P.G.Sivaraj v. R.Bhaskaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 12.01.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYAKARUPPIAHA.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 andCross Objection Nos.54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of 2008P.G.Sivaraj ...Appellant in AS.No.669/99 and Respondent in Cross Objection No.54/021.R.Bhaskaran2.R.Vijayakumar ... Appellants in AS.No.670/99and Respondents in Cross Objection No.55/021.P.G.Arumugam (died)2.A.Indirani3.Muthukumaran4.Revathy5.Uma Devi6.Venkatesan7.Rajathi Ammal (appellants 2 to 7 are brought on record as per the order dated 11.8.2003) ... Appellants in AS.No.43/2000and Respondents in Cross Objection No.87/08The Land Acquisition Officer and special Tahsildar,Housing Scheme,(Adi-Dravidar Welfare department),Dharmapuri, ... Respondent in A.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 and Cross Objector in Cross Objection Nos.54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of 2008Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned AdditionalSubordinate Judge of Dharmapuri in LAOP Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994respectively dated 05.04.1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC againstA.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 and against the judgmentand decree made in LAOP Nos.Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994 respectivelydated 05.04.1999 on the file of the learned Additional SubordinateJudge of Dharmapuri.For appellants in A.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 and for respondent in Cross Objection 54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of 2008 : Mr.D.Shivakumar for Mr.C.R.Muralidharan For respondent in A.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 and for appellant in Cross Objection 54, 55 of 2002and 87 of 2008 : Mr.V.Ravi, S.G.P.(A.S.)C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated05.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge ofDharmapuri in LAOP Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994 respectively forenhancement of the compensation for the lands acquired.2. The State had filed the Cross Objections questioning thequantum of compensation fixed by the lower court. 3. The lower court had clubbed LAOP Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994together since all the references were made by the land acquisitionofficer, which were arising out of a single award dated 08.10.1992under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respective extentof lands acquired for the said purpose in the land acquisitionproceedings were 0.27.0 Hectare in S.No.683/1 A 1 inL.A.O.P.No.5/1994; an extent of 0.43.0 Hectare and 0.42.5 Hectare inS.No.683/3 in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 and 0.27.0 Hectare inS.No.682/1A1 in L.A.O.P.No.14/1994 in Pennagaram Village, PennagaramTaluk, Dharmapuri District. 4. The purpose of land acquisition was towards public need ofproviding house sites to the Arundathiar community by the Governmentthrough G.O. No.1697 (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department)dated 9.10.1990. Originally, notification under section 4(1) of theAct was published by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.08.1999 andother proceedings were carried out in accordance with the procedurecontemplated. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value ofthe property at Rs.1,18,560/- per Hectare in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties acquired and had also fixed 30% of the solatium and 12% ofthe additional value from the date of 4(1) notification till theaward was passed and accordingly fixed a sum of Rs.53,128/- for theclaimant in L.A.O.P.No.14/94; a sum of Rs.53,128/- to the claimantin L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1994 and a sum of Rs.84,611/- and a sum ofRs.83,628/- respectively for the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994.5. Aggrieved upon the fixation of market value by the LandAcquisition Officer, the claimants had not accepted the award passedby the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, they requested theLand Acquisition Officer to refer the cases to the Land AcquisitionCourt under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to thereference made therein, they were taken on file by the courtconcerned as L.A.O.P.No.14, 5 and 6 of 1994 respectively.Accordingly, the claimants have examined the first claimant inL.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 as C.W.1 and 3 other witnesses as C.Ws.2 to 4and they had produced Exs.C-1 to C-3. The court had come to theconclusion of enhancing the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.ft. afterappraising the evidence and documents placed before it. 6. The respondent namely, Acquisition Officer had produced Exs.R-1 to R-3 in support of their case. The lower court had consideredthe evidence placed before it and had come to the conclusion ofawarding a sum of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. equivalent to Rs.6,53,400/- forone acre. It had also given the enhanced value of compensation forone Hectare (2.47 acres) at Rs.16,13,898/-. The lower court had cometo the conclusion of valuing the acquired lands as house sites andhad accepted Exs.C-1 to C-3 produced by the claimants. The lowercourt also come to the conclusion of fixing the value after deducting50% of the original value of the land acquired since the acquiredlands have to be developed as house sites for the purpose ofallotting them to the Arundadiar community. Therefore, the lowercourt had arrived at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. as original value in respectof acquired lands as per Exs.C-1 to C-3. 7. The appellants in all the three appeals have challenged thededuction of 50% of the value for fixing the market value for thedevelopment of the acquired lands as house sites. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has filedcross objections in all the three appeals questioning the fixation oforiginal value for the acquired lands at Rs.30/- per sq.ft, since thelands acquired were not actually house sites but were the lands to bedeveloped in future.9. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for theappellants and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.)for the respondents and cross objections. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. On a careful perusal of the proceedings, the award passed bythe Land Acquisition Officer and the evidence adduced before thelower court and the common judgment passed by the lower court, thegrounds raised in appeals as well as the cross objections and thearguments advanced on either side. The important points to beconsidered in these appeals are as follows:-(i) Whether the fixing of market value for the acquired lands atRs.30/- per sq.ft. is liable to be set aside?(ii) Whether the reduction of 50% as fixed by the lower court issustainable? If so, to what extent deduction can be ordered?(iii) Whether the appeals are liable to be allowed?(iv) Whether the cross objections are liable to be allowed?11. For convenience sake, the ranks of parties before the lowercourt are referred in this judgment also.12. Point Nos.(i) & (ii) : According to the submission made bythe learned counsel for the appellants, the lower court hadcorrectly fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.30per sq.ft but, the deduction of 50% towards the development chargeswas not proportionate to the case on hand. He would submit in hisargument that the evidence adduced by the claimants would go a longway to show that the acquired lands are adjacent to the property towhich the lower court adopted its market value namely, S.No.No.676/1as mentioned in Ex.C-2 dated 12.4.1989 and the other lands situatedin S.No.675 in Ex.C-3 and C-1 are very near to the lands acquired inS.Nos. 682/1 A 1 and 683 and 662/1 and the date of those documentswere also very near to the 4(1) notification date and no otherdocuments showing larger extent of the property were available forcomparison and therefore, reliance made by the lower court on Exs.C-1o C-3 to fix the value were perfect. He would also submit that thereliance placed before the Land Acquisition Officer in his list ofdocuments were not located very near to the acquired lands. He wouldfurther submit that the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex courtreported in 2008(2) SCC-568 (Atma Singh (dead) through LRS. andothers v. State of Haryana and another) would apply to the fact ofthis case and therefore, the fixation of the market value by lowercourt at Rs.30/- pr sq.ft. Maybe upheld.13. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submitin his arguments that the percentage of deduction at 50% from themarket value ascertained from Exs.C-1 to c-3 is not at alljustifiable as the property described in Ex.C-2 is adjacent to theproperty acquired in the proceedings. Therefore, the lower courtshould have deemed that the acquired land themselves had attained the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ character of house sites. The classification of acquired lands aspunja lands may not be available for reducing the market value, asthe said property described in Ex.C-2 was also a punja land turnedhouse site. He would draw the attention of this court to thevarious judgements of our Hon'ble Apex court to show that thepercentage of deduction made by the lower court at 50% wasexorbitant. He would draw the attention of this court to a judgementof our Apex court reported in 2003(10)SEC 525 (Tejjumal Bhojwani(dead) through LRS. And others v. State of U.P.). He had also citedthe judgment of our Apex court reported in 2004(12) SEC 425 (Stateof W.B. v. Kedarnath Charit Trust Estate) in respect of fixing thepercentage of deduction. He had also cited yet another judgementof our Apex court in this regard reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 ( LandAcquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu andothers). He would further submit in his argument that theprinciples laid down by our Apex Court would clearly show that thepercentage of deduction is purely depending upon the facts andcircumstances of each case and according to his submission it wouldbe at best 10% could be fixed towards deduction for developmentcharges as the acquired lands are situated adjacent to the housesites as described in Ex.C-2. Therefore, he would request the courtthat the appeals may be allowed accordingly. 14. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader(A.S.)would submit in his argument that the lower court had applied thedocuments Exs.C-1 to C-3 for fixing the value which were relating tohouse sites. Whereas, the lands acquired were punja lands anddocuments showing the value as punja lands alone should have beenutilized for consideration by the court. He would further submit inhis argument that the Land Acquisition Officer had properlyconsidered the value of available punja lands int he sale deed verynear to the date of 4(1) notification and had fixed the market valueand therefore, there cannot be any serious objection for acceptingthe award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would furthersubmit that the lower court had wrongly fixed the value and enhancedthe compensation on the basis of value of the house for a largerextent of punja lands. Therefore, he pleaded that enhancement ofcompensation as ordered by the lower court should have been set aside.15. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) would furthersubmit in his argument to the effect that the percentage as fixedby the lower court is perfectly all right and the development chargesfor improving the punja lands into house sites were properlyconsidered and the percentage has been fixed as per the decision ofthe Apex court. Therefore, the appeals need not be allowed.16. Considering the submissions made by both sides, we could seethrough Ex.R-3, the Village Map that the acquired lands werelocated in between the West of Pennagaram and Nagarmarai main road https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and virtually the acquired lands were surrounded by roads. It isalso pertinent to note that the land in S.No.674 shown in Ex.C-2 isseen located adjacent to the acquired land. In these circumstances,the sale deeds which are referred in Ex.R-2 list, without anydetailed particulars cannot be made suitable to fix the market valueof acquired property. The date of Ex.C-2 was very close to the dateof 4(1) notification. In the judgment of our Apex Court reported in2008(2) SCC 568 (Atma Singh (dead) through LRS. and others v. Stateof Haryana and another), it was held as follows:"8. ... Therefore, there can be no manner ofdoubt that the acquired land had the potentialityfor being used for commercial, industrial andresidential purposes and there was fair possibilityof increase in its market value in the near future.Therefore, the fact that the exemplars filed by theappellants were of the small pieces of land couldnot be a ground to discard them specially whenexemplars of large pieces of land were notavailable. They could, therefore, be used as asafe guide for determining the market value of theland."In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the lower court onExs.C-1 to C-3 for fixing the market value is found to be justifiedand through documents the value could be ascertained for the relevantperiod. It is also a well known fact that the market value of aland is the price offered by a willing purchaser to a willing vendor.Therefore, the sale deeds produced as Exs.C-1 to C-3 are found moresuitable to fix the market value of the acquired lands as they tookplace during the relevant period of 4(1) notification. Therefore,the fixation of market value for the acquired land on the basis ofExs.C-1 to C-3 adopted by the lower court is upheld.17. The arguments regarding the percentage of deduction at 50%from the market value is concerned, the judgement of our Apex Courtare to be carefully understood and followed. 18. The judgement of our Apex Court reported in 2003(10)SEC 525(Tejjumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRS. And others v. State of U.P.)would run as follows:"8. ... It is true that the deduction for developmentcharges ought to be adequately provided for, but it variesfrom place to place, area to area and amount ofdevelopments which are required to be carried out and thusthere cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towardsdevelopment charges. In the present case, we find that thetotal land acquired was about 27 acres. We are, therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the view that it would be appropriate if the developmentcharges @ 25% are deducted from the compensation awarded tothe claimants."19. Similarly, the judgment as refried by the learned counselfor the appellant reported in 2004(12) SEC 425 (State of W.B. v.Kedarnath Charit Trust Estate) would run as follows:"4. ... As the acquisition was of a large piece ofland, the High Court was right in making the deduction of20%. It cannot be said that the deduction of 20% isreasonable. Even otherwise, on the basis of parity, theHigh Court was right in making the same deduction. To thisextent, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment."20. As regards the judgement reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 ( LandAcquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu andothers), it has clearly settled the point as follows:"4. ... Admittedly, the lands acquired areagricultural lands. It is on record that these lands havepotentialities for conversion into house sits. They areacquired for the third phase of expansion of industrialestate. In these circumstances, certain amount has to bededucted towards developmental charges. Ordinarily, on-third deduction towards developmental charges would bemade, but in these cases, having regard to the facts andcircumstances, particularly taking note of the fact thatthe lands are acquired for expansion of industrial estate,that too for the third phase and also taking note of thefact that the lands acquired are levelled lands adjoiningto developed lands for Phase I and Phase II of industrialestate, we think it is just and appropriate to deduct 15%per cent towards development charges."21. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid judgements of ourHon'ble Supreme Court, it could be seen that the deduction of valuecould be varied according to the facts and circumstances of thecase. The Apex court had upheld the deductions made by the HighCourt in various percentages according to the evidence and the factsand circumstances of those cases. It was urged by the learnedcounsel for the appellants that there cannot be any deduction towardsdevelopment charges as the acquired lands were situated adjacent tothe land taken for value and at best, it could be a minimalpercentage of 10% only. There is no dispute that the acquired landswere situated adjacent to the lands taken by lower court for fixinga market value as seen from Ex.C-2. At the same time, the acquiredlands were ripe for house sites. Therefore, the deduction of 50%from the total value reached by the lower court on the basis of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.C-2 is sheerly on the higher side. According to the dictummade in the aforesaid judgements of our Apex court, the facts ofthe case discussions in the judgement reported in 2005(9) SEC 594(Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs.Ramanjulu and others) are aptly applicable to the present case. Inthe said case, the acquired lands were at the level (developed lands)and were adjacent to the said developed lands. So far as this caseis concerned, the acquired lands were also in the similar level andwere lying adjacent to the house site. Therefore, the deduction of15% towards the development charges made in the judgement isapplied in this case also. The lower court ought to have applied thesaid 15% for deduction towards development charges instead of 50%.When it is applied in this case for fixing the market value of theacquired lands, its value would be at Rs.25.50 per sq.ft. When thecalculation is done at this rate for one cent it comes toRs.11,143.50(437 sq.ft. x Rs.25.50) and for one acre, it isRs.11,10,780/-. On that basis, the market value for one hectare itcomes to Rs.27,43,627/-. When it is calculated for 0.27 hectare, itwould be Rs.7,40,779/- and for 0.42.5 hectare, it comes toRs.11,66,041/- and for 0.43.0 hectares, it comes to Rs.11,93,478/-.Accordingly, the market value of the acquired lands are fixed withall monetary benefits. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are decided infavour of the appellants and against the cross objections.22. Points (iii) and (iv) : In view of my findings reached inpoint Nos. (i) and (ii), all the three appeals filed by the claimantsare partly allowed and the cross objections are dismissed.23. In the result, the judgment and decree (award) of the lowerCourt is modified as follows: For the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.14/94 : Rs.7,40,779/- with statutory benefits. For the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1994 : Rs.7,40,779/- with statutory benefits. For the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 : * Rs.11,93,478/- : * Rs.11,66,041/-respectively with statutory benefits.24. The 30% of the solatium amount has to be fixed on theaforesaid values and 12% of the said enhanced compensation has alsoto be fixed for the period commencing from 10.10.1989 to 7.10.1992for 1094 days with subsequent interest from the date of possessionnamely 9.11.1992 to 8.11.1993 for one year period at 9% p.a. and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter from 9.11.1993, till the payment, at 15% per annum alongwith proportionate costs. 25. In view of the finding reached above, the appeals inA.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 are partly allowed asindicated above and the Cross Objection Nos.54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of2008 are dismissed. No order as to costs in the appeals and crossobjections.Sd/-Asst.Registrar15.05.2009*Amended as per the orders of this Court dated 20.10.2009and made hereinsd/-Assistant Registrar10.11.2009 /true Copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrjTo1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, To be substituted Dharmapuri. to the Judgement already despatched2.The Section Officer, on 1.06.2009 V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 3 cc to Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate SR.No.1279+ 3 cc to the Govt.Pleader, SR.No.72249,72248,72247A.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 andCross Objection Nos.54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of 2008KA {CO}TP/15.5.2009.SRA(12/11/2009)