The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Adi Dravidar Welfare Chengalpattu v. Duraisamy Naicker

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 19.08.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.339 of 1999The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)Adi Dravidar WelfareChengalpattu. ... Appellant/Referring OfficerVs. Duraisamy Naicker ... Respondent /Petitioner Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl.Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu and made in LAOP No.2 of 1996dated 19.12.1996.For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Additional Government Pleader (AS) For respondent :: Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari JUDGMENT This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed asagainst the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 passed by thelearned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu in LAOP No.2of 1996. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for 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 of2.23 acres in S.No.54/1 in Singaperumalkoil Village, ChengalpattuTaluk 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 sumof Rs.300/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of thecompensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of theclaimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On theside of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.5. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation fromRs.300/- to Rs.2,250/- per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with such enhancement, the LandAcquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, thegist and kernel of them would run thus:The Sub Court simply enhanced the compensation uptoRs.2,250/- per cent without any objective basis. Accordingly,the appellant prayed for reducing the compensation.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.300/- toRs.2,250/- per cent.8. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by theReference Court in enhancing the compensation, the appellant filedthe appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof of them is thatobjectivity was lacking and that the principles governing fixationof compensation have not been adhered to by the Reference Court inenhancing the compensation and accordingly reiterating thosepoints, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted hisargument. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owner wouldsubmit that they have out of oversight not filed cross appeal forenhancement, as the compensation awarded by the Reference Court ismoderate and not excessive by any standard.9. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court wouldreveal that the Court placed reliance on Ex.A3 - the Sale Deeddated 08.02.1988, whereas it has not considered Ex.A1 dated26.02.1990 on the ground that the sale deeed is relating to a landand a house. I am of the considered opinion that the ReferenceCourt was justified in not taking into consideration Ex.A1, becausethere is no separate valuation of the land found set out therein,but the land with house alone was contemplated therein. However,Ex.A3 dated 08.02.1988 emerged almost three years anterior toSection 4(1) Notification, which was published on 13.03.1991.Ex.A2 is relating to a plot area of seven cents. Eventhough thetotal exact extent comes to 3382.25 sq.ft., in the sale deed it isspecified as roughly seven cents and accordingly it was sold for asum of Rs.15,260/-. The Land Acquisition Officer should have takeninto consideration the sale deed and assessed the compensation, butfor no good reason, he neglected it. Hence the Reference Court was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in placing reliance on Ex.A3. However, for the gap of threeyears between the emergence of Ex.A3 and the publication of Section4(1) Notification, the Reference Court granted per year 15%increase which is not supported by any precedent of the Hon'bleApex Court. Whereas, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in (2004) 6 SCC 533 [Delhi Development Authority vs. BaliRam Sharma and others] would be to the effect that for each year,10% increase could be given. An excerpt from it would run thus:"6. The lands which are the subject-matter of theseappeals are acquired for the same purpose as in theaforementioned appeals, but the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981 i.e.subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980.Obviously, there would be escalation of prices in regardto these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriateto give 5% increase in the market value in respect of thelands in these appeals. In the result these appeals arealso allowed and the impugned judgments are modified byreducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sqyard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 perbigha + 5% escalation. The respondents are entitled tostatutory benefits available under the Act based on theamount of compensation as modified above. No costs.Civil Appeal No.4157 of 20037. The land which is the subject-matter of thisappeal is acquired for the purpose as in theaforementioned appeals, but the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981 i.e.subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980.Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regardto this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate togive 10% increase in the market value in respect of theland in this appeal. In the result this appeal isallowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducingthe amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard(amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,550 perbigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled tostatutory benefits available under the Act based on theamount of compensation as modified above. No costs."10. Accordingly if viewed, I am of the opinion that 10%increase for each year, for three years could be notionally givenfor the purpose of assessment. However, the Sub Court once againcommitted error in deducting only 1/4th towards development chargesinstead of 1/3rd. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with thefollowing decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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]11. A mere perusal of those decisions would highlight andspotlight that atleast there should be 1/3rd deduction. 12. Here the pertinent point to be taken into consideration isthat an extent of 2.23 acres of land has been acquired for carvingout plots being allotted to landless Adi Dravidar community peopleand in such a case, it is crystal clear that necessarily atleast1/3rd of the land should be sacrified for roads and for otherfacilities such as drainage facililties, park facilities etc., andwithout such developments, plots cannot be carved out in that largeextent of 2.23 acres.13. The learned counsel for the land owner would submit thatthe land acquired is in a fast developing area and the same isfound reflected in the judgment of the Reference Court. There isno quarrel over the fact that the land acquired was in a developingarea. The point to be noted here is that the area acquired beingsituated in a developing vicinity is different from the area itselfbeing a developed one. It is obvious here that the land acquireditself is not a developed one, even though it is situated in adeveloping vicinity. Hence I am of the opinion that in consonancewith the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, 1/3rd has to bededucted from the value assessed above. Accordingly, the followingformula emerges:7 cents of land:Rs.15,260/-Per cent of land:Rs.15,260/7 = Rs.2180/-10% increase for each year and for three years:Rs.2901.581/3rd deduction towardsdevelopment charges:Rs. 967.202/3rd:Rs.1934.38 Net value (rounded):Rs.1935/- per cent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. In the result, the net compensation awardable per cent ofland comes to Rs.1935/- (one thousand nine hundred and thirty fiveonly). I make it clear that the land owner is eligible for otherstatutory benefits. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of theSub Court stand modified and the appeal is partly allowed. Nocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargmsTo1.The Addl. Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.2.The Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Madras.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 46127+1cc to M/s.T.V.Krishnamachari, Advocate Sr 46624KSK (CO)km/23.9.A.S.No.339 of 1999