R.Chandran v. The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar welfare),Erode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18 .12.2012C O R A M:THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.VIMALAS.A.NOS.839, 1564 & 1565 Of 2000 1. R.Chandran .. Appellant in S.A.No.839 of 2000/Claimant2. Govindasamy rep. by power agent Sridhar.. Appellant in S.A.No.1564 of 2000/Claimant3. K.M.Kandasamy .. Appellant in S.A.No.1565 of 2000/Claimant-Vs-The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar welfare),Erode. .. Respondent in all the appeals/respondentreferring officerPrayer: Second appeals filed under Section 100 of Civil ProcedureCode against the judgement and decree dated 7.10.1999 made in C.M.A.No.14of 1998, 22 of 1998 and 21 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge atBhavani-I confirming the order dated 27.3.1998 made in Award No.64/98A onthe file of the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Erode. For appellants: Mr.T. Murugamanickam For respondent: Ms. M.Jayasree, Spl.Govt.Pleader (CS) --------- J U D G E M E N T:The District Collector, Erode District, by notification dated10.01.1997, made under section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forHarijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, acquired an extent of 9.34 acres atAttavanaipudur Village in Survey Nos.79/1 to 5 and 79/7 to 12 from theclaimants, i.e., the appellants for the purpose of formation of a housingcolony for Landless Adi Dravidars.1.1. The respondent- Tahsildar passed an order of award dated26.08.1998 taking into the consideration the data sale deed dated20.02.1997 in respect of Survey No.47/1 Attavanipudur (in the samevillage), wherein an extent of 1.12% acres was sold for Rs.60,000/-. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rate was fixed in the said data sale deed i.e. @ Rs.535 per cent workingout to 1 acre @ Rs.53,333/- was awarded.i. The true area of the land : 9.35 acres (3.78.5 Hectares)ii. Market value of the land : Rs. 53,333/- per acresiii. Market value of 9,35 acres of the land : Rs.4,98,644/-iv. 15% Solatium : Rs.74,800/- Total : Rs.5,73,464/-1.2. In respect of S.A.No.839 of 2000 a total extent of 5.21 acreswas acquired, for which the total compensation awarded was Rs.3,19,454/-awarded (inclusive of solatium). Against the award, the appellantpreferred C.M.A.No.14 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Bhavani.1.3. In respect of S.A.No.1564 of 2000 a total extent of 3.03 acreswas acquired, for which the total compensation of Rs.1,85,839/- awardedinclusive of solatium. Against the award, the appellant preferredC.M.A.No.22 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Bhavani.1.4. In respect of S.A.No.1565 of 2000 a total extent of 1.11 acreswas acquired, for which the total compensation of Rs.68,080/- awardedinclusive of solatium. Against the award, the appellant preferredC.M.A.ANO.22 OF 1998 before the Sub Court, Bhavani. 2. The lower appellate court by separate judgments passed inC.M.A.No.14, 22 and 21 of 1998 rightly dismissed all the appeals inentirety. Though separate judgments were rendered, the reasoning givenfor all three appeals is the same as given hereunder:-The sale deed dated 3.1.1997 in respect of S.No.65/3 AttavanaipudurVillage, wherein an extent of 20 cents was sold for Rs.45,000/- Rs.2,250/- per cent) was rejected on the ground, that the sale occurredjust one week prior to the section 4(1) notification dated 10.01.1997.2.1. The sale deed dated 11.2.1997 wherein an extent of 381/2 centsin S.No.75/9 Attavanipudur wherein an extent of 381/2 was sold forRs.23,000/- @ Rs.610/- per cent) was rejected on the ground, that thissale occurred after the Section 4(1) notification dated 10.01.1997.2.2. The sale deed dated 19.2.1997 in S.No.47/1 mukasipudur villagewherein an extent of acre 1.12% cents was sold for Rs.60,000/- wasrejected on the ground, that this sale occurred after the section 4(1)notification dated 10.01.1997.2.3. In all the appeals common question of fact and law arises andhence the common judgment. 3. The claimants seek enhancement in the compensation awarded in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of lands acquired on the ground that the respondent did notdetermine the fair market price on a fair and reasonable basis. Thespecific contention of the claimant is that the respondent ought not haverejected the sale deed dated 03.01.1997, wherein 20 cents of land had beensold for Rs.45,000/- i.e. @ Rs.2250/- per cent. It is pointed that thisland in S.No.65 is situated immediately on the north of acquired land inS.No.79 and therefore, the respondent ought to have accepted the sale deeddated 3.1.1997. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the saletransaction that took place just one week prior to the date of thenotification, should not have been rejected as not reflecting the truevalue, as the market value can be determined by taking into account thesales taking place immediately before or immediately after thenotification also. But the learned counsel for the respondent submittedthat to compute the market value u/s 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,the date of notification u/s 4(1) alone is relevant.4.1. Relying upon the decision reported in 1997 6 SCC 41 (SpecialDeputy Collector vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao), it is contended that when theclaimants complain about inadequacy of compensation, the burden of prooflies upon him to show that the acquired land is capable of fetching highermarket value than the amount paid as compensation. 4.2. No doubt, the burden is only upon the claimant toshow that the acquired lands would fetch more price if sold in openmarket.5. The point for consideration is, what would be the reasonableamount of compensation payable in respect of the land acquired whichshould reflect the fair market value of the land acquired. Yet anotherissue would be, whether the data sale deed prior to the date ofacquisition can be rejected on the ground that the value stated in thesale deed is inflated in view of the impending land acquisition. Thelearned counsel for the claimant/appellant vehemently contended that thevalue as mentioned in the sale deed, dated 3.1.1997 should be adopted asthe guideline value to determine the compensation. No doubt, the landcovered in sale deed 3.1.1997 is located immediately to the north of theacquired lands as the plan shows, but, this cannot be taken into accountbecause of two reasons:- (i) On hearing the news about the acquisition and after witnessingthe process happening prior to the acquisition, there is likelihood of thesale deeds being brought into existence for the purpose of showinginflated figures so as to enable the claimants to claim highercompensation. (ii) Value of small pieces of land is always on the higher side andtherefore adopting the value of small piece of land for determining the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ market value of larger piece of land is impermissible. 5.1. But so far as the data sale deed after the date of 4(1)notification is concerned, i.e., sale deed dated 11.2.1997, (under whichan extent of 38 cents had been sold for Rs.23,000/- ), this should nothave been rejected as it does not reflect any inflated value, but theapproximately correct value. If really, parties intended to show theinflated value, this could have been done based upon the sale deed dated3.1.1997 under which value for 20 cents has been fixed at Rs.45,000/-. Apart from taking the sale deed dated 11.2.1997 as data sale deed, thefact that it is far away from the land acquired should also be taken intoaccount. Moreover, the proper quantum of compensation is going to be paidlong after the acquisition at a time when there is sky rocketing increasein prices of the land. 5.2. Though it is stated that the extent of land acquired is 3.78.5hectares, practically the lands are situated in S.No.79/1 to 79/12consisting of 11 items, except S.No.79/6. From the details of the landacquired, it is evident that the lands acquired are also piecemeal landsstarting from 0.49, 0.78, 0.10, 1.34, 0.61, 0.74, 0.06, 2.80, 0.75, 1.02,0.60 cents. Therefore, some parameters have to be additionallyconsidered.5.3. It is relevant to mention that the Commissioner has mentioned inthe report that there are fertile lands around the acquired lands and alsothat the schools, rice mills, oil mills, hospital, banks fair price shopand Government offices are around the acquired lands. Therefore, the fairmarket price has to be fixed on a slightly higher level than the pricefixed based upon the sale deed dated 11.02.1997. Considering the factthat S.No.75/9 is located far away from the acquired land, slight increasehas to be considered. 5.4. Taking into account all these factors, the rate can reasonablyfixed at Rs.750/- per cent. The amount fixed would be reasonable as it isroughly 1/3rd of the price mentioned in the sale deed dated 03.01.1997(under which rate per cent is Rs.2250/-). Therefore, it is appropriate tofix the market price at Rs.750/- per cent and to quantify the compensationaccordingly. 5.5. The total compensation payable per acre would be Rs.75,000/-.Total compensation for the acquired land i.e. 9.34 acres would beRs.7,00,500/-. Compensation shall be payable with 6% interest and 15%solatium. 5.6. Payment of interest has double value i.e. recompensing thedecline in the intrinsic worth of money and providing healing touch to theland owners. 6. In the result, Second Appeal No.839/2004 is partly allowed. Therespondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 3,90,750/- (at the rate ofRs.750/- per cent covering an extent of 5.21 acres), with 6% interest and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15% solatium. 6.1. Appeal in S.A.No.1564/2000 is partly allowed. The respondentshall pay compensation of Rs. 2,27,250/- (at the rate of Rs.750/- per centcovering an extent of 3.03 acres), with 6% interest and 15% solatium. 6.2. Appeal in S.A.No.1565/2000 is partly allowed. The respondentshall pay compensation of Rs. 83,250/- (at the rate of Rs.750/- per centcovering an extent of 1.11 acres), with 6% interest and 15% solatium. 6.3. The respondent shall deposit the entire amount of compensationwith solatium and interest (less the amount already deposited if any)within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of thisjudgment. On such deposit, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw thesame less the amount already withdrawn, if any. No costs. aes/-Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Bhavani-I.2. The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Erode.+3 C.C. to Mr.T. Murugamanickam Advocate SR.No.77121,77120 &77118 +2 cc to Government Pleader SR.NO.77091, 77090 S.A.NOS.839, 1564 & 1565 Of 2000 UG (CO)ns 20/6/13