The Revenue Divisional Officer Vriddhachalam & Ors. v. Lakshmi

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:02.04.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.802 of 19971) The Revenue Divisional Officer Vriddhachalam2) The Professor/Principal Tamil Nadu Agricultural University/ Regional Research Station, Vriddhachalam .. Appellants/Referring OfficerVs.Lakshmi .. Respondent / ClaimantThis appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ReferringOfficers under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act asagainst the judgment and decree of the learned SubordinateJudge of Vriddhachalam in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1987 dated the29.03.1995.For Appellants : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Govt. Pleader (AS)For Respondent : No appearanceThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decreedated 29.03.1995 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1987 by the learnedSubordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam.2. An extent of 2.22.5 Hectares of land comprised in twosurvey numbers (Survey No.1/2B and 1/3) in Budamur Village,Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District belonging to theRespondent herein/claimant was acquired by the Government alongwith a further extent of 0.74.5 Acres comprised in other surveynumbers belonging to other persons, for the purpose of settingup a Regional Research Station under the control of the TamilNadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The acquisition madeat the instance of the Registrar, Tamil Nadu AgriculturalUniversity, Coimbatore. Particulars of the notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was lastly effected on21.03.1984. However, invoking the emergency provision foundunder Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, possession ofthe property was taken by the Government on 22.06.1984 after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the LandAcquisition Act. On the same day the property was handed overto the Requisitioning Department. In the award enquiry thatfollowed for fixing the amount of compensation for the landacquired, the Land Acquisition Officer collected particularsregarding as many as 274 sales pertaining to the lands in thelocality for being considered as data sales. However,rejecting 269 items out of 274 included sale-data collected bythe Land Acquisition Officer as not reflecting the true marketvalue of the acquired land for one or the other reasons citedin the award, the Land Acquisition Officer took the salesnoted against items 182 to 185 and 189 of the data sales as thedocuments reflecting the correct market value of the acquiredland. Thus, the land acquisition officer fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.74,100/- perhectare and awarded compensation to the respondent / claimantas follows:Market value of the property (2.22.5 Hectares) at the rateOf Rs.74,100/- per Hectare: Rs.1,64,872.50Value of structures, buildings,wells, etc.: Rs. 70,122.00Cost of standing crops: Rs. 2,640.00Value of Trees: Rs. 70.00Total market value: Rs.2,37,704.5030% solatium: Rs. 71,311.50Increase in the market value calculated at the rate of 12%Per annum from the date of4(1) notification dated 21.03.84 till the dateof taking possession(21.06.84): Rs. 7,267.89Total amount of compensation: Rs.3,16,283.00Interest was calculated for the said amount at the rate of9% from 21.06.1984 the date on which the Government tookpossession, for a period of one year and thereafter till thedate of payment at the rate of 15% per annum. The total amountof the compensation arrived at by the land acquisition officeras indicated above along with the interest was paid to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/claimant. But the respondent received it underprotest and made a request to the Land Acquisition Officer formaking a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 for fixing the reasonable compensation.3. In the statement given before the Land AcquisitionOfficer expressing dissatisfaction with the amount awarded ascompensation, and also in the statement of claim made beforethe Reference Court (court of subordinate judge,Vriddhachalam), the respondent/ claimant had not specified anyamount to be fixed as the market value. She was content withstating that some other properties were sold in the open marketfor a higher price than the value adopted by the LandAcquisition Officer and that hence the market value of theacquired land deserved upward revision. Besides contendingthat the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer wasfar below the actual market value of the land acquired, she hadalso contended that the thatched shed, well, motor pump-set,motor shed and trees should have been valued at Rs.5,00,000/-as such developments were made by her spending about threelakhs of rupees. 4. The Referring Officer in his statement of objectionfiled before the Reference Court namely, the Court ofSubordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam, contended that the valuefixed by the Referring Officer in his award was just and properand the same did not call for any upward revision and prayedfor confirmation of the award passed by him. 5. In the enquiry before the Reference Court namely, thecourt of the Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam, three witnesseswere examined as CW1 to CW3 and three documents were marked asEx.C1 to C3 on the side of the Claimant (Respondent herein).RW1 was the sole witness examined on the side of the ReferringOfficer (the first appellant herein). The second respondent atwhose instance, the acquisition was made was also given noticeand permitted to take part in the proceedings. 6. At the conclusion of enquiry, the learned SubordinateJudge, on an appreciation of evidence, held that therespondent/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation. Thelearned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the land atthe rate of Rs.650/- per cent, revised the compensation fortrees and fixed the same at Rs.1,000/- as against Rs.70/- fixedby the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed the valuationarrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of thewell and motor pump-set as well as the standing crops. Thus,the total amount of compensation was arrived at by the learnedSubordinate Judge as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) Market value of the property (2.22.5 Hectares) at the rate of Rs.650/- per cent: Rs.3,57,233.75ii) Value for the well, motor pumpset, etc.: Rs. 70,122.00iii)Cost of Standing crops: Rs. 2,640.00iv) Value of Trees: Rs. 1,000.00v) Total market value: Rs.3,57,233.75vi)30% solatium: Rs.1,07,167.12vii)Increase in market value calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.03.1984, the date of Sec.4(1) notifica- tion till 22.06.1984, the date of taking possession which comes to : Rs. 10,717.01----------------Grand Total: Rs.4,75,101.88Rounded to : Rs.4,75,102.00Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum for oneyear from 22.06.1984, the date on which possession was takenand thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum.7. Challenging the correctness of the award/decree passedby the learned Subordinate Judge awarding enhanced compensationas indicated above, the Referring Officer as well as thebeneficiary of the land acquisition (Requisitioning Department)have filed the present appeal challenging the correctness ofthe award passed by the Court below and they have prayed forsetting aside the award of the learned Subordinate Judgedirecting payment of enhanced compensation and for confirmingthe award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.8. The point that arises for consideration in this appealis: "Whether the compensation awarded by the learnedSubordinate Judge is excessive? Whether the same has got to bereduced?"9. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.V.Ravi,learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing on behalf ofthe appellants. The materials available on record were alsoperused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The claimant's land was acquired by the Government fora public purpose, namely to set up a Regional Research Stationat Vriddhachalam under the control of the Tamil NaduAgricultural University, Coimbatore. Out of the total extentof 2.97.0 hectares acquired an extent of 2.22.5 hectarescomprised in survey Nos.1/2B and 1/3 alone was that of therespondent/claimant. The market value for the property wasfixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate ofRs.74,100/- per hectare based on five sale deeds noted in items182 to 185 and 189 of the data sales collected by the LandAcquisition Officer. According to the Land Acquistion Officer,as per the particulars noted in Items 182 to 185 an extent of24 cents in R.S.No.1/2A itself was sold for a sum of Rs.7,200/-on 13.06.1983 under each one of the documents Nos.1150 to 1153of 1983 and yet another extent of 24 cents in the very samesurvey number was sold under document No.1268/1983 on24.06.1983. As per the said sales, the rate per hectare workedout to Rs.74,100/-. As the sales were effected within one yearprior to 4(1) Notification and the sales were made in respectof the very same survey number, according to the LandAcquisition Officer, the same alone would reflect the correctvalue of the acquired land. 11. On the other hand it was the contention of the learnedcounsel for the Respondent/claimant that the said landsallegedly sold could not be compared with her land acquired, asher land was garden land abutting the main Road and was gettingirrigation from the well dug there in. The Land AcquisitionOfficer seems to have relied on five sale deeds as reflectingthe correct market value of the acquired land; When the same isnot accepted but disputed by the claimant in a reference madeunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the referringofficer should have produced the copies of the said documentsrelied on by him. The production of the said document willalso enable the court to find out whether the same can beaccepted as reflecting the correct market value of the acquiredproperty. 12. In the absence of production of an authenticated copyof the document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer asreflecting the correct market value of the acquired property,the court to which the reference was made could not have takeninto account the said sale deeds for fixing the market value ofthe land acquired. Under such circumstances, the only optionavailable to the court below was to fix the market value of theacquired land with reference to the documents produced oneither side. In fact there is no document produced on the sideof the Referring Officer. On the other hand, the respondentherein/claimant produced certified copies of two sale deeds andthe site plan showing the proposed construction of the Motorshed. The said plan was marked as Ex.C1 and the certified https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copies of the sale deeds produced by the respondentherein/claimant were marked as Ex.C2 and C3. The learnedSubordinate Judge has chosen to rely on Ex.C2 as reflecting thecorrect market value of the property acquired. 13. Ex.C2 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated13.02.1984 under which 75 cents of land was sold for a sum ofRs.48,750/-. As per the said document the value of one centcomes to Rs.650/-. Certified copy of yet another sale deeddated 25.01.1984 produced by the respondent herein/claimant wasmarked as Ex.C3. 5¼ cents grama nattham land in R.S.No.20/3Bof Budamur Village was sold for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. But thevalue of the property sold under said deed was given asRs.11,681/-. As per the market value noted in the said saledeed the value of one cent approximately comes to Rs.2,225/-.If the price quoted in the sale deed is taken, then the valueper cent will be a little more than Rs.1,000/-. But thelearned Subordinate Judge has not chosen to calculate themarket value of the acquired property either on the basis ofthe price quoted in Ex.C3 or on the basis of the market valuequoted in the said deed. On the other hand, the learnedSubordinate Judge has chosen to take Ex.C.2 sale deed as thedocument reflecting the correct market value of the acquiredproperty as on the date of 4(1) notification. As pointed outsupra, the market value fixed by the court below based on Ex.C2is just Rs.650/- per cent. Had Ex.C3 been taken as the saledeed reflecting the market value of the acquired property, themarket value should have been fixed at a rate which shall bemuch higher than the rate adopted by the court below.Therefore, there cannot be any grievance for the ReferringOfficer and the Requisitioning Department who are theappellants herein for selecting Ex.C2 sale deed in preferenceto Ex.C3. 14. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given evidence regarding thesales under Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively. The testimony ofCW.3 that the property sold under Ex.C2 sale deed is situatedat a distance of 150 feet from the acquired property has notbeen contraverted either by cross-examining him on the saidaspect or by producing any other document. Similarly, theevidence of CW.2 that the property sold under Ex.C2 liesabutting Cuddalore Main Road and that the distance between theacquired land and the property sold under Ex.C2 is just 100feet also has not been contraverted. Clear evidence has beenadduced through CW1 and CW2 that besides the proximity with theacquired land, the property sold under Ex.C2 in all otherrespects viz, quality, amenities etc., is similar andcomparable to the property acquired. The property sold underEx.C3 was a pucca nattham land whereas the acquired propertywas admittedly an agricultural land. The court below has notcommitted any error in preferring Ex.C2 to Ex.C3 for fixing themarket value of the acquired land. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. At the cost of repetition, it is also pointed out thatfor fixing the market value, selection of Ex.C2 among the twosale deeds produced before the courts below as reflecting thecorrect market value is beneficial to the Referring Officer andthe Requisitioning Department. If at all anybody is to beaggrieved by the non-selection of Ex.C3 as reflecting thecorrect market value, it shall be respondent herein/claimantand not the appellants. Therefore the appellants cannot haveany grievance over the selection of Ex.C2 between the two saledeeds produced by the claimant namely, Ex.C2 and C3. As nodocument was produced either on the side of the ReferringOfficer or the Requisitioning Department before the courtbelow, they cannot have any grievance over the selection of thesale deed which shows the lowest price than the other documentsproduced by the respondent herein/claimant for assessing themarket value of the property acquired. Therefore, thechallenge made by the appellants to the choice of the document(data-sale) made by the court below to fix the market value ofthe acquired property does not have substance in it and hencethe same is liable to be rejected. The finding of the courtbelow that the market value of the acquired land as on the dateof Section 4(1) notification should be taken as Rs.650/- percent does not call for any interference by this court in thisappeal and the same has got to be confirmed.16. The court below has rightly rejected the claim forenhancement of compensation for the well, motor pumpset, etc.,and fixed the same on par with the amount fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer. No serious objection has been raised onbehalf of the appellants against the fixation of the marketvalue of the standing trees at Rs.1,000/- as against Rs.70/-awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The very same valuefixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the standing cropshas been adopted by the court below. Additional market valuehas also been rightly calculated for a period of three monthsfrom the date of 4(1) notification till the date of takingpossession at the rate of 12% per annum on the total marketvalue excluding solatium. 30% solatium was also awarded by thecourt below under Section 23(2) on the market value excludingthe additional market value calculated under Section 23(1A).The learned Judge of the Lower Court has also rightly awardedinterest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession fora period of one year and thereafter further interest at therate of 15% per annum in accordance with Section 28 of the LandAcquisition Act.17. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree (award)of the court below cannot be termed either infirm or defectivewarranting interference by this court in the appeal. There isno merit in the appeal and the same has got to be dismissed.Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. However, there shall be no order as to costs.AsrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo The Subordinate Judge, VriddhachalamCopy toThe Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Madras.A.S.No.802 of 1997RSY(CO)SR/21.5.2008