The Special TahsildarLand AcquisitionAdi Dravidar Welfare,Vellore v. Kuppammal & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 15.07.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.Nos.406 of 1999, 68 of 2000, 980 of 2001,1200 and 1201 of 2001, 1207 and 1208 of 2001, 237 of 2002, and 1043of 2003The Special TahsildarLand AcquisitionAdi Dravidar Welfare,Vellore... Appellant/ Referring Officer in all the above A.S.Vs. Kuppammal .. Respondent in A.S.406/1999Chinnakannu .. Respondent in A.S.1200/2001N.Rajagopal Gounder .. Respondent in A.S.980/2001Dhanabaggiyammal .. Respondent in A.S.1201/2001PadmanabhanNanjammal .. Respondents in A.S.1207/2001Subbarayan .. Respondent in A.S.1208/2001D.Kannan .. Respondent in A.S.1043/2003Danalakshmi .. Respondent in A.S.68/2000ShanmugamSathiya Kumari .. Respondents in A.S.237/2002 Prayer in A.S.No.406 of 1999:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.17 of 1993, dated 16.4.1997.Prayer in A.S.68 of 2000:-Appeal against the judgment and decree ofthe learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOP No.8 of1993, dated 24.12.1997.Prayer in A.S.980 of 2001:-Appeal against the judgment and decreeof the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOP No.9 of1993, dated 29.3.2001.Prayer in A.S.No.1200 of 2001:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.21 of 1993, dated 4.4.2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in A.S.No.1201 of 2001:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.19 of 1993, dated 4.4.2001.Prayer in A.S.No.1207 of 2001:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.18 of 1993, dated 4.4.2001.Prayer in A.S.No.1208 of 2001:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.23 of 1993, dated 4.4.2001.Prayer in A.S.No.237 of 2002:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.12 of 1993, dated 26.2.2001.Prayer in A.S.No.1043 of 2003:- Appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, made in LAOPNo.20 of 1993, dated 16.4.1997.For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi,Spl Govt Pleader (AS)For respondents : Mr.R.Margabandu COMMON JUDGMENT The above appeals are focussed as against the judgment anddecree dated 16.4.1997, 24.12.1997, 29.3.2001, 4.4.2001, 4.4.2001,4.4.2001, 4.4.2001, 26.2.2001, 16.4.1997 respectively of thelearned Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in LAOP Nos.17, 8, 9, 21,19, 18, 23, 12, 20 of 1993 respectively. For convenience sake, theparties are referred to here under according to their litigativestatus before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearingfor the appellant.3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus:The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under theLand Acquisition Act for acquiring :(i) the land in Survey Nos.195/A1 and 19/5A2 measuring antotal extent of 0.66 cent land in AS.No.406/1999(ii) the land in Survey No.19/2A measuring an extent of 0.39.0Hectare land and the land in Survey No.19/2B measuring an extent of0.01.5 Hectare land, totally 0.40.5 Hectare land i.e. 1.00 acreland in AS.No.68/2000(iii) the land in Survey No.5/1 B1 measuring an extent of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

0.56.5 Hectare land i.e 1.39 cent and the land in Survey No.5/2Ameasuring an extent of 0.27.5 Hectare land i.e. 0.68 cent inAS.No.980/2001(iv) the land in Survey No. 17/3 measuring an extent 0.18.0hectare ie.0.44 cent land in AS.No.1200/2001 (v) the land in Survey No. 18/1 and 18/2 measuring an extentof 0.22.5 hectare land in AS.No.1201/2001,(vi) the land in Survey No. 18/3 B measuring an extent of0.36.5 hectare land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1207/2001,(vii) the land in Survey No. 17/3 A measuring an extent of0.44 cent land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1208/2001,(viii ) the land in Survey No. 19/4 measuring an extent of0.60.5 hectare land (1.50 Acre) in AS.No.237/2002(ix) the land in Survey No.19/8 C measuring an extent of 0.15cent and Survey No.19/8 H-1 measuring an extent of 0.30 cent andtotally 0.45 cent of landin Abdullahpuram Village, Vellore for the purpose of providinghousing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complyingwith the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an awardassessing a sum of Rs.100/- per cent towards compensation. Beingaggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the matter was gotreferred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct.4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, (i) on the side of the claimant/land owner, one Arumugam wasexamined as C.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On theside of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined asR.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-5 were marked in AS.No.406 of 1999.(ii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, theclaimant/land owner herself was examined as C.W.1 and oneC.K.Murugesan was examined as C.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 werefiled. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumarwas examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked inAS.No.68 of 2000.(iii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, theclaimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and oneS.Rajendiran and P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 andExhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the LandAcquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 andExhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in AS.No.980/2001.(iv) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/landowner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran,P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oneL.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 weremarked in A.S.1200/2001.(v)On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/landowner herself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran,P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oneL.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 weremarked in A.S.1201/2001.(vi)On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/landowner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran,P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 werefiled. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oneL.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 weremarked in A.S.1207/2001.(vii)On the side of the claimant/land owner, theclaimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and oneA.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and ExhibitsA-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land AcquisitionOfficer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 andB-2 were marked in A.S.1208/2001.(viii)On the side of the claimant/land owner, theclaimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and oneA.C.Rajasekar was examined as C.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 werefiled. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oneL.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 weremarked in A.S.237/2002.(ix)On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/landowner himself was examined as C.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 werefiled. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oneL.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-4 and B-5were marked in A.S.1043/2003.5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.100/- per cent to Rs.1000/- per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the SubCourt, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal onvarious grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:The judgments and decrees of the trial Court are against lawand weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. TheReference court simply enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- toRs.1000/- . Without any valid reason, the data gathered by the LandAcquisition Officer for assessing the value of the land wereignored by the Reference Court. Hence, he prayed for setting asidethe judgment and decree of the Sub Court.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.100/- per centto Rs.1,000/- per cent ?8. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would reiteratethe grounds of appeal and advance his argument to the effect thatthe trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on Ex.A.1 andEx.A.2. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgmentand decree of the Sub Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owners/claimantsby placing reliance on Exhibits A-1 viz., Sale deed dated 3.8.1988and Ex.A.2 dated 19.5.1988 relied on by the Reference Court forenhancing the compensation, would develop his argument to theeffect that those documents emerged a few months anterior toSection 4(1) notification and in such a case, the trial court wasright in assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,000 per cent.10. In this factual matrix, it has to be seen as to whetherthe lower court was justified in relying on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2ignoring Ex.B.1 , the sale deed dated 23.10.1985, which was reliedon by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.B.1, which emerged on23.10.1985 was relating to the sale of 2 ½ cents of land inR.S.No.13/1 in the Abdullahpuram village for a sum of Rs.25,000/-which means that each cent of the agricultural land was sold for asum of Rs.100/-. It is obvious that Section 4(1) notification waspassed in the year 1988. It is therefore clear that Ex.B.1 cannotbe taken as one reflecting the true market value of the landacquired during the year 1988 for carving out plots and allottingthe same in favour of Adi-dravida community people. However, onlya few months anterior to the publication of Section 4(1)notification Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 emerged which reflected the marketvalue of the land which prevailed during the year 1988 in thevicinity where the lands were acquired by the Government. Ex.A.1dated 3.8.1988 is relating to an extent of 28 ½ cents of land inSurvey No.13/2 in that village and the sale considerationcontemplate therein was Rs.7,790/- which means that per cent ofland was sold for a sum of Rs.975.87/-. Ex.A.2 is the sale deeddated 19.5.1988 relating to R.S.No.18/3 admeasuring 30 cents ofland which was sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which connotes thatper cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1000/-. It is thereforecrystal clear that those two sale deeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 relied onby the Reference Court are reflecting the true market value of theland acquired. There is nothing to indicate that those two saledeeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were brought up purely for boosting up themarket value. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with thefollowing decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1) 1996(9) SCC 640 [Basavva vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer],(2)2007(9)SCC 447 (NELSON FERNANDS V. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITIONOFFICER) AND (3)AIR 2007 SCC 740 (DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MALLAATCHINAIDU)and the decisions of this Court reported in(4) 2006(5) CTC 173 [THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, COONOOR VS.PAPPAMMAL] and 2006(2) CTC 733 [THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LANDACQUISITION) VS. VALLIAMMAL]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. A mere perusal of those precedents would highlight thefact that simply because a sale deed emerged a few months anteriorto Section 4(1) notification, it need not be looked askance at. 12. The whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures placedbefore the Reference Court would exemplify and demonstrate that theland acquired is in the vicinity where there are industrial units,T.V.S. Factory with quarters, I.T.units in addition to Air portsituated within a short distance. It is therefore clear that thesaid area had the potentiality of becoming highly developed area inthe near future and the agricultural lands are having thepotentiality of being converted into industrial sites and housesites. Keeping the entire background in mind, if Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2are analysed, it is clear that those sale deeds reflected the truemarket value prevailing in that area.13. However one significant fact was lost sight of by theReference Court as it failed to deduct some amount from the marketvalue towards development charges.14. The learned counsel for the land owners/claimants wouldadvance his argument to the effect that no deduction need be madetowards development charges for the reason that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2do contemplate agricultural lands, as the subject matter of sales.It is also his argument that if a sale of small plot of land ischosen as the sample one and the land acquired is anagricultural land, in that event, there should be deduction towardsdevelopment charges. In this context, I recollect the recent twodecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court which I would like to cite asunder:-(1) Tenneti Kamesam vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008)5 MLJ 371 (SC) and excerpt from it would run thus:"5. In the impugned order itself, it has beenmentioned that there was no dispute with regard tothe fact that the land in question was situated ina well-developed town surrounded by severalstructures, residential buildings and othercommercial establishments, apart from being locatednear a railway station and other facilities. Itis, therefore, evidence that the land was alreadysituated in a developed area and the question ofdeduction of development charges did no, therefore,arise".No doubt, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment and morespecifically, the extracted excerpt supra would reveal that thereneed not be any deduction towards development charges if the veryland itself is a developed land. But here, it is exfacie and primafacie clear that the lands acquired are constituting a vast tract https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of agricultural land. For the purpose of carving out house sites,obviously, roads, drainage facilities, park facilities includingother incidental facilities should be provided for the occupants ofthe locality and in such a case, deduction should necessarily bemade towards development charges.15. At this juncture, I would recollect the followingdecision, viz., The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition Vs. MalaAtchinaidu and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 740. An excerpt fromit would run thus "3. The facts herein are that, on 07.03.1982, anextent of Ac.19.87 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.3/1 to3/42 of Pisinikada Village, in the outskirts ofAnakapalli Town, was acquired under Section 4 (1) of theLand Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as theAct), for the provision of house sites for the weakersections. Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Actwas invoked and a draft declaration under Section 6 (1)was also published simultaneously on the same date. 67. The land acquired being in an already developedarea, having potential of construction of residential andcommercial buildings, nor more than 20% ought to havebeen deducted towards development, as held by this Courtin Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (supra).Therefore, the deduction of 35% towards development isnot justified."In the above cited case, the land acquired was for providing housesites to the weaker sections and hence the Hon'ble Apex Courtreduced the development charges from Rs.35 per cent to Rs.20 percent on the ground that the land acquired was in a developedarea. 16. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were relating to lands admeasuring 28and 30 cents respectively. But the Government in the said villageviz., Abdullahpuram acquired a vast tract of land for the purposeof allotting the house sites with facilities and in such a caseatleast 20% should be deducted from the market value of Rs.1000/-per cent arrived at by the Reference Court.17. This Court is fully aware of the fact that towardspotentiality of the land, some compensation should be awarded byincreasing some amount over and above the amount contemplated insale deed like Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 and thereafter deducting at least1/3 out of it. However, I am of the opinion that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2emerged a few months before Section 4(1) notification and in such acase, it is inferable that the sellers and purchasers under Ex.A.1and Ex.A.2 might have foreseen the potential value of those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agricultural lands and agreed for such sale prices contemplatedtherein. Inasmuch as the privateers were the purchasers underthose sale deeds and that too smaller extents of agricultural landwere involved therein, the court cannot simply award the entirerate of Rs.1000 per cent without any deduction relating to the vastextent of land acquired by the Government in that village forproviding house sites and facilities to the Adi-dravida communitypeople. Hence, by way of striking a balance between the two,without increasing any amount over and above Rs.1000 per centtowards potential plot value and thereafter deducting 1/3 out ofit, straight away 20% deduction can be effected from out of Rs.1000per cent, which comes to Rs.800 per cent.18. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the netvalue per cent shall be fixed at Rs.800/- and that thepetitioners/claimants are entitled to solatium and other statutorybenefits as per law.19. The judgments and decrees of the Reference Court shallstand modified and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.However, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount if notalready deposited by the Government, the same shall be depositedwithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Sd/-Deputy. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.nvsri/vj2To1. The Subordinate Judge, Vellore2. The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR. 37815A.S.Nos.406 of 1999, 68 of 2000, 980 of 2001,1200 and 1201 of 2001,1207 and 1208 of 2001,237 of 2002, and 1043 of 2003SGL (CO)kk 21/8