Chandran v. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Mannargudi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.2.2009Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.503 of 1999Chandran... Appellant/ Claimant vs.Special Tahsildar,Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Mannargudi.... Respondent / L.A.Officer Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.99passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 by the Principal Subordinate Judge,Nagapattinam.For Appellant : Mr.Chandramouli,Sr.counsel for Mr.A.MuthukumarFor Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P.JUDGMENTThis appeal is focussed against the judgment and decree dated5.1.99 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 by the Principal SubordinateJudge, Nagapattinam. For convenience sake, the parties are referredto here under as per their litigative status before the trialCourt.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The Government vide Notification dated 29.5.1991 made underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire theland measuring an extent of 67 cents in Survey No.76/5B1 inEdayar Ombethi, Mannargudi Taluk, Nagapattinam Quaid-e-MillethDistrict, for the purpose of constructing house sites to the Adi-dravidas. After complying with the procedures, the LandAcquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated15.3.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.273/- percent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Being disconcerted with the awarding of such compensation,the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .5. During enquiry, before the trial Court the claimantexamined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Ex.C1 was marked.On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer oneGovindaraju was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked.Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.273/-per cent to Rs.350/-per cent.6. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, theclaimant has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith andmarrow of them would run thus: (a) The Sub-Court failed to take into consideration Ex.C1in proper perspective;(b) the learned Sub Judge should have enhanced thecompensation to Rs.990/- per cent.Accordingly the claimant/appellant prayed for setting aside of thejudgment and decree of the trial Court.7. The point for consideration is as to whether thecompensation awarded by the Sub Court in a sum of Rs.350/- per centshould be increased to Rs.990/- per cent, as claimed by theappellant/claimant.8. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant wouldadvance his argument, drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.C1,that Ex.C1 emerged on 12.2.1991, anterior to the publication of 4(1) Notification dated 29.5.1991; the sale as contemplated in Ex.C1is relating to an extent of 3 1/3 cents of land, which was worthRs.3000/- as on that date; even though the actual saleconsideration paid was Rs.1300/-, the real worth of the propertycontemplated therein was Rs.3000/- and accordingly, if calculated,per cent was worth Rs.990/-.9. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader wouldcorrectly and convincingly argue that the actual sale considerationpaid under Ex.C1 alone could be taken into consideration if at allEx.C1 has to be considered and accordingly if taken, it comes toonly R.1300/- for 1 1/3 cents of land.10. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the followingdecisions of the Honourable Apex Court:(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 554 – LUCKNOWDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND OTHERS,certain excerpts from it would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "16 . . . 8. . . . It is an accepted principle as laiddown in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. RevenueDivl.Officer that the compensation must be determined byreference to the price which a willing vendor mightreasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser."As such, it is crystal clear that for assessing the market value,the actual consideration paid by the willing purchaser to thewilling seller should be the criterion for assessing thecompensation. 11. Here even though in Ex.C1, in the schedule of property, atone place it is specified that the extent of 3 1/3 cents of land'smarket value was Rs.3300/- yet the sale consideration referred tothere in was only Rs.1300/- and the actual sale consideration paidalso was only the said sum of Rs.1,300/-. In such a case, thisCourt could only take the market value of the extent of 3 1/3 centscontemplated in Ex.C1 as on 12.2.1991 as Rs.1300/- only.Accordingly, if worked out, value of per cent comes to Rs.390/-(Rs.1300/- X 3/10 = 390/-)12. The lower Court erroneously failed to take intoconsideration Ex.C1 on the ground that the actual saleconsideration paid under Ex.C1 was Rs.3300/- and rejected it. Thefact remains that in the data sale deed Ex.C1 is found set out asitem No.15. However, without assigning any reason, the LandAcquisition Officer failed to take into consideration this Ex.C1 atall. The land in Ex.C1 is situated in Survey No.41/1 in EdayarOmbethi, Mannargudi Taluk, Nagapattinam Quaid-e-Milleth District,so to say the village in which the land of the claimant wasacquired by the Government. It is also in evidence that theproperty, as contemplated in Ex.C1 is not far away from the landacquired. Hence, Ex.C1 could have been taken as the criterion forawarding compensation.13. The next question arises as to whether there should be anydeduction.14. It is a well settled proposition of law that whenever anagricultural land is treated as habitation area, and accordinglythe value is assessed, then towards development charges 1/3rd hasto be deducted or in some cases, it could even be 20%, dependingupon the facts and circumstances of the case.15. Here in this case, the land acquired is for providinghouse sites to the Adi-dravida community people. In Ex.C1 in theschedule of property, the area wise measurement was shown as 3 1/3cents and the square feet wise measurement was mentioned as 1454 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sq.ft, nevertheless there is no indication that it has been fullyconverted and developed into a plot. 16. My above discussion supra also would indicate that theparties contemplated its market value as Rs.3300/-, but actuallypaid only a sum of Rs.1500/-, presumably taking into account itsagricultural land value. In the absence of any other evidence, itwill be a futile exercise to notionally increase the value of theland incommensurate with the plot value and thereafter deduct1/3rd out of it. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of theconsidered view that awarding a sum of Rs.390/- per cent would meetthe ends of justice and accordingly, the appeal is partly allowedby enhancing the compensation from Rs.350/- to Rs.390/- per cent.No costs. I make it clear that the claimant is entitled to otherstatutory benefits including interest.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.MskTo1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2. The Section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Chennai-1041 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 6176A.S.NO.503 Of 1999GV (CO)kk 4/3