(2) Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I v. Ravi

(2) Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I, Erodea) dated 27.11.02 and made in LAOP.Nos.31/02,25/02,29/02 & 30/02 (inAS.Nos.721/03,813/03,153/06,820/03,821/03)a2) dated 7.11.02 in LAOP.No.28/02 (AS.No.822/03)a3) dated 3.1.06 and made in LAOP.No.25/03(in AS.No.871/06)a4) dated 7.8.06 and made in LAOP.No.22/04 (in AS.No.399/07)a5)dated 17.1.05 and made in LAOP.No.44/96 (in AS.No.756/08)respectively.For appellant:: Mr. V. Ravi, Spl. G.P. in A.S.No.759 to 764 of 1999 A.S.No.325 of 2000, 813 of 2003 A.S.Nos.170,820 to 822 of 2003for R1 in A.S.No.153 of 2006 for R1 in A.S.Nos.153 of 2006for R1 in A.S.No.756 of 2008for R1 A.S.Nos.136 to 141 of 2001,cross objection Nos.57/2003, 31/01& 153 of 2006.For respondents:: Mr. S. Saravanan for RR3 to 6 in A.S.No.759 of 1999 for RR1 to 5 in A.S.No.760 of 1999 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.761 of 1999 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.762 of 1999 for R1 in A.S.No.763 of 1999 for R1 to 4 in AS.No.764/99 Mr.P.S.Raman, Additional Advocate General for Mr. K. Chelladurai Assisted by Mr.S.Kasikumar for TNHB in all cases Mr. R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel for RR1 & 2 in A.S.No.813 of 2003 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.820 of 2003 for RR1 to 5 in A.S.No.821 of 2003 for R1 in A.S.No.822 of 2003 for appellant in A.S.No.153/2006 for appellant in A.S.No.756/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate for appellant in A.S.Nos.137, 139 & 141 of 2001 Mr.S.K.Nachimuthu for R.4 in A.S.No.762/1999 and for Cross Objection No.57 of 2003 Respondents 1 to 11 in A.s.No.325 of 2000 and for Cross Objection No.31 of 2001. Mr.M.M.Sundaresh for R.1 in A.S.No.871 of 2006 for R.3 in A.S.No.399 of 2007 for R1 in A.S.No.170/2003 Mr.C.Prakasam for RR1 and 2 in A.S.No.399 of 2007 Mr.T.Murugamanickam for RR1 to 4 in A.S.No.618 of 2003-------------------------------- COMMON JUDGMENTK.K.SASIDHARAN, JThese Land Acquisition appeals involving common questions of factand law were taken up for consideration together and are beingdisposed of by this common judgment.2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had taken a decision in the year1990 to launch a massive housing project at Erode "C" Village(Kasipalayam) in Erode District. Land Acquisition proceedings wereinitiated in a phased manner. Statutory notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act duly approved by the Government on9.10.1990, 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991 were published in theGazette on different dates. These appeals pertain to the acquisitioninitiated as per the above referred notifications. 3. The extent of property acquired as per the relevantnotifications are as follows: a) Notification dt.9.10.90 -- 75.60 Acres b) Notification dt.15.4.91 -- 79.33 Acres c) Notification dt.16.4.91 -- 30.59 Acres d) Notification dt.27.5.91 -- 57.30 Acres https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The details of the land acquisition Original Petitions andthe related appeals and Cross Objections and the compensation awardedby the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court andthe findings recorded after remand are detailed in the tabular columnsbelow.NOTIFICATION DATED 9.10.1990DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODEVILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM)4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.1240 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 9.10.19904(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 31-10-1990AWARD No.6/94 dt.28-9-1994Sl.No.A.S.No.CrossObjection/Appeal No.LAOPNo.Date ofLAOPorderSurveyNo.Extentin Hec.& AcreAmountawardedby LAO(perAcre)Amountfixed byReferenceCourt(PerSq.ft.)Amount fixedafter remand (in Sq.ft.)123456789101170/03 Nil31/9630.03.01744/1 2.82.0Hec/6.97 Ac37500/-Rs.16.00Rs.16/- persq.ft. 2756/08 Nil44/9617.01.05742/1,2,31.14.5Hec/2.83 Ac37500/-NilNil NOTIFICATION DATED 15.04.1991ERODE HOUSING BOARD BATCH (LAOP)DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODEVILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM)4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.630 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 15-04-19914(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 22-05-1991AWARD No.1/94 dt.10-6-1994Sl.No.A.S.No.CrossObjection /AppealNo.LAOPNo.Date ofLAOPorderSurveyNo.Extentin Hec.& AcreAmountawardedby LAO(perAcre)Amount fixedby ReferenceCourt(Per Sq.ft.)Amount fixedafter remand(in Sq.ft.)123456789101759/99136/017/9516.4.99461/41.00.0Hec/2.47Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ERODE HOUSING BOARD BATCH (LAOP)2760/99137/0110/9516.4.99460/1& 22.06.0Hec/5.09Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre3761/99138/0112/9516.4.99461/20.46.0Hec/1.14Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre4762/99139/016/9616.4.99459/31.22.0Hec/3.01Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre5763/99140/018/9516.4.99460/30.61.0Hec/1.51Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre6764/99141/01 &57/0311/9516.4.99489/1,22.03.0Hec/5.01Ac37500/-Rs.2,18,500/-per AcreRs.400000/-per Acre7325/0031/0143/9625-10-99453/1,2 &4545.76.0Hec/14.22Ac37500/-Rs.17.00 persq.ft.Rs.600000/-per Acre8813/03--25/0227-11-02461/30.50.0Hec/1.24Ac37500/- Rs.20.00 perSq.ft. Rs.600000/-per Acre9820/03--29/0227-11-02489/4,70.82.0Hec/2.03Ac37500/- Rs.20.00 perSq.ft. Rs.600000/-per Acre10821/03 --30/0227-11-02459/60.98.0Hec/2.42Ac37500/-Rs.20.00 perSq.ft. Rs.600000/-per Acre11822/03--28/0227-11-02458/1,2 &459/51.98.5Hec/4.90Ac37500/-Rs.20.00 perSq.ft.(Rs.8,71,200/-per acre)Rs.600000/-per Acre NOTIFICATION DATED 16.04.1991DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODEVILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM)4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.674 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 16-04-19914(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 22-05-1991AWARD No.2/94 dt.10-6-1994Sl.No.A.S.No.CrossObjection/Appeal No.LAOPNo.DateofLAOPorderSurveyNo.Extent inHec. &AcreAmountawardedby LAO(perAcre)Amountfixed byReferenceCourt(PerSq.ft.)Amount fixedafter remand (in Sq.ft.)12345678910 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE1871/06 --25/033.1.06753/2 1.32.0Hec/3.26 Ac37500/-Rs.15.00Nil2339/07 --22/047.8.06753/11.44.0Hec/3.55Ac37500/-Rs.20.00NilNOTIFICATION DATED 27.05.1991DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODEVILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM)4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.869 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 27-05-19914(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 3-07-1991AWARD No.5/94 dt.03-7-1994Sl.No.A.S.No.CrossObjection/Appeal No.LAOPNo.Date ofLAOPorderSurvey No.Extentin Hec.& AcreAmountawardedby LAO(perAcre)Amount fixedby ReferenceCourt(Per Sq.ft.)Amount fixedafter remand(in Sq.ft.)123456789101721/03 Nil31/0227.11.06482/40.38.0Hec/0.94Ac37500/-Rs.20.00Rs.6,00,000/-per acre2618/03 Nil12/9723.3.01480/5,61.30.0Hec/3.21Ac37500/-Rs.17.00Rs.17/- persq.ft. 5. The factual matrix as projected in L.A.O.P. No.7/95, 43/96and 44/96 corresponding to A.S.No.759/99, 325/2000 and 756 of 2008are extracted below as background facts. A.S.No.759/99 (LAOP 7/95) At the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for putting upresidential houses in Erode an extent of 1.00.0 Hectares of land wasacquired from the claimants as per Notification dated 15.4.1991issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. According tothe claimants the property involved in the Land Acquisition wasagricultural land and they were doing agricultural operations and theyhave been earning substantial income from agriculture. The propertyis situated in Kasipalayam revenue village in Erode District and is awell developed area and the residential colonies like Jeeva Nagar,Rail Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Bharathi Nagar and Anna Nagar etc. are situatedvery near to the acquired property. Similarly there are Colleges andother Educational Institutions, Hospitals, Railway workshops and otherinstitutions in and around the acquired property. The claimants have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also relied on documents to show the market value of the property ason the date on which the notification was issued by the Government.The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the documents evidencing highervalue and accepted documents of lesser value and compensation wasarrived at Rs.37,500/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, tenwitnesses were totally examined in the batch of cases and twenty eightdocuments were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side ofthe Land Acquisition Officer also oral evidence was tendered and theaward as well as the topo sketch were marked as exhibits and it wascontended that the acquired property was only manwari land and itrequires considerable amount for development to convert it as houseproperty. 6. Before the Reference Court the claimants have marked amongother documents, document dated 4.9.1990 (Ex.C.8) and 8.2.1991(Ex.C.9) which shows the market rate respectively at Rs.20/- andRs.30/- per sq.ft. 7. The Land Acquisition Officer appears to have considered thedocuments relating to property transaction registered in the area forthe period from 1.6.1990 to 31.5.1991 but rejected many of thedocuments. The documents in respect of the property in SurveyNo.1227/6 evidencing land value at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre, property inSurvey No.231/34 showing the value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre,property in Survey No. 321/4 for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- per acre andthe property in Survey.No.368/1 for a sum of Rs.2,00,217/- per acrewere all rejected. The documents relating to the property in SurveyNo. 484 was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on theground that it was situated at a distance and that higher value wasshown. 8. The award file shows that the Land Acquisition Officer hasrecommended to the Government to fix the land value at Rs.87,120/- peracre. 9. The Reference Court found that the land value in 1990 wasonly in acres in the area and as such the claimants were not entitledto claim on Sq.ft. basis. The Reference Court also considered thedocument in Ex.C8 dated 4.9.1990 and found that the said property wassold as a house site, but the acquired land was only manwari land.The Reference Court ultimately fixed the land value at Rs.2,18,500/-per Acre.10. The award of the Reference Court was challenged by theappellants before this Court and cross objections were filed by theclaimants. When the matter came up for consideration before thisCourt, additional evidence produced by the respective parties inappeal were considered and ultimately the matter was remanded to thetrial court as per order dated 28.11.2006 to consider the additionaldocuments and to render a factual finding. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. Subsequent to the remand, both the claimants and the LandAcquisition Officer, as well as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board producedadditional documents in support of their respective contentions. Thedocuments submitted by the claimants were marked as document Nos.29 to35 and the additional documents produced by the Land AcquisitionOfficer were marked as document Nos. 3 to 8. The claimants haveproduced the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Boardwherein they have called for offers for allotment of building site atthe rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per Sq.ft. By placing reliance onthose notifications, the claimants have contended before the ReferenceCourt that the property acquired from them were fit for constructionof residential houses and it was only on the basis of thesatisfaction so arrived at by the requisitioning department, that theyhave opted to acquire the property and as such it was their prayerfor consideration of the potential value also for the purpose offixing the market rate. They have also contended that on the north ofthe acquired property Erode-Perunthurai road is situated and on thesouth there is Erode-Sennimalai road. It was also contended that theRailway Station, Loco Diesel shed, Jeevan Transport CorporationWorkshop, Bharathy Vidya Bhavan School , Womens college, MedicalCollege, Temples, as well as residential colonies like Jeeva Nagarwere all situated within the periphery of the acquired land. Theclaimants have also examined a witness by name Ramalingam and inhis evidence he has stated that he sold an extent of one acre ofland for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs but however only a sum of Rs. 60,000/-per acre was shown in the document and the same was resorted toonly for the purpose of avoiding stamp duty.12. The Reference Court found that the acquired property wassituated three kilometres away from the Erode junction and betweenErode-Perunthurai road and Erode-Sennimalai road and the reputedresidential colonies like Jeeva Nagar, Rail Nagar, K.K.Nagar, BharathiNagar, and Anna Nagar etc., are all situated within 1 km away from theacquired property.13. The Reference Court has also given a factual finding that onthe north of the acquired property, Erode town is situated and bytaking into consideration the situation of the Bhavani river andKalingarayan Canal, the Reference Court observed that the property isin a good residential locality. The Reference Court also consideredthe topo sketch, wherein the different housing colonies as well asthe Collectorate, Railway station and other important places in andaround the acquired land were shown. The Reference Court found thatonly Square feet valuation was shown in the documents produced on theside of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer has produced adocument to show the value at Rs.60,000/- per acre and the author ofthe said document by name Ramalingam was examined as a witness and itwas only the said Ramalingam, who has given evidence to the effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the transaction was a distress sale and the actual sale amountwas Rs.10 lakhs per acre. The Reference Court was of the opinionthat the documents are often undervalued and on the basis of thenotifications issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, wherein thevery same land was offered for sale at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/-per sq.ft., the Reference Court arrived at a factual finding that theacquired property was fit for putting up residential houses. Withrespect to the documents produced by the claimants relating to theearlier acquisition of the property in Survey No. 767/B1, which wasthe subject matter of the First Appeal in A.S.226/91, wherein a sumof Rs.17.11 per sq.ft. was awarded as compensation, the Court foundthat the said property was abutting the main road, but the subjectproperty was not abutting the road and as such the Court was of theopinion that no reliance could be placed on the said document.According to the Reference Court only in case electricity, water etc.were available as well as well laid road that valuation on square feetbasis could be resorted to. Ultimately, the reference court fixed asum of Rs.4 lakhs per acre as market value for the acquired property. A.S.No. 325/2000 (LAOP No.43/96)14. In this particular reference, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs wasfixed as the market rate. This property is also covered by thenotification dated 15.4.91. In this reference also, originally a sumof Rs. 37,500/- per acre was granted as compensation. The ReferenceCourt relied on an earlier award of the Land Acquisition Officer,wherein a sum of Rs.30/- was granted as compensation and afterdeducting 40% towards development charges, a sum of Rs.17/- perSq.ft. was fixed as market rate. After remand, documents wereproduced by both the claimants as well as the Land AcquisitionOfficer. Even though the claimants have relied on the notificationissued by the Tamilnadu Housing Board calling for applications forallotment of the land at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per Sq. ft.the Reference Court was not inclined to accept the said valuation forthe purpose of fixing the market value, as according to the ReferenceCourt the property was developed by the Housing Board and they havealso laid a road and provided common facilities. The Reference Courtwas also of the opinion that it was not possible to fix the marketrate on square feet rate as the acquired property was onlyagricultural property extending to many acres and therefore thevaluation should be on acre basis. From the documents produced bythe claimants the Reference Court found that the market rate wasbetween Rs.25 to Rs.35 per sq.ft., but it was only afterdevelopment of the property as house sites. The Reference Court didnot take at its face value the evidence of the vendor of the data saleland by name Ramalingam, who has deposed that he had sold the dataland only for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.60000/- shown as thevalue per acre was only to avoid the stamp duty. The Reference Courtalso recorded that no evidence was adduced on the side of theclaimants about the actual distance from the acquired land to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Erode Town as well as about the income they have been getting from theagricultural operations carried on in the acquired property. TheReference Court also recorded a factual finding that all theseproperties are in same level. However without reference to any of thesupporting documents the Reference Court fixed the market value atRs.6 lakhs per acre. A.S.No.756 of 2008 (L.A.O.P.No.44/1996)15. This appeal is preferred by the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.44 of1996 dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court fixingcompensation in respect of his property bearing Survey Nos.742/1,2 and3 having an extent of 1.14.5 hectares in Erode "C" Village(Kasipalayam) in Erode District. Section 4(1) notification wasapproved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1240 dated 9.10.1990 and itwas published in the gazette on 31.10.1990. The property was claimedto be an agricultural property. However the Land Acquisition Officerconsidered the property as a manwari land and determined the marketvalue at Rs.37,500/- per acre. Since the award was not acceptable tothe appellant, he prayed for a reference to the Civil Court underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court,the appellant contended that the property is situated in a developinglocality and there are housing colonies in the nearby area. Accordingto the appellant the property has got locational advantages. Reliancewas placed on Exs.C1 and C2 relating to the sale of house propertywith an area of 2440 sq.ft. and 1220 sq.ft. sold at Rs.16/- andRs.20/- per sq.ft. respectively. However, the Reference Court was ofthe opinion that the appellant was not entitled for valuation onsquare feet basis and rejected the contention regarding fixation ofmarket value on the basis of Exs.C.1 and C.2. The Reference Courtultimately determined the market rate of the property at Rs.75,000/-per acre without reference to any particular document. Being aggrievedby the award the claimant is before us.16. We have perused the topo sketch and it was found that theproperty acquired from the appellant is lying adjacent to the propertyacquired as per notification dated 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991.In view of the location of the property and lie of the land, we are ofthe opinion that the appellant is entitled to the very same marketvalue which we propose to fix in respect of other property covered bynotification dated 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991.SUBMISSIONS:-17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the claimants wouldsubmit that it is a misnomer to call Kasipalayam as a Village. It islocated just in the outskirts of Erode. The lands that are acquiredare just situate behind the Collectorate and there are EducationalInstitutions, Hospitals, developed neighbourhoods like Rail Nagar andK.K.Nagar. The railway track also runs close by as also the main roadand these locational advantages must be taken note of. He also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that they are not low lying lands which require development.The lands were already levelled and only dry cash crops were grown andtherefore, there cannot be any reduction on the ground of developmentcharges. In support of their case, they relied on the judgment ofthis Court in appeal No.226 of 1993 wherein this Court had fixed thecompensation at Rs.7,42,506/- per acre for acquisition proceedingsthat commenced by Section 4(1) Notification issued in the year 1985.In that case, this Court had taken 17.11 per square feet as the marketvalue of the property. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that ifthat is the accepted value in 1985, then for 1991, there should beappropriate increase and therefore, the value as per Ex-C-9 (K.K.Nagar) which works out to Rs.30/- per square feet would not beexcessive and it is only on that basis the value should be fixed. 18. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the claimantsthedata land taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the marketrate is situated far away from the property acquired and as such, noreliance could be placed on the said document for arriving at themarket value. It was further contended that the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard had issued notification calling for application for allotment ofland at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per sq.ft. and the same wasborne out by the exhibits on the side of the claimants. Therefore,according to the learned Senior Counsel, the market rate has to befixed with reference to the value as shown in the notification issuedby the Housing Board as well as the other documents produced by theclaimants before the Reference Court.19. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalfof the Housing Board submitted that Kasipalayam is really a Villageand the land that were acquired were undeveloped lands andagricultural lands. Dry crops were grown. All the developmentalactivities had begun around the acquired area only just immediatelyafter the acquisition or just on the eve of the acquisition. Thelearned Special Government Pleader submitted that judicial notice mustbe taken of the fact that once the residents of the area getinformation of the commencement of the land acquisition proceedingsthere is a spurt in transactions in and around the area so that whenclaims are made, these documents could be shown to support inflatedvalues. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the datatransaction in respect of survey No.500 would be the appropriate valueof the said land and nothing more. The learned Special GovernmentPleader further submitted that the documents that are relied on by thecounsel for the claimants all relate to small areas which were sold bysquare feet as house plots and this cannot be taken as the base valuefor acquisition of large tracts of lands. According to the learnedSpecial Government Pleader these lands have to be developed to makethem fit for laying out housing board plots which is the publicpurpose for which the lands were acquired. The learned SpecialGovernment Pleader also submitted that therefore, appropriate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deductions should be made. The learned Special Government Pleadersubmitted that the Supreme Court has in some cases held that even 50%deduction towards development charges is not excessive. 20. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode on beingdirected by this Court to file a report by entertaining "additionalevidence" if necessary had recorded additional evidence and hadvirtually given another award. The acquired lands as seen from thereport filed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge is about 3kmsfrom road. It is between the Erode-Perundurai and Erode-ChennimalaiRoad. Several colonies like Jeeva Nagar, Rail Nagar, K.K. Nagar,Bharathi Nagar, Anna Nagar are in and around these lands. There areeducational institutions, Railway Station and State TransportCorporation Depot nearby. To the north of Erode Municipality there isthe River Bhavani and to the east the Kalingarayan Channel. Thelearned Subordinate Judge on a perusal of base documents found thatthey are all transactions in respect of small areas where thevaluation had been arrived at on a square feet basis. The LandAcquisition Officer would rely on a sale deed that relates to surveyNo.500, according to which the value is Rs.60,000/- per acre. It isthis value that is stressed by the learned Special Government Pleader.The learned Subordinate Judge rejects this on the ground that one ofthe vendors of the land in survey No.500 has been examined as C.W.12and he had said that at the time of sale, the value was Rs.12,00,000/-per acre. But since the family was in distressed state, he had soldit for less and to avoid stamp duty a very low value was shown. Thelearned Subordinate Judge totally accepts this evidence that it is apractice to show lower value for lands in order to avoid stamp duty.He also takes note of the offers made by the Housing Board whileselling these plots for arriving at the value. It is on this basisthat he rejects the data sale deed. On that basis, the learnedPrincipal Subordinate Judge had fixed the value forL.A.O.P.Nos.7,8,10, 12 of 1995 and 6 of 1996 at Rs.4,00,000/- peracre. In respect of L.A.O.P.Nos.43 of 1996, he fixes it at a sum ofRs.6,00,000/- per acre and in respect of L.A.O.P.Nos.25, 28, 29 and 30of 2002, he fixes the value at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. 21.The Tabular Column has already been extracted above and wefind that all the survey numbers which are subject matter of thisacquisition lie in one block. In fact survey Nos.453 and 454 forwhich Rs.6,00,000/- is fixed is farther away from the railway trackthan survey No.459. So we are not able to make out the reason fordifference of 2 lakhs in the value of lands of the claimants, asSection 4(1) notification is one and the same and the lands are onecontiguous block which is agreed by even the respondents. So, we willrely on the learned Subordinate Judge's report only with regard to thefactual findings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.In the written submissions filed by the Housing Board, it isstated that all these lands are said to be one and the same"Tharam"(Quality) and assessed to Rs.0.11 per cent. It is said thatthe lands were undeveloped, of uneven level and did not possess water,road, electricity and drainage connection at the time of acquisition.The documents produced on the side of the claimants, Ex-C2, sale deedis dated 23-01-1985 and the consideration shown is 17.11 square feet.Ex-C8, sale deed is dated 04-09-1990 and the value is Rs.20/- persquare feet and Ex-C9 is dated 08-02-1991 and the value is Rs.30/- persquare feet. The documents filed after remand are the advertisementsof Housing Board. They cannot reflect the correct market value. Ex-C8 relates to survey No.484 which is Rail Nagar and Ex-C9 relates tosurvey No.732, K.K. Nagar. These are the documents that are heavilyrelied upon by the counsel for claimants. They are documents underwhich small plots of lands have been sold. The finding of the learnedSubordinate Judge is that only acre value can be taken for theselands.23. We have perused the topo sketch of the property. It isfound from the topo sketch that the document relating to the datasale was in respect of a property situated far away from the acquiredproperty and as such we are of the considered view that the valuationas shown in the said document does not show the market rate prevailingin the locality as on the date on which Section 4(1) notification wasissued. It is also found from the award proceedings that the LandAcquisition Officer collected documents relating to sale for theperiod from 1.6.1990 to 31.5.1991 and rejected those documents onvarious grounds. The document relating to Survey No.1227/06 shows thevaluation at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre. Similarly the property in SurveyNos.231/34, 321/4 and 368/1 shows the market value at Rs.1,50,000/-,Rs.1,95,000/- and Rs.2,00,217/- per acre respectively. It is alsofound that the property in Survey No.484 is very near to the acquiredproperty. However all those documents were rejected by the LandAcquisition Officer on the ground of higher value as well as distance.The Sub Registrar has given evidence that during 1990 the property inthe area were sold only on acre basis and there were no documentsevidencing sale on square feet basis. The Reference Court originallyfixed the land value at Rs.2,18,500/- per acre in respect of theproperty in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1995.24. Subsequent to the remand order, the claimants by producingthe notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board contended thatthe rate shown in the said notification was the prevailing market ratein the area. Before the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officerhas marked a document, being the sale deed executed by one Ramalingamwherein property was sold at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The vendor wasexamined on the side of the claimants and during the examination,witness Ramalingam has deposed that the property was valued at Rs.12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lakhs, but in fact it was sold for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs per acre, ashe was in urgent need of funds. However, the witness also stated thatonly a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acre was shown in the document and thatwas only with a view to avoid stamp duty. The topo sketch also showsthe situation of the property and the housing colonies in the nearbyarea. No evidence was adduced by the claimants before the ReferenceCourt to show that they have been getting substantial income from theproperty by way of agricultural operation. In fact there was afactual finding by the Reference Court to the effect that no documentswere produced to show the income from the property, though it was theconsistent case of the claimants that they have been gettingsubstantial income from the property. Even though the earlier award ofthis court in A.S.No.226 of 1991 wherein a sum of Rs.17.11 sq.ft. wasgranted as compensation, was relied on by the claimants, the saidcontention was rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that theproperty covered in A.S.No.226/1991 was situated adjacent to the mainroad but on the other hand the acquired property has no such roadaccess. While considering the situation of the land, the ReferenceCourt also found that the entire acquired property is situated in oneblock and as such a uniform rate could be given for the property. Thesituation of the land in one block was also taken by the ReferenceCourt for the purpose of granting acre valuation for the property.Ultimately the Reference court fixed the market rate at Rs.4 lakhs inrespect of property in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1995 (A.S.No.759 of 1995)butwith regard to the property in L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1996 (A.S.No.325 of2000), the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.6 lakhsper acre. However the fact remains that the Reference Court alsoindicated that for the purpose of selling the property in the market,the Housing Board has to set apart considerable portion of theproperty for laying roads as well as to provide common facilities.The Reference Court also found that the documents produced by theclaimants as well as the evidence tendered by them, shows that theproperty was sold in the area at the rate of Rs.25 to 35 per sq.ft.,but it was only after developing the site as house-sites. The Ultimatefixation of market rate at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre by the ReferenceCourt was without reference to a particular document.FIXATION OF COMPENSATION – GUIDING FACTORS25. There are well accepted norms for the purpose of fixing themarket rate. While fixing the market value, the Land AcquisitionOfficer is required to consider the location of the property, itsadvantages as well as potential. Neither the document showing theinflated rate nor a document of distress sale is relevant for thepurpose of fixing the land value. Courts and Tribunals have to sitin the arm-chair of a willing seller as well as a willing purchaserand to arrive at the market rate by taking into account all thepositive and negative factors. The purpose for which the property wasacquired, the nature of the property, presence of roads, electricity,educational institutions, hospital facilities and other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ infrastructural facilities available in the area are all relevantfactors for the purpose of arriving at the market value.SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OFCOMPENSATION:26. The Honourable Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. RAMKUMARI DEVI (AIR 1996 SC 3370) laid down the test to be adopted forthe purpose of arriving at the market value in the following words:-"........It is laid down by this Courtwhich is well settled principle that it isthe duty of the Court to assess reasonablecompensation. Burden is on the owner to provethe prevailing market value. On adduction ofevidence by the parties, the acid test whichthe Court has to adopt is that the Court hasto sit in the arm-chair of a prudentpurchaser, eschew feats of imagination andconsider whether a reasonable prudentpurchaser in the open market would offer thesame price which the Court is intending tofix the market value in respect of theacquired land. Since it is the compulsoryacquisition, it is but the solemn duty of theCourt to assess reasonable compensation so asto allow the same to the owner of the landwhose property has been acquired bycompulsory acquisition and also it avoidneedless burden on public exchequer. No featsof imagination would require to bog the mindthat when 13.75 acres of land was offered forsale in an open market, no prudent man wouldhave credulity to purchase that land onsq.ft. basis."27. The positive as well as negative factors to be taken intoconsideration for arriving at the correct market value was highlightedby the Honourable Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v.State of Gujarat,(2005) 4 SCC 789, wherein it was held thus : "18. One of the principles fordetermination of the amount of compensationfor acquisition of land would be thewillingness of an informed buyer to offerthe price therefor. It is beyond any cavilthat the price of the land which a willingand informed buyer would offer would bedifferent in the cases where the owner is inpossession and enjoyment of the property andin the cases where he is not. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. Market value is ordinarily theprice the property may fetch in the openmarket if sold by a willing sellerunaffected by the special needs of aparticular purchase. Where definite materialis not forthcoming either in the shape ofsales of similar lands in the neighbourhoodat or about the date of notification underSection 4(1) or otherwise, other saleinstances as well as other evidences have tobe considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannotbe ascertained with mathematical accuracy. Acomparable instance has to be identifiedhaving regard to the proximity from timeangle as well as proximity from situationangle. For determining the market value ofthe land under acquisition, suitableadjustment has to be made having regard tovarious positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placingthe two in juxtaposition. The positive andnegative factors are as under:Positive factorsNegative factors(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth(iv) nearness to developed area(iv)lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality(vi) level vis-à-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser(vii)special value for an ownerof an adjoining property to whomit may have some very special advantage21. Whereas a smaller plot may bewithin the reach of many, a large block ofland will have to be developed preparing alayout plan, carving out roads, leaving openspaces, plotting out smaller plots, waitingfor purchasers and the hazards of anentrepreneur. Such development charges mayrange between 20% and 50% of the totalprice." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana,(2008) 2 SCC 568 = 2007(14) Scale 109, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the positionthat while considering the market value, the guiding star would be theconduct of hypothetical willing vendor and willing purchaser and notan anxious dealing at arms length.29. In Special Dy. Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6 SCC41, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the best evidence forfixing the market value thus :- "8.The best evidence of the value ofproperty are the sale transactions inrespect of the acquired land to which theclaimant himself is a party; the time atwhich the property comes to be sold; thepurpose for which it is sold; nature of theconsideration; and the manner in which thetransaction came to be brought out. They areall relevant factors. In the absence of sucha sale deed relating to the acquired land,the sale transactions relating to theneighbouring lands in the vicinity of theacquired land. In that case, the featuresrequired to be present are: it must bewithin a reasonable time of the date of thenotification; it must be a bona fidetransaction; it should be a sale of landsimilar to the land acquired or landadjacent to the land acquired; and it shouldpossess similar advantageous features. Theseare relevant features to be taken intoconsideration to prove the market value ofthe acquired land as on the date of thenotification published under Section 4(1) ofthe Act."30. In a recent decision of a three Judge Bench of the HonourableSupreme Court in REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – cum- L.A.O. v. SHAIKAZAM SAHEB ETC. (2009(1) SCALE 545), the positive as well as negativefactors indicated in VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT(2005) 4 SCC 789) as factors germane for consideration for thepurpose of determining the market value was re-iterated thus:-"11. Determination of market value of aland acquired in terms of the provisions ofthe said Act depends upon a large number offactors, the first being the nature andquality of the land, i.e., whetheragricultural land or homestead land. Apartfrom nature and quality of land in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ event the agricultural lands are acquiredthe other factors relevant therefor arealso required to be considered, namely, asto whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities availablefor irrigation, location of the land,closeness thereof from any road of highway,the evenness of land, its position indifferent seasons particularly in rainyseason, existence of any building orstructure as also the development in andaround the area. A host of other factorswill also have a bearing on determining thevaluation of land.12. The mode and manner in whichdetermination of such valuation are to becarried out would also depend upon thefacts and circumstances of each case,namely, whether any deed of sale executedin respect of similarly situated land nearabout the date of issuance of notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act is available,or in absence of any such exemplars whetherthe claim can be determined on yield basisor in case of an orchard on the basis ofthe number of fruit bearing trees and theyield therefrom.13. One other important factor whichalso should be borne in mind is that it maynot be safe to rely only on an awardinvolving a neighbouring area irrespectiveof the nature and quality of the land. Fordetermination of market value again, thepositive and negative factors germanetherefor should be taken intoconsideration, as laid down by this Courtin VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR v. STATE OFGUJARAT (2005) 4 SCC 789)."31. The principles governing determination of market value withreference to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court was consideredrecently by a two Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court inFARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD. ETC. v. OM PRAKASH & ORS., ETC.reported in 2009(2)SCALE 219). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION – YEAR TO YEAR INCREASE BASIS:32. The learned Senior Counsel for the claimants by relying onthe judgment of this Court in A.S.No.226 of 1991 contended that evenduring the year 1985, the market value was arrived at Rs.17.11persq.ft. and as such this Court has to fix the market rate by addingcertain percentage of increase every year. The question regardingcalculation of market rate by adding certain percentage with referenceto the market value fixed earlier was considered by the HonourableSupreme Court time and again and the legal position is reiterated inrecent decisions.33. In The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 (11) Scale 637, Hon'bleSupreme Court gave an illustration of the increase in the market valueand the percentage of increase to be made and the method ofcalculation of the increase thus :- "15.The increase in market value iscalculated with reference to the marketvalue during the immediate preceding year.When market value is sought to beascertained with reference to a transactionwhich took place some years before theacquisition, the method adopted is tocalculate the year to year increase. As thepercentage of increase is always withreference to the previous year's marketvalue, the appropriate method is tocalculate the increase cumulatively and notapplying a flat rate. The difference betweenthe two methods is shown by the followingillustration (with reference to a 10%increase over a basic price of Rs.10/- persq.m): Year By flat rate By cumulativeincrease method increase method1987 10.00 10.00(Base Year)1988 10 + 1=11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.001989 11 + 1=12.00 11.00 + 1.10 = 12.101990 12 + 1=13.00 12.10 + 1.21 = 13.311991 13 + 1=14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.641992 14 + 1=15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "16.We may also point out that application of aflat rate will lead to anomalous results. This maybe demonstrated with further reference to theabove illustration. In regard to the saletransaction in 1987, where the price was Rs.10 persq.m, if the annual increase to be applied is aflat rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs.1 perannum during each of the five years 1988, 1989,1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is tobe determined with reference to sale transactionof the year 1989 when the price was Rs.12 persq.m, the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.20 perannum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If theprice increase is determined with reference to asale transaction of the year 1990 when the pricewas Rs.13 per sq.m, then the flat rate increasewill be Rs.1.30 per annum for the years 1991 and1992. It will thus be seen that even if thepercentage of increase is constant, theapplication of a flat rate leads to differentamounts being added depending upon the marketvalue in the base year. On the other hand, thecumulative rate method will lead to consistencyand more realistic results. Whether the base priceis Rs.10/- or Rs.12/10 or Rs.13/31, the increasewill lead to the same result. The logical,practical and appropriate method is therefore toapply the increase cumulatively and not at a flatrate."34. Even though it is legally permissible to fix the market valuewith reference to a transaction which took place earlier by givingpercentage of increase, the same is not feasible in the present case.The property covered by the earlier acquisition which was the subjectmatter in A.S.No.226 of 1991 is situated just abutting the main roadand the extent was also very small and as such no reliance could beplaced on the said value. Therefore we are not inclined to accept thevaluation as shown in the judgment in A.S.No.226 of 1991 for thepurpose of taking it as base value. In fact there was also a factualfinding recorded by the Reference Court with respect to the advantagesof the property which was the subject matter in A.S.No.226 of 1991.35. A perusal of the topo-sketch clearly shows that the propertyin Rail Nagar (Survey No.484) is situated very near to the acquiredproperty and as such the document marked as Ex.C.8 dated 4.9.1990would throw light on the market value prevailing in the locality. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per the said document, an extent of 1500 sq.ft. of property was soldfor a sum of Rs.30,000/- and it would come to Rs.20/- per sq.ft.However the fact remains that the extent of property is very small andit was also a developed property. Therefore while fixing the marketrate for a larger extent of property, necessarily suitable deductionhas to be made towards development charges as well as on account ofthe small size of the property retained for the purpose of fixing theland value.DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES:36. While fixing the market value, development charges have to bededucted depending upon the nature of the land. While giving suchdeduction, the Land Acquisition Officer must record reasons about thedisadvantage of the land acquired and the purpose for which the landwas sought to be acquired as well as extent of land necessary forproviding developments like provision of roads, electricity, water andsewerage and other facilities. The extent of deduction cannot be putin a straitjacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Hon’bleSupreme court had time and again indicated the factors to beconsidered by the Land Acquisition Officer for making deductiontowards development charges as well as percentage of deduction. Suchdeduction is also not automatic unless there is a factual finding thatdeduction was absolutely necessary on the facts of the case by takinginto consideration the ground situation. In case the property hasalready been developed, there would be no requirement of deductiontowards development.37. In Naganath (dead) by Lrs. v. Asst. Commissioner & LandAcquisition Officer and Anr., 2008(13) Scale 202, the HonourableSupreme Court observed that the trend of the various Judgments of theSupreme Court indicates deduction on account of development charges inthe range of 1/6th to 33%.38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana,(2008) 2 SCC 568, (cited supra) referred to an earlier decisionrelating to deduction towards development charges, in BhagwathulaSamanna v. Special Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, 1991 (4) SCC506, wherein it was held thus :- “In fixing the market value of a largeproperty on the basis of a sale transactionfor smaller property, generally a deductionis given taking into consideration theexpenses required for development of thelarger tract to make smaller plots withinthat area in order to compare with the smallplots dealt with under the sale transaction.However, in applying this principle of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deduction it is necessary to consider allrelevant facts. It is not the extent of thearea covered under the acquisition which isthe only relevant factor. If smaller areawithin the large tract is already developedand situated in an advantageous positionsuitable for building purposes and have allamenities such as roads, drainage,electricity, communications, etc. then theprinciple of deduction simply for the reasonthat it is part of the large tract acquired,may not be justified.In the present cases the lands covered by theacquisition are located by the side of theNational Highway and the Southern RailwayStaff Quarters with the Town Planning TrustRoad on the north. The neighbouring areas arealready developed ones and houses have beenconstructed, and the land has potential valuefor being used as building sites. Havingfound that the land is to be valued only asbuilding sites and having stated theadvantageous position in which the land inquestion lies though forming part of thelarger area, the High Court should not haveapplied the principles of deduction. It isnot in every case that such deduction is tobe allowed. Therefore, the High Court erredin making a deduction of one-third of thevalue of the comparable sale and thusreducing the fair market value of land fromRs.10 per sq yd to Rs.6.50 per sq. yd.”39. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana,(2008) 2 SCC 568, theHon'ble Supreme Court also placed reliance on the Judgment in Kasthurivs. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354 and indicated the percentage ofdeduction towards development charges thus :-"10.Shri Varma has also referred toKasturi v. State of Haryana wherein it wasobserved that in cases of those lands wherethere are certain advantages by virtue ofthe developed area around, it may help inreducing the percentage of cut to beapplied, as the development charges requiredmay be less on that account. There may bevarious factual factors which may have to betaken into consideration while applying thecut in payment of compensation towards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ development charges, may be in some cases itis more than 1/3rd and in some cases lessthan 1/3rd. Therefore, in this case takinginto consideration the potentiality of theacquired land for construction ofresidential and commercial buildings, thededuction made was only 20%.40. In Naganath (dead) by Lrs. v. Asst. Commissioner & LandAcquisiStion Officer and Anr., 2008(13) Scale 202, cited supra, theHon'ble Supreme Court indicated the percentage of deduction towardsdevelopment charges thus : "4.We find merit in the Civil Appeal onthe above three grounds. Firstly, we are ofthe view that deduction of 53% towardsdevelopment charges is on the higher side. Noreason has been given for applying the rateof 53% towards development charges.Generally, the trend of the various judgmentsof this Court indicates deduction in therange of 1/6th to 33%. In this case, the HighCourt has deducted the charges at 53% which,in our view, appears to be excessive."41. The Honourable Supreme Court in REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER –cum- L.A.O. v. SHAIK AZAM SAHEB ETC.[2009(1)SCALE 545] cited supraindicated the extent of deduction taking into consideration the natureof land acquisition and the land involved in the subject matter ofsale deed relied on for computing the market rate and deducted onethird towards development cost and observed thus:-"18. ...........It must be bear in mindthat the lands in question were agriculturallands whereas the lands which were thesubject matter of the said deed of sale was ahomestead land, thus, some amount, therefore,will have to be deducted towards thedevelopment cost.19. Indisputably while comparing themarket value of developed lands with that ofundeveloped lands, the court has to makesuitable deductions towards the cost ofdevelopment.We, however, may notice that this Court,at different times, has spoken in differentvoices. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In P.S.Krishna and Co. Pvt.Ltd., v. TheLand Acquisition Officer, (Deputy Collector)Hyderabad (1991(2) SCALE 1186) this Courtrefused to interfere with the judgment of theHigh Court which had given a deduction of 20%towards development charges. Recently, aDivision Bench of this Court in MummidiApparao v. Nagarajuna Fertilizers andChemicals Ltd.(2008(16) SCALE 226) did notinterfere with the decision of the High Courtwhich had given a direction for deduction of50% as development charges. However, we arenot oblivious of the fact that this Court hadobserved in VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR v.STATE OF GUJARAT (2005) 4 SCC 789):"28. In Hasanali Khanbhai &Sons v. State of Gujarat (1995(5)SCC 422) and Land AcquisitionOfficer v. Nookala Rajamallu{(2003) 12 SCC 334} = {(2003) 10SCALE 307] it has been noticedthat where lands are acquired forspecific purposes deduction byway of development charges ispermissible. 29. We are not, however,oblivious of the fact thatnormally one-third deduction offurther amount of compensationhas been directed in some cases.(See Kasturi v. State of Haryana[(2003) 1 SCC 354}, TejumalBhojwani v. State of U.P. {(2003)10 SCC 525}, V. Hanumantha Reddyv. Land Acquisition Officer &Mandal R.Officer {(2003) 12 SCC642} , H.P. Housing Board v.Bharat S. Negi {(2004(2) SCC 184}and Kiran Tandon v. AllahabadDevelopment Authority and anr.{(2004) 10 SCC 745}" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

42. The acquired property is a manwari land and even according tothe claimants it was not a house-site developed by them. Theacquisition was only for construction of residential houses andtherefore necessarily the Housing Board has to spend considerableamount for development and to make it fit for construction ofresidential units. On the other hand, the property in Ex.C.8 is adeveloped site and the same was sold only as a house-site. Thereforeconsidering the advantages, development and potential of the propertyin Ex.C.8 vis-a-vis the disadvantages, undeveloped state and lack ofpotential of the acquired property, we are of the view that deductionat the rate of 40% has to be given towards development charges.DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SMALLER EXTENT – DEDUCTION:43. While fixing the market rate, very often, documents ofsmaller extent would be taken as the basis. The normal rule in fixingcompensation for large extent of land with reference to the valueshown in the sale document of lesser extent is that there must besuitable deduction. It is common knowledge that larger extent ofproperty invariably fetch less when compared to smaller extent. Noprudent buyer would buy large extent of land by quoting the priceprevailing in the market for a small piece of land. 44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State ofHaryana,(2008) 2 SCC 568, by placing reliance on some of the earlierJudgments regarding deduction in the case of smaller extent whencompared to the larger extent acquired, explained the legal positionthus:- "11.In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v.Special Land Acquisition Officer it was heldas follows : “4. (15) … Firstly while a smaller plot iswithin the reach of many, a large block ofland will have to be developed by preparinga layout, carving out roads, leaving openspace, plotting out smaller plots, waitingfor purchasers (meanwhile the invested moneywill be blocked up) and the hazards of anentrepreneur. The factor can be discountedby making a deduction by way of an allowanceat an appropriate rate ranging approximatelybetween 20 per cent to 50 per cent toaccount for land required to be set apartfor carving out lands and plotting out smallplots. The discounting will to some extentalso depend on whether it is a rural area orurban area, whether building activity is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ picking up, and whether waiting periodduring which the capital of the entrepreneurwould be locked up, will be longer orshorter and the attendant hazards.” 12. Shri Dwivedi has also referred toBasant Kumar v. Union of India, K. VasundaraDevi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) andH.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi. In thefirst cited case, land was acquired forplanned development of Delhi and in theother two cases for housing boards and adeduction of 33% was applied. 13.The reasons given for the principle thatprice fetched for small plots cannot formsafe basis for valuation of large tracts ofland, according to cases referred to above,are that substantial area is used fordevelopment of sites like laying out roads,drains, sewers, water and electricity linesand other civic amenities. Expenses are alsoincurred in providing these basic amenities.That apart it takes considerable period incarving out the roads making sewers anddrains and waiting for the purchasers.Meanwhile the invested money is blocked upand the return on the investment flows aftera considerable period of time. In order tomake up for the area of land which is usedin providing civic amenities and the waitingperiod during which the capital of theentrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from20% onward, depending upon the facts of eachcase, is made." 45. The document in Ex.C.8 is admittedly a document of lesserextent, when compared to the property acquired by the Government. Thesaid property is also found to be a house-site with high potential.The area of the property in Ex.C.8 is only 1500 sq.ft., but howeverthe property acquired is found to be several acres in various surveynumbers. The extent of property acquired from each of the claimantsare also found tobe much more than the area shown in Ex.C.8. Thereforewe are of the considered view that there should be 20% deduction onaccount of small size of the plot retained for the purpose of fixingthe market value.MARKET VALUE AFTER DEDUCTION:-46. Taking an overall view of the matter we are of the opinionthat 40% deduction should be made towards development costs and 20% onaccount of small size of the plot taken as the basis to arrive at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ market value. Accordingly, while retaining the document in Ex.C.8dated 4.9.1990 (value Rs.20/- per sq.ft.) as the basic document toarrive at the market value, we deduct 40% on account of developmentcharges and 20% on account of small size of the plot and accordinglyfix the market value at Rs.3,48,480/- per acre (Rs.8/- per sq.ft.)TO SUM UP:47. In the result all the appeals and cross appeals are disposedof by fixing the land value at Rs.3,48,480/- per acre (Rs.8/- persq.ft.). The claimants are also entitled to the statutory benefits.The learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counselappearing on behalf of the Housing Board are entitled for separatefees for each of the First Appeals and Cross Appeals. Consequently,the connected Mps are closed. No costs.Tr/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.2. The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court I) Erode.3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.7281+ 3 ccs to Mr.V. P. Sengottuvel, Advocate, SR No.7250+ 1 cc to Mr. K. Chelladurai, Advocate, SR No.7268+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate, SR No.7285 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mr. S Saravanan, Advocate, SR No.7304+ 2 ccs to Mr. S. K. Nachimuthu, SR No.7300+ 1 cc to Mr. D. Krishnakumar, SR No.7373 JUDGMENT IN A.S.Nos.759 to 764 of 1999, A.S.No.325 of 2000, A.S.Nos.813,820,821,822 of 2003 A.S.No.871 of 2006, A.S.No.399 of 2007 136 to 141 of 2001 Cross Appeal 57 of 2003 in A.S.No.764 of 1999 Cross Appeal No.31 of 2001 in A.S.No.325 of 2000RL, KLT, KU(CO)EM, SR/18.3.2009