdocument for the purpose of determination of the compensation withreference to the subject land. He further contended that theReference Court erred miserably in taking average of theconsiderations stated in the sale deeds, which is not authorised bylaw. He further contended that the fixing of compensation on squarefoot basis is not correct, because the subject lands are situated ina village, which would not have any potential value. He furthercontended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the vitalissue that all the documents which were taken into consideration fordetermination of the compensation were very small in extent andnecessary deduction having regard to the larger extent acquired hasnot been made.4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for theclaimant/respondent submitted that in the absence of any other saledeed for determination of the compensation the reference Court hastaken into consideration nearly thirteen documents in and around theadjoining survey numbers of the acquired land and determined thecompensation by taking average of the sale value, which cannot beregarded a illegal. He further contended that the data documentrelied on by the land Acquisition Officer to pass the award has notbeen marked before the Reference Court, however even in thatdocument, the value has been stated on the basis of square foot only.As the land is a dry land and the respondent has already laid out theland into plots by developing the same and several constructions havecome into existence in and around the acquired land and thus thereference Court is perfectly correct in determining the compensationsquare foot basis. All infrastructure facilities are readilyavailable. The acquired land is developed land. In thosecircumstances of the case, the reference Court has rightly arrived atthe compensation, which requires no re-consideration. 5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either sideand perused the material on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The acquired land is an extent of 1.03.5 hectaresequivalently to 2.56 acres in R.S.No.149/3B in Sivagiri village. TheLand Acquisition Officer has stated to have collected 116 sale deeds,but rejected all other documents except Serial No.88 on the groundthat all other documents were not of same tharam and were away by onemile from the acquired land. The serial No.88, which has been takenas a data deed is in respect of 0.38 acres (38 cents) in SurveyNo.452/3, which has been sold for a sum of RS.42,300/-. On thatbasis, the compensation has been arrived at at the rate ofRs.1,11,000/- per acre, which is equivalent to Rs.2 per square foot.The Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence before the ReferenceCourt has admitted that the respondent has already laid out the landas house sites and as such the land in question is a developed land.He further admitted in his evidence that the data land has beenselected by the District Revenue Officer only and he was not awareof the characteristics of the land which has been taken as a dataland. He further deposed that he has taken a data land in SurveyNo.219/16 which has been sold at the rate of RS.78,000/- per acre.However, there is no reference about the data land, which the LandAcquisition Officer has chosen in Survey No.219 in the award. On thecontrary, the data deed in Survey No.88 of the sale statistics overan extent of 0.38 acres has been taken into consideration fordetermination of the compensation. Even that document has not beenmarked by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court.Hence, in our view, the data sale deed cannot be relied on fordetermination of compensation.7. On the contrary, the claimant/respondent has marked as manyas 13 documents, which are as follows:"1. Ex.C.3 sale deed dated 29.8.1988 for an extent of1500 sq.ft in survey No.149/3 of Sivagiri village for a sumof Rs.6,000/- works out to Rs.4.33 per sq.ft.2. Ex.C.4 sale deed dated 22.2.1990 for an extent of2600 sq.ft in Survey No.149/3 of Sivagiri village for asum of RS.13,000/- works out to Rs.4.88 per sq.ft.3. Ex.C.5 sale deed dated 2.9.1992 for an extent of2430 sq.ft in Survey NO.149/3 of Sivigiri village for a sumof Rs.16,000/- works out to Rs.6.58 per sq.ft..4. Ex.C.6 sale deed dated 7.2.1990 for an extent of2146 sq.ft in Survey No.744/1 of Sivagiri village for a sumof RS.60,000/- works out to RS.29.03ps per sq.ft.5. Ex.C.7 sale deed dated 21.5.1990 for an extent of651 sq.ft in Survey No.652/1 (S.No.322/C and 323/A) ofSivagiri village for a sum of Rs.19,600/- works out toRS.30.10ps per sq.ft.6. Ex.C.8 sale deed dated 7.11.1990 for an extent of1106 sq.ft in Survey No.351/B of Sivagiri village for a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of RS.30,000/- works out to Rs.27.12 ps. Per sq.ft.7. Ex.C.9 settlement deed dated 2.4.1991 executed byone K.Subramanyam in favour of his son for an extent of 270sq.ft in Survey No.351/B valued at Rs.8100/-;8. Ex.C.10 sale deed dated 7.7.1991 for an extent of518 sq.ft in Survey No.351/B of Sivagiri village for a sumof RS.15,000/- works out to Rs.30/ per sq.ft.9. Ex.C.11 sale deed dated 22.1.1992 for a extent of2380 sq.ft. In Survey No.322/C and 323/A of Sivagirivillage for a sum of Rs.71,400/- works out to Rs.30/- persq.ft;10. Ex.C.12 sale deed dated 4.3.1992 for an extent of744 sq.ft in Survey No.351/B of Sivagiri village for a sumof Rs.25,296/- works out to Rs.33.60pos. Per sq.ft.11. Ex.C.13 sale deed dated 18.3.1992 for an extent of1472 sq.ft in Survey No.351/B of Sivagiri village for a sumof RS.50,000/- works out to RS.33.96 per sq.ft.;12. Ex.C.14 sale deed dated 12.6.1992 for an extentofl 870- sq.ft in Survey Nos.353 and 351 of Sivagirivillage for a sum of RS.30,000/- works out to Rs.33.96 persq.ft.13. Ex.C.15 sale deed dated 11.9.1992 for an extent of1745 sq.ft in Survey No.320 of Sivagiri village for a sumof Rs.50,000/- works out to Rs.34/- per sq.ft."8. Out of the above 13 deeds, Exs.C.3 and C.4 are in the verysame survey number of the acquired land and were executed by theclaimant himself. The claimant in his evidence has stated that he hasalready laid out plots over an extent in 2 ½ acres and sold the sameat the rate of Rs.45 to Rs.50/- per sq.ft. So far as these twodocuments Es.C3 and C4 were concerned, the sale considerationreferred to is with reference to the guideline value for the purposeof registration, but the actual value is Rs.45 to Rs.50 per sq.ft.This statement has not been rebutted in his cross examination. Inaddition to that, the claimant has also examined one Thirupathi, thepurchaser of lands covered under Ex.C.4 as claimant witness No.4. Hehas stated that though the sale consideration of his document Ex.C.3has been stated as Rs.60,000/-, the real consideration paid by himwas Rs.1,35,000/-. He also stated that lesser sale consideration hasbeen stated for the purpose of stamp duty and having regard to theguideline value. In Ex.C.5 also, it is stated that the land has beenlaid out as housing plots after forming roads. 9. From the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.4 and the recitalscontained in the documents, it is evident that the subject land wasalready laid out as housing plots and sold as housing plots ready forconstruction of houses. The claimant has proved by adducing evidencethat the land under acquisition is fully developed one. (vide Prithvi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Raj Taneja (dead) by L.Rs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977SC 1560 and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. LAO, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892.)The corroborative evidence of C.W.4 supports the case of theclaimant. From Ex.C.6 onwards, all the documents are over and abovethe value arrived at by the reference Court and are more than RS.29/-per sq.ft. Those documents are pertaining to the survey numbers whichare adjacent and are having equal potential value of the land underacquisition. In the above stated circumstances of the case and thevalue of the land as seen from Exs.C.6 to C.13 was graduallyappreciation from Rs.29/- to Rs.34 per sq.ft, the Reference Courthaving regard to the number of documents filed, has taken the averagevalue at Rs.25/- per sq.ft. We do not find any illegality orirregularity in arriving at the market value with reference toSection 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The function of the Court inawarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market valueof the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) and themethod of valuation may be the price paid within a reasonable periodin a bona fide transaction of purchase of the land acquired or theland adjacent to the land acquired possessing similar advantages. Inthis case, the sale deeds in respect of the survey number adjacent tothe land acquired and possessing similar advantage has been takeninto consideration for arriving at an average out of the total numberof sale deeds produced before it. (See The Collector of Lakhimpur v.Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015 and Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead)by L.Rs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1560. 10. We can also see that there is evidence in abundance toprove that the land acquired is a developed one. The claimant in hisevidence as C.W.1 has established that the land is situated in TownPanchayat and it has road facilities in all three sides and isadjacent to Erode- Karur main road. On the northern side of thesubject land, there is office of the marketing committee. The powerhouse is located in the eastern side. There is a veterinarydispensary within a few feet from the acquired land. All thesefacilities are available right from the year 1960. Apart from that,there are number of residential colonies in and around the acquiredland. In the southern side of the acquired land, the Government GirlsHigh School is situated. Adjacent to that there is Town PanchaytElementary School. A Kalyanamandapam, post office and Pongaliammantemple are also within the vicinity of the acquired land. The shandyis also nearby. Oil mill and rice mills are there. Several textilefactories are situated around the land. The offices of the VillageAdministrative Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Water anddrainage Board, Woman Development Training Centre are situatedadjacent to the acquired land. Four private high schools, milkfederation and Electricity Board Colony are also situated adjacent tothe acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence asR.W.1 has accepted of the existence of all the above said facilitiesand about the potential of the acquired land. Hence, the contention https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the learned counsel for the respondent that the land acquired is adeveloped land has to be accepted. 11. However, having regard to the fact that the average of thevarious documents taken into consideration are in respect of smallextent of varying from 800 to 2430 sq.ft. and the extent of acquiredland is 2.56 acres, which is large in extent, compared to the extentof land covered in documents which are let in evidence, we are of theview that 20 percent cut in the total compensation towards largenessof the extent acquired would subserve the interest of justice Usefulreference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the caseof KASTURI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA (2003) 1 SCC 354 andDEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITON VS. MALLA ATCHINAIDU AND OTHERS,(2006) 12 SCC 87.12. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing thecompensation of the land arrived by the reference Court by 20%towards largeness of the area of the acquired land. The award of thelower Court is modified to the above extent. However, there is noorder as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistraruskTo1.The Prl.Addl.Subordinate JudgeErode.+1cc to M/s.N.Domadaran, Advocate Sr 13538+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 13388PA (CO)km/11.4. A.S.NO.314 of 1999