The Special TahsildarAdi Dravidar WelfareVandavasi.. v. Rosebai Ammal..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 10.09.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.219 of 2000The Special TahsildarAdi Dravidar WelfareVandavasi.. Appellant/Referring OfficervsRosebai Ammal.. Respondent/ClaimantAppeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act againstthe judgment and decree dated 12.03.1996 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1993 onthe file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Arani.For Appellant: Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader (A.S.)For Respondent : Mr.N.Venkatakrishnan JUDGMENT This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed asagainst the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1996 passed by the learnedSubordinate Judge of Arani in LAOP No.10 of 1993. For convenience sake,the parties are referred to here under according to their litigativestatus before the trial Court.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. To cut short the long narration of facts for the purpose ofdisposal of this appeal, I would like to portray and parody the relevantfacts which are necessary and germane thus:The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the LandAcquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 39 centsin S.No.343/3 in Birudur Village, Vandavasi for the purpose of providinghousing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with theprocedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award assessing a sumof Rs.120/- per cent towards compensation. Being aggrieved by suchawarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the SubCourt 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 Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. On the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B9 weremarked. 5. The trial Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.120/- per cent to Rs.665/- per cent.6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such enhancement, theGovernment filed this appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof ofthem would run thus:The Reference Court simply relied on Ex.A2 which emerged only twodays anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification and thatis against the trite proposition of law.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the ReferenceCourt was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.120/- toRs.665/- per cent.8. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterating the groundsof appeal would detail and delineate the facts to the effect that Ex.A2which emerged two days anterior to the publication of Section 4(1)Notification cannot be taken as one reflecting the true market value andeven one third deduction was not effected from it towards developmentcharges and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment anddecree of the Reference Court.9. However, the learned counsel for the land owner would draw theattention of this Court to Ex.A1, which is a replica of Ex.A3 anddevelop his argument to the effect that even during the month ofFebruary, per cent of land was sold in a sum of Rs.1,445/- in the nearbyarea and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court iscomparatively far lesser than that. Accordingly, he prays forconfirming the enhancement as ordered by the Reference Court. 10. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, ex facie and prima facie,it is clear that the Reference Court was not justified in simply relyingupon Ex.A2, a sale deed which emerged only two days anterior to thepublication of Section 4(1) Notification. The current ratiocination ofHon'ble Apex Court would look askance at such sort of placing relianceon documents which emerged just anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification. No doubt, in certain circumstances, even documentswhich emerged subsequent to Section 4(1) Notification was relied upon.In this connection, I would like to cite the decision of the Hon'bleApex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 [Administrator - General of W.B.vs. Collector, Varanasi], the gist and kernel of the said decision wouldrun thus:"Subsequent transactions which are not proximate inpoint of time to the acquistion can be taken into account forpurposes of determing whether as on the date of acquisition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area.Further, under certain circumstances where it is shown that themarket was stable and there were no fluctuation in the pricesbetween the date of the preliminary notification and the dateof such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also berelied upon to ascertain the market value. But, this principlecan be applied to only where there is evidence to the effectthat there was no upward surge in the prices in theinterregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarelyon the party relying on such subsequent transaction. However, the criteria as found set out in the aforesaid decisionis not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and it isquite obvious.11. A bare perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court wouldclearly exemplify that it simply discarded Exs.A1 and A3 on the soldground that the sale contemplated therein refers to a small extent ofland and it cannot be a guiding factor for assessing the compensation.In my considered opinion, the ratiocination adhered to by the ReferenceCourt is not acceptable in view of the following decisions of theHon'ble Apex Court.(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Unionof 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]12. It is therefore clear from the ratio decidendi that could bededuced from the Hon'ble Apex Court decisions that even a sale deedrelating to a small extent of land can be relied upon, provided it isnot a cooked-up document and furthermore necessary deduction should beeffected towards development charges from out of such valuation arrivedat based on such sale deed. The sale as contemplated in Ex.A1 emergedduring February, so to say, on 13.02.1991, relating to an extent of 1505sq.ft. of land in S.No.335, which is very close to the land acquired inS.No.343/3 in the same village. It is also to be noted that Ex.A2 alsorefers to a land in S.No.335 itself. Hence, I am of the consideredopinion that the value as contempated in Ex.A1 cannot be simply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discarded on the ground that it refers to a small extent of land andthat there is nothing to show that Ex.A1 is a document brought about forboosting up the valuation of the land in that vicinity so as to getenhanced compensation.13. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, the area in which the landacquired is a fast developing area. The learned counsel for the landowner also would highlight placing reliance on the records availablebefore this Court that the land acquired is situated adjacent toVandavasi Town. Hence accordingly if Ex.A1 is considered, it isglaringly evident that an extent of 1505 sq.ft. was sold for a sum ofRs.5,000/-, which means per square foot was sold in a sum of Rs.3.32pand per cent of land works out to Rs.3.32 X 435 = Rs.1,444/-. It is anadmitted legal position that one third of the amount should be deductedtowards development charges and accordingly if viewed, the remaining twothird comes to Rs.963/- per cent. However, the trial Court awarded onlya sum of Rs.665/-, which is lesser than the formula arrived at above.There is no cross appeal also. Accordingly, I am of the view that nointerference with the judgment and decree of the Reference Court isrequired, even though the Reference Court did not adhere to the reasonsas adhered to supra by this Court.14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming theenhancement of the compensation from Rs.120/- per cent to Rs.665/- percent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargmsToThe Subordinate Judge, Arani.Copy toThe Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.51612.A.S.No.219 of 2000 VM(CO)RVL 29.10.2008