The Special Tahsildar (LA), Salem – Karur Broad Gauge Railway Scheme, Salem v. Subramani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 16.07.2009Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAAppeal Suits Nos.430 to 454 of 2007,472 to 481 and 597 to 604 of 2008A.S. No.430 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar (LA),Salem – Karur Broad Gauge Railway Scheme, Salem... Appellant/Referring Officer in all Appeals.v.

Subramani.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.430/072.1.Kannan 2. Maadhayyan 3. Chevvanthiammal.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.431/073.1.Mariyappan 2. Andiyappan 3. Karumalai 4. Paramasivam 5.S.Muthu.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.432/074.Ammaciyammal .. Respondent/Claimant in AS.433/075.Palaniyappan .. Respondent/Claimant in AS.434/076.1.Jayapaul 2.S.Manickam.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.435/077.Muthammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.436/078.Rajendran.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.437/079.Chinnapoonu.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.438/0710.Pappathi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.439/0711.Mallika.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.440/0712.Kannammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.441/0713.Palaniammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.442/0714.Sengodan.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.443/0715.Balakrishnan.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.444/0716.Lakshmi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.445/0717.Malarvizhi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.446/0718.Pappa.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.447/0719.Lakshmi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.448/0720.Allimuthu.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.449/0721.1.Thangaraj 2. Veerammal.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.450/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Hamsha.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.451/0723.Iyyandurai.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.452/0724.T.K.Ramasamy.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.453/0725.Vaithi @ Chinn Vaithi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.454/0726.Palaniammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.472/0827.1.Vairavan 2. Rajendiran.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.473/0828.Prakash.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.474/0829.Chinnaponnu.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.475/0830.Ganesan.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.476/0831.Kamala.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.477/0832.Valliammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.478/0833.Jeya.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.479/0834.Rangaraj.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.480/0835.Iyyammal.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.481/0836.1.Krishnan 2. Subramani 3. Kandasamy 4. Danapal.. Respondents/Claimants in AS.597/0837.Raja.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.598/0838.Patchamuthu.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.599/0839.Susila.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.600/0840.Kaliappan.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.601/0841.Chinnaponnu.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.602/0842.Peria Vaithi.. Respondent/Claimant in AS.603/0843.1.Perumal 2.

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for theappellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the acquisitioningbody (Railways), and learned counsel who appeared for the claimants-respondents and perused the materials available on record.

Mr.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the acquisitioningbody contended that having regard to the number of sales that tookplace within the period of three years prior to the date of 4(1)notification and having regard to the further fact that 90% of thesales that took place were made on square feet basis, in respect ofthe land adjoining the land under acquisition, the treatment made bythe Reference Court in determining the compensation at square feetbasis for the lands cannot be said to be faulty or irregular, but thecompensation determined at Rs.125/- per sq. ft., is without anybasis. There is absolutely no material available before the Reference Court to determine the compensation at Rs.125/- per sq. ft. He further contended that Sl. No.476 of the data document was sold on15.04.1998, which is in an extent of 389 sq. m., as house site (4187sq. ft.), at the rte of Rs.100.55, which is a smaller extent andwhich cannot form a basic document to determine the value of thelarger extent of land which has been acquired in this case. Hefurther contended that the Reference Court failed to deduct any sumtowards development charges. The counsel for the acquiring bodyadopted the argument of the counsel for requisitioning body.

The learned counsel for the claimants argued for sustainingthe order of the Reference Court.

From the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, thepoints that arise for consideration in this case are as to whetherthe value of the land determined at Rs.125/- per sq. ft., isreflecting the fair market price and whether any deduction should begiven from the value determined towards development charges andlargeness of the area acquired? 8. As contended by the learned counsel for the secondrespondent, the sales that took place in and around the land underacquisition, which are 615 in number, were sold on sq. ft. basis ashouse sites for the purpose of putting up the construction ofbuilding. That is the reason for the counsel for the secondrespondent to concede that they cannot object for determination ofthe compensation by square feet basis.

We also find, on facts, that almost all the 615 sales weremade on the basis of sq. ft. only. It is seen from paragraph 9 ofthe judgment of the Reference Court, wherein it has categoricallybeen admitted by the appellant - Special Tahsildar, who deposed asDW1 that the lands which are the subject matter of LAOP No.252, 257,281 to 285, 287, 288 of 2002 were all house sites. He furtheradmitted that the lands under acquisition, though differentlyclassified in the revenue records, they are house sites only and thelands in and around the acquired lands have been sold as house sitesonly. The claimants, who deposed before the Reference Court, have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also spoken to about this fact that though the land in surveyNo.19/3A1A has been classified as agricultural dry and natham, thesales that were effected during the period were on the sq. ft., basistreating the lands as house sites. Hence, on the basis of thedocuments supported by the evidence adduced by as many as 10claimants which has been supported by the evidence of DW1, the Special Tahsildar, we can safely come to the conclusion that theaction of the Reference Court in determining the compensation at sq.ft., basis is correct and cannot be stated to be faulty.

In respect of the value determined by the Reference Court, it is true that before the Reference Court, sl. No.476 a documentdated 15.04.1998 in which land has been sold at Rs.100.55 per sq.ft., has not been marked by the claimant, but the fact remains thatthe very document was available before the Reference Court as it wastaken as one of the several data lands. By taking into the totalityof the circumstances of the case, as to the lie of the land suitablefor immediate construction and that Sl. No.476 document is also oneof the several documents gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer forthe purpose of determining the value of the land which, on par withthe acquired land in all aspects, is more suitable for determiningthe value of the subject land. As already stated, under thatdocument, a square foot has been sold at Rs.100.55. On that basis, the Reference Court has determined the value at Rs.125/- per sq. ft.,by enhancing the value by Rs.25/-.

We are not able to sustain the argument of the learnedcounsel for the second respondent, that the enhancement of Rs.25/-over and above the value of the land in sl. No.476, because sl. No.476was sold on 15.04.1998, but the 4(1) notification is dated23.02.1999. Hence, there must be some escalation in the price of thehouse sites. As per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the valuehas to be determined by taking into consideration the market value ofthe land on the date of publication of the notification under section4(1) of the Act. As the date of the notification under section 4(1)of the Act is nearly one year after the date of sale of land underSl. No.476, the enhancement of Rs.25/-, in our view, would reflectthe fair market value. If that be so, we are of the view that thedetermination of the value of the land at Rs.125/- per sq.ft., is afair market value of the land and it cannot be regarded as on thehigher side.

In all reasonableness, a deduction of Rs.25/- per sq. ft.,in our view, would meet the ends of justice. If such a deduction isgiven, the value of the land would be Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Thus, thevalue of the land is determined at Rs.100/- per sq. ft.