The Special Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Gudiyatham v. G.N.Govinda Chetty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 21.08.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.407 of 1999The Special Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Gudiyatham... Appellant / Referring Officervs1. G.N.Govinda Chetty2. G.N.Nandagopal Chetty3. G.N.Gunasekhar Chetty4. Parvathi5. Babbyammal .. Respondents / Claimants Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1998 inL.A.O.P.No.36 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Vellore.For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Additional Government Pleader (AS) For respondents :: Mr.N.Chandra Raj JUDGMENT This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed asagainst the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1998 passed by thelearned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in LAOP No.36 of 1997. Forconvenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according totheir litigative status before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germanefor the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands measuring an extent of1.12.5 hectares in S.No.329/2B in D.P.Palayam Village, GudiyathamTaluk for the purpose of providing land to Adi Dravidar communitypeople. After complying with the procedures, the Land AcquisitionOfficer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum ofRs.300/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of thecompensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the SubCourt under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of theclaimant, C.W.1 and C.w.2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 weremarked. On the side of the respondent, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.5. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation to thetune of Rs.250/- per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Land AcquisitionOfficer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernelof them would run thus:The Sub Court simply enhanced the compensation upto Rs.250/-per cent without any objective basis. Accordingly, the appellantprayed for reducing the compensation.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the ReferenceCourt enhanced the compensation without adhering to objectivestandard.8. The learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S.) placingreliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to theeffect that without any objective basis, the compensation in a sum ofRs.250/- was fixed per cent; over and above, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was awarded towards acquisition of the well and for trees also, thecompensation was enhanced without any valid reason, whereas thelearned counsel for the land owners would submit that item 23 of thesales statistics would highlight that one cent of land was sold for asum of Rs.1,666/- and in such a case, if that standard is applied,the compensation awarded by the Reference Court would be very low andaccordingly, he prays that there need not be any interference withthe lower Court's order. He would also submit that for the well, thetrial Court ordered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which also could be leftuninterfered with. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would demonstratethat the trial Court after discussing the facts concerned, simplyfixed the compensation in a sum of Rs.250/- per cent of land withoutreferring to any item of sale in the sales statistics Ex.B2 or anyother document.10. The learned counsel for the land owner would submit that eventhough the Reference Court might not have stated reasons, this Courtcould consider the fact that the land acquired is for allotting housesites to the Adi Dravidar community people and it is in a developingarea.11. A perusal of the sales statistics as gathered by the LandAcquisition Officer would reveal that the item 2 therein is relatingto a punja land measuring an extent of 17 cents which was sold for asum of Rs.4,000/- on 21.02.1991 so to say a few months anterior to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 4(1) Notification dated 18.12.1991. Accordingly if workedout, the said lands have been sold at the rate of Rs.235/- per cent,whereas the Reference Court fixed the compensation in a sum ofRs.250/- per cent.12. The other items of sale as found in Ex.B1 are all not capableof being equated with the land acquired and it is quite obvious fromthe perusal of it. Neither the learned counsel for the land ownersnor the learned Additional Government Pleader could pin point out asto any other item in Ex.B1 could be relied upon as a safe guide forassessing the compensation. In fact, item 23 relied on by the landowners is referring to a smaller plot area of six cents situated inS.No.39/9, which is far away from the land acquired as per the RoughSketch Ex.B2 and it was relating to a smaller extent of plot and assuch, that cannot be taken as the criterion for assessing thecompensation. Now the question arises as to whether the value ascontemplated in item 2 could be adopted here. The item 2 refers topunja land only and not to any plot and in such a case, for theagricultural land acquired herein, the same value could be givenwithout any deduction, as there is no safe criterion to arrive at aconclusion as to what would be the potential plot value of the landacquired.13. Hence I am of the considered opinion that awarding a sum ofRs.235/- per cent for the land acquired would meet the ends ofjustice and no development charges also need be deducted from that,as only agricultural value of the land is taken into considerationfor assessing the compensation. No doubt, I am fully aware of thefollowing decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court which would highlightthat there should be deduction towards development charges ifpotential plot value of the land is taken into account. But here inthis case, no such potential value of the land is taken intoconsideration and hence without deduction, per cent of the land a sumof Rs.235/- could be adopted.(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India](3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others](4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others](5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. Regarding assessment of compensation for well, the followingthree decisions could be cited:1. 2004 (4) CTC 183 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and others vs. N.Swaminathan and others 2. (1996) 6 SCC 124 ( Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Virupan Shankar Nadagouda (K.Ramaswami judgment)3. (1996) 6 SCC 197 (State of Bihar vs. Madheshwar Prasad)15. A perusal of those judgments would clearly indicate that forwell alone no separate compensation could be awarded. However, thelearned counsel for the land owners would strenuously argue that eventhough for well no compensation could be awarded, atleast for threeborewells which were sunk inside the well could be considered forquantification of the compensation. I am of the considered opinionthat when for well itself no compensation could be awarded, noseparate compensation could be awarded for the three borewells whichare sunk deep in that big well. Further more, the evidence of P.W.2would in no way enlighten as to what was the actual value of thepipes for sinking the well and when those bore wells were used. Inthe absence of those details, simply because P.W.2 stated that forborewell a sum of Rs.10,000/-; for well with pumpset Rs.2,00,000/-and totally Rs.2,10,000/- are the values, they cannot be accepted.Even in his deposition, he has not detailed anything. However, inthis case, the Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded acompensation of Rs.17,960/- and it could be left as such withoutbeing interfered with as only agricultural value of the land is beinggiven here as compensation.16. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation for trees tothe tune of Rs.3,600/- relating to 18 coconut trees and I am of theconsidered opinion that no interference is required, as only a sum ofRs.200/- was awarded for each coconut tree, which by any standardcould be labelled as exorbitant warranting interference.Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court stand modifiedand the appeal is partly allowed to the effect that the compensationof per cent of land is reduced from Rs.250/- to Rs.235/- (Two hundredand thirty five only); the compensation for well is reduced toRs.17,960/-) Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty only)and for coconut trees the sum of Rs.3,600/- awarded in total isconfirmed. I make it clear that the land owner is eligible for otherstatutory benefits. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gmsToThe Subordinate Judge, Vellore.Copy to:The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.N.Chandraraj, Advocate, SR.466341 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.46735A.S.No.407 of 1999VM(CO)SRA(17/10/2008)