Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Prema & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.11.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAppeal Nos.331 to 371 of 2008andM.P.Nos.2 to 2 of 2008 The Special Tahsildar (LA),SIPCOT Unit, Sriperumbudur.... Appellant in till / Referring OfficerVs.

Prema2.Chandrasekaran... 1st Respondents / ClaimantsS.Gulam Rasool (1st Respondent) (Claimants) in As No.332/08Divakaran ... 1st Respondent in As No:333/08M.Seakar ... 1st Respondent in As No:334/08 (Claimant)P.M.Sarasvathy ... 1st Respondent in As No:335/08 (Claimant)Chithra ... 1st Respondent in As No:336/08(Claimant)S.R. Thangaraj ... 1st Respondent in As No:337/08 (Claimant)M.Kadhirvel ... 1st Respondent in As No:338/08 (Claimant)Ilangovan ... 1st Respondent in As No:339/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Angammal 1st Respondent in As No:340/08 (Claimant)1) Ramachandran2) Malliga3) Palani Respondents 1 to 3 in As No:341/08 (Claimants)P.Srinivasan 1st Respondent in As No:342/08 M.Perumal 1st Respondent in As No:343/08N.Vijaya 1st Respondent in As No:344/08Kamala Subramanian 1st Respondent in As No:345/08T.M.Renugappa 1st Respondent in As No:346/08K.W.N.Ameen ... 1st Respondent in As No:347/08 (Claimant) J.M.Rukmangathan ... 1st Respondent in As No:348/08Noornisha ... 1st Respondent in As No:349/08Kalyani Subramanian ... 1st Respondent in As No:350/08S.Ramalingam ... 1st Respondent in As No:351/08R.L.Shanthi ... 1st Respondent in As No:352/08J.Meenakumari ... 1st Respondent in As No:353/08K.Bhaskar ... 1st Respondent in As No:354/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Kottaiah Naidu ... 1st Respondent in As No:355/08K.Sankar ... 1st Respondent in As No:356/08Allampati Nirmala ... 1st Respondent in As No:357/08Selvaraj ... 1st Respondent in As No:358/08C.Kanniah ... 1st Respondent in As No:359/08 (Claimant)Devarajulu ... 1st Respondent in As No:360/08 (Claimant)Lalitha Eswaran ... 1st Respondent in As No:361/08D.Shanmugha Naicker ... 1st Respondent in As No:362/08A.K.Arumughan ... 1st Respondent in As No:363/08S.S.Kasi ... 1st Respondent in As No:364/08Duraisamy ... 1st Respondent in As No:365/08A.Q.Arumugham ... 1st Respondent in As No:366/08A.Dharman ... 1st Respondent in As No:367/08B.S.B.Sundaram ... 1st Respondent in As No:368/08P.Selvaraj ... 1st Respondent in As No:369/08 Kollapuri ... 1st Respondent in As No:370/08A.Kamala Saraswathi ... 1st Respondent in As No:371/08 Respectively https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Having its Office at Egmore, Chennai 600 008.... 3rd Respondent in As.No.331 of 2008 / RequisitioningBody and 2nd Respondent in other appeals. Prayer in Appeal Suit No.331 of 2008 Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.V),Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur dated 31.10.2006 passed inL.A.O.P.No.1026 of 2003.in LAOP No : 1027/2003 ... in As No.332/08in LAOP No : 1028/2003 ... in As No.333/08in LAOP No : 1029/2003 ... in As No.334/08in LAOP No : 1030/2003 ... in As No.335/08in LAOP No : 1031/2003 ... in As No.336/08in LAOP No : 1032/2003 ... in As No.337/08in LAOP No : 1033/2003 ... in As No.338/08in LAOP No : 1034/2003 ... in As No.339/08in LAOP No : 1035/2003 ... in As No.340/08in LAOP No : 1036/2003 ... in As No.341/08in LAOP No : 1037/2003 ... in As No.342/08in LAOP No : 1038/2003 ... in As No.343/08in LAOP No : 1039/2003 ... in As No.344/08in LAOP No : 1040/2003 ... in As No.345/08in LAOP No : 1041/2003 ... in As No.346/08in LAOP No : 1042/2003 ... in As No.347/08in LAOP No : 1043/2003 ... in As No.348/08in LAOP No : 1044/2003 ... in As No.349/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in LAOP No : 1045/2003 ... in As No.350/08in LAOP No : 1046/2003 ... in As No.351/08in LAOP No : 220/2004 ... in As No.352/08in LAOP No : 379/2004 ... in As No.353/08in LAOP No : 380/2004 ... in As No.354/08in LAOP No : 381/2003 ... in As No.355/08in LAOP No : 382/2004 ... in As No.356/08in LAOP No : 383/2004 ... in As No.357/08in LAOP No : 539/2004 ... in As No.358/08in LAOP No : 611/2004 ... in As No.359/08in LAOP No : 612/2004 ... in As No.360/08in LAOP No : 613/2004 ... in As No.361/08in LAOP No : 614/2004 ... in As No.362/08in LAOP No : 615/2004 ... in As No.363/08in LAOP No : 616/2004 ... in As No.364/08in LAOP No : 619/2004 ... in As No.365/08in LAOP No : 620/2004 ... in As No.366/08in LAOP No : 623/2004 ... in As No.367/08in LAOP No : 634/2004 ... in As No.368/08in LAOP No : 635/2004 ... in As No.369/08in LAOP No : 378/2004 ... in As No.370/08in LAOP No : 34/2005 ... in As No.371/08 respectivelyAppellant(s) in allAppeal SuitsMr.V.Ravi, Spl.

Before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimantsExs.C.1 to C10 were filed. Exs.C.1 to C.5 were registered copies of sale deeds in respect of S.Nos.537/1, 535/5B,533/5 & 9/1D; Exs.C.6 to C.9 were xerox copies of lay outplan; and Ex.C.10 is the lease deed. On behalf of the Referring Officer, Exs.R.1 to R.3 were filed. Ex.R.1 is the copy of the Village Map; Ex.R.2 is the copy of the Award vide No.1 of 1999; and Ex.R.3 is the certified copy of the decree passed by the Committee of Lok Adalat. C.W.1Mr.Sekar was examined on the side of the claimants whileR.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined on the side of the LandAcquisition Officer and the Requisitioning Body. TheTribunal after a detailed consideration of the cases pleaded by either party took the view that Exs.C.1 to C.5filed on behalf of the claimants related to the year 1996and 1997 while Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was of the year 1997 and therefore , the sale deed of the one nearer to the acquisition can be considered. Ultimately, the Tribunal took Ex.C.5 for fixing the market value and accordingly arrived at the market value in a sum of Rs.4,500/- per cent after deducting 25% of the sale value of Ex.C.5 by way of development charges. To the said sum of Rs.4,500/- the Tribunal granted the other statutory benefits.

Assailing the said judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.)for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Body (SIPCOT) submitted that there was no justifiable reasons for the Tribunal to discard the data sale, which also pertain to the year 1997 and also related to one of the acquired lands. It was further contended that in any case, the deduction of only 25% byway of development charges was not justifiable inasmuch as the acquired lands were developed at the instance of the Requisitioning Body (SIPCOT) by spending very huge amounts running to crores in order to make the land fit for setting up of an Industrial Park. The learned Special GovernmentPleader, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer should be restored.

As against the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that Exs.C.1to C.5 also related to the sale of the acquired lands. Since prior to the proposed acquisition having regard to the setting up of a Glass Factory and yet another factory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in that area lot of housing plots were sold out for the employees to locate their residences, the value of the land was considerably increased and therefore, the value fixed under Exs.C.1 to C.5 does not call for interference. According to the learned counsel as between Exs.C.1 to C.5since higher value should be taken, the conclusion of the Tribunal for having taken value of Ex.C.5 cannot befaulted.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants further contended that since the lands were situated alongside National Highway and certain industries were already in existence in that area, the deduction of development charges to an extent of 25% was fully justified and the same does not call for any interference.

The following issues arise for consideration:-(1) Whether the market value fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the just compensation payable to the claimants calls for interference?(2) To what relief either party is entitled?9. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsel and also having perused the judgment and decree of the Tribunal, exhibits relied upon in the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the oral evidence let in on either side, we are also convinced that the reliance placed upon by the Tribunal in Exs.C.1 to C.5 cannot be faulted. It isrelevant to state that various acquired lands were indifferent Survey Numbers starting from S.Nos.3 to 536. Mostof the lands are situated in between S.Nos.200 to 536. When the lands are located in one block, there was no reason to discard Exs.C.1 to C.5 on the ground ofgenuinety. There is no reason why the benefit of higher land value provided in Exs.C.1 to C.5 should not be accepted. Moreover, Exs.C.1 to C.5 were also related to the land acquired by the appellant. As far as the data land is concerned, it is stated that it is situated behind the acquired lands and lying on the eastern side of a lake. According to the Tribunal, the said land is little far away from the National Highways when compared to the acquired lands, while the lands covered by Exs.C.1 to C.5 were part and parcel of the acquired lands. The Tribunal, however, chose to rely on Ex.C.5 alone while the other exhibitsviz., Exs.C.1 to C.4 were also related to part of such acquired lands, which were placed before the Tribunal at the instance of the claimants.

In our considered opinion, the Tribunal should have taken the value referred to in all exhibits viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exs.C.1 to c.5 and taken the average of the said value, which should have been much more appropriate for fixing the market value for arriving at a just and reasonable compensation. We say so because when we considered the value mentioned in Exs.C.1 to C.4, which related to the lands situated in S.Nos.537/1, 535/5B, 533/5A and 4 as compared to Ex.C.5 which related to the land in S.No.9/1D,while the value of the lands covered in Exs.C.1 to C.5 are in a sum of Rs.4848/- per cent, the value relating to the land covered by Ex.C.5 was Rs.6000/- per cent. Therefore, in order to arrive at a just and reasonable land value whenwe calculate the average value mentioned in Exs.C.1 toC.5, the same works out to Rs.5424/- per cent. Therefore, in our considered view the land value can be justly fixed at a sum of Rs.5425/- per cent instead of Rs.6000/- percent as determined by the Tribunal.

As far as the development charges is concerned, it will have to be noted that the acquisition for setting up the Industrial Park at the instance of the requisitioning body viz., SIPCOT in an area of 1829 Acrescovering several villages. Though the claimants in various villages were contending that the lands were all lying along side the National Highways and that enough development had already taken place, there was absolutely no material in support of the said stand. On the other hand, it is the common ground that the lands were all situated 35 to 45 kms away from the City of Chennai. Onlyafter acquisition at the instance of the requisitioning body steps were taken for developing the lands by laying the roads, street lights, sewerage, water, electricity and telecommunication facilities and also location of apolice station in the Industrial Park. In fact, the evidence on record is that the SIPCOT spent several croresof rupees for making such developments. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavva and others v.Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (4) SCC640, the maximum percentage of development charges has tobe deducted.

Accordingly, we workout the land value by relying upon Exs.C.1 to C.5 which comes to Rs.5425/-. Byapplying 53% of deduction on the said value, the ultimate market value to be fixed works out to Rs.2,549.25 which can be rounded off to Rs.2,550/- per cent. Weaccordingly determine the market value of the land atRs.2,550/- per cent as against the sum of Rs.4,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. To the said value, usual statutory benefits are also be applied.

To sum up in the result, all the Appeals are partly allowed as indicated :(1) the land value in all the appeals are fixed atRs.2,550/- per cent with 30% solatium https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of 12% p.a. from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award of the Referring Officer, or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. (3) The claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and @ 15% p.a. For every subsequent year on the amount calculated as market value till the date of deposit. (4) Time for deposit of difference amount is fixed as three months. (5) The respective claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant as per the conditional order passed by this Court without furnishing any security. (5) Any excess amount deposited, after satisfying the above award, is permitted to be withdrawn by the Appellantin all the appeals. (6) The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and the learned counsel appearing for SIPCOT shall be entitled to separate fees for each of the appeals. (7) There shall be no order as to costsThe impugned judgment and decree are modified to the extent indicated above and in other respects the same shall stand confirmed. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar kmkTo1 The Additional District JudgeFast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattuat Tiruvallur2 The Special Thasildar (LA)Sipcot Unit, Sriperumbudur3 The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras+ One CC to Government Pleader SR.No.64840 Appeal Suit Nos.331 to 371 of 2008MBS(CO)DRL(10/02/2010)