The Special Tahsildar v. Chinnasamy & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.06.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMARA.S.No.649 of 1997The Special Tahsildar,(Land Acquisition),BHEL Unit,Ranipet... Appellant/Referring OfficerVs.1.Chinnasamy2.Gunaseelan3.Punithavalli4.Nagaraj5.Gomathy6.Bhaskaran (Minor)7.Rajeswari (Minor).. Respondents / Claimants(Minors represented by Chinnasamy)Prayer: Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1990made in L.A.O.P.No.118/1984 on the file of the learned AdditionalSubordinate Judge, Vellore.For Appellant:Mr.V.Ravi,Special Government Pleader (AS)For Respondents:No AppearanceJUDGMENTThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree (Award) ofthe learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 10.10.1990 made inL.A.O.P.No.118 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore.2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), BHEL Unit-IV, Ranipet,the then Arcot District now Vellore District is the appellant herein.The respondents are the land owners, from whom the land was acquired.Out of a total extent of land measuring 54.58 acres situated in VadakalVillage, Wallajah Taluk, North Arcot District (now Vellore District)acquired by the Government for the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL,Ranipet, an extent of 0.98 acres comprised in Survey No.74.4 is theproperty concerned in this appeal. The said land was admittedly an un-irrigated (Manavari land). The Land Acquisition Officer relying on a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sale deed dated 26.03.1980 registered as document No.695 of 1980 on thefile of the concerned Sub-Registrar fixed the market value of theacquired land concerned in this appeal at the rate of Rs.3,000/- peracre and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3414.80 paise which includes15% Solatium and 4% interest. The respondents herein/the claimantsreceived the compensation under protest and requested for a referencebeing made to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.Hence, a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the SubCourt, Vellore under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3.Before the Land Acquisition Officer and in the Sub Court,Vellore, the respondents herein/the claimants claimed that the landvalue should be fixed at the rate of Rs.750/- per cent and accordinglyhigher compensation should be awarded. The learned Subordinate Judge,after trial, relying on a common judgment of the said Court dated22.12.1988 in a batch of L.A.O.P.Nos.167/1983, 171/1983, 173/1983,175/1983 and 182/1983 wherein the market value of the lands comprised inSurvey Nos.116/2 and 116/5 acquired under the very same scheme for thevery same purpose had been fixed at Rs.150/- per cent, fixed the marketvalue of the land concerned in the present appeal at Rs.150/- per centand directed payment of additional compensation. The learnedSubordinate Judge has also directed payment of 30% Solatium and interestat the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date oftaking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. 4.Questioning the correctness of the said judgment in so far as thefixation of the market value of the property concerned in this appeal atRs.150/- per cent based on the awards passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.167/1983,171/1983, 173/1983, 175/1983 and 182/1983, this appeal has been broughtforth by the referring officer. 5.The points that arise for consideration in this appeal is:-1) whether the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an error infixing the market value at Rs.150/- per cent and awarding enhancedcompensation? 2) Whether the amount awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge hasgot to be reduced?6.This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learnedSpecial Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant. There wasno representation on behalf of the respondents. The materials availableon record were also perused. 7.Admittedly, the acquired land concerned in this appeal, comprisedin Survey No.74/4 having an extent of 0.98 acres, was an un-irrigateddry land as on the date of 4(1) notification. The 4(1) notification waspublished on 25.02.1981. While rejecting the claim of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents/claimants to fix the market value of the acquired propertyat the rate of Rs.750/- per cent, the learned Subordinate Judge has alsoobserved that the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was toolow and that the selection of the data sale made by the Land AcquisitionOfficer to find out the market value was irrational. Under suchcircumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on the judgmentof the very same Court in a batch of L.A.O.Ps. concerning theacquisition of the adjacent lands for the very same purpose and underthe very same scheme. A copy of the said judgment was produced andmarked as Ex.A.1. The land comprised in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/5 inthe very same Vadakal Village was the property concerned in the saidbatch of L.A.O.Ps. decided under Ex.A.1. The said land, according to thelearned Subordinate Judge, was comparable in all respects to the landconcerned in the present appeal viz., the land comprised in SurveyNo.74/4. 8.The learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellantinformed the Court that the said rate fixed under Ex.A.1 was alsoconfirmed by this Court in another appeal A.S.No.841 of 1996. A copy ofthe judgment of this Court pronounced on 26.10.2007 in A.S.No.841 of1996 has also been produced for the perusal of the Court. The landcomprised in Survey Nos.121/5 was the acquired land concerned inA.S.No.841/1996. Admittedly the judgment under Ex.A.1 was confirmed bythis Court in A.S.No.1291 of 1998 by judgment dated 23.03.2001. Relyingon the said judgment, the appeal concerning Survey Nos.121/5 wasdismissed by this Court by the above said judgment dated 26.10.2007. Inview of the said judgment fixing a uniform rate of Rs.150/- per cent forun-irrigated dry land acquired under the very same scheme for the BoilerAuxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet, the learned Special GovernmentPleader representing the appellant herein conceded that the fixation ofmarket value of the acquired property concerned in this appeal made bythe learned Subordinate Judge cannot be termed unreasonable andsubmitted that the challenge made to the same could not be successfullypressed. In view of the same, this Court comes to the conclusion thatthere is no scope for interference with the fixation of the market valuemade by the learned Subordinate Judge for the acquired lands concernedin this appeal. The Court below has also rightly directed payment ofsolatium as 30% calculated on the market value. The direction of theCourt below for payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one yearfrom the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% thereafter isalso in accordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.Moreover, no challenge is made to the same. Therefore, there is noscope whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Court below. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment and decree of the Trial Court directing the payment of enhancedcompensation based on the above said fixation of market value do notsuffer from any defect or infirmity warranting interference by thisCourt in exercise of the appellate power in this appeal. There is nomerit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjrlToThe Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore.Ss (co)krd / 18.6.08Pre-delivery Order inA.S.No.649 of 1997