M.SowdammalW/o. Annaiya v. NarayanappaS/o. Paiyappa & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 05.08.2010Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUAppeal Suit Nos. 429 to 442, 545 to 547, 553 to 562,565 to 573 and 720 to 729 of 2008A.S.No.429/2008:1. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) SIPCOT-2, Hosur2. The Project Officer SIPCOT Bangalore Road, Hosur.. Appellants-vs-M.SowdammalW/o. Annaiya.. RespondentNarayanappaS/o. Paiyappa...Respondent in A.S.No.430/081.Billappa2. Naduppanna @ Madha Reddy3. Narayanappa4. Madha Reddy5. Sowdappa6. KrishnappaS/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.431/08/ClaimantsNaduppanna @ Madhi Reddys/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.432/08/ClaimantPillappaS/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.433/08/ClaimantKrishnappaS/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.434/08/ClaimantSowdappaS/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.435/08/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SrinivasanS/o.Naduppanna...Respondents in A.S.436/08/ClaimantSowda ReddyS/o. Subbaiah...Respondents in A.S.437/08/ClaimantAbdul RahmanS/o. BAsha Sahib...Respondents in A.S.438/08/ClaimantMunigaduS/o. Cauveriyappa...Respondents in A.S.439/08/ClaimantSowdappaS/o. Pairappa...Respondents in A.S.440/08/ClaimantMadhu ReddyS/o. Paiyappan...Respondents in A.S.441/08/ClaimantBillappaS/o. Baiyappa...Respondents in A.S.442/08/Claimant1. Chinna venkattasamis/o. Chitthappa2. NarayanasamyS/o. Chitthappa...Respondents in A.S.545/08/ClaimantChinna MadanakiriyappaS/o. Venkattappa...Respondents in A.S.546/08/ClaimantVenkattarajS/o. Chinnachetti...Respondents in A.S.547/08/ClaimantSathishS/o. Sakkarapani...Respondents in A.S.553/08/ClaimantRameshS/o. Sakkarapani...Respondents in A.S.554/08/ClaimantSureshS/o. Chakkarapani...Respondents in A.S.555/08/ClaimantBalakrishnanS/o. Gopal...Respondents in A.S.556/08/ClaimantKuzhalkumarS/o. Mathamji Peemjipattel...Respondents in A.S.557/08/ClaimantSathyanarayananS/o. Narasimma Chetty...Respondents in A.S.558/08/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ EeerappaS/o. Kullappa...Respondents in A.S.559/08/ClaimantMaragathamaniS/o. Sikkaraj...Respondents in A.S.560/08/ClaimantVengatesappaS/o. Pethamathangiriyappa...Respondents in A.S.561/08/ClaimantPeriyavengattasamyS/o. Keethappa...Respondents in A.S.562/08/ClaimantSowda ReddyS/o. Subbiagh...Respondents in A.S.565/08/ClaimantMadha ReddyS/o. Paiyappa...Respondents in A.S.566/08/ClaimantHellan Mary RobertW/o. Robert...Respondents in A.S.567/08/ClaimantNeelavathyW/o. Sundaramoorthy...Respondents in A.S.568/08/ClaimantPalaniS/o. Rathinachari...Respondents in A.S.569/08/ClaimantKumarS/o. Dass...Respondents in A.S.570/08/ClaimantKumariS/o. Kumar...Respondents in A.S.571/08/ClaimantSoundara rajanS/o. A.Y. dass...Respondents in A.S.572/08/ClaimantJanakiramani @ Jayaramakrishnan...Respondents in A.S.573/08/ClaimantVisalatchiW/o. Parameswaran...Respondents in A.S.720/08/ClaimantPuttusambbaS/o. Veerabadra chetty...Respondents in A.S.721/08/ClaimantSriramuluS/o.Anchappa...Respondents in A.S.722/08/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KrishnappaS/o. Kullappa...Respondents in A.S.723/08/ClaimantChinna keerappaS/o. Sathappa...Respondents in A.S.724/08/ClaimantRayappaS/o. Sathappa...Respondents in A.S.725/08/ClaimantSomasundaramS/o. Subbaraya chetty...Respondents in A.S.726/08/ClaimantLakshmiammaW/o. Sakaralappa...Respondents in A.S.727/08/ClaimantsDuwarakanathS/o. Krishnamurthy...Respondents in A.S.728/08/ClaimantG. BalakrishnanS/o. Gopal...Respondents in A.S.729/08/ClaimantPrayer in A.S.No.429/2008: Appeal Suit filed under section54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree ofthe Sub Court, Hosur dated 13.6.2007 in LAOP No.90 of 199793/97, 94/97, 95,96, 97, 98, 100, 46, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,103, 104, 105, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 101, 102,115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64,65, 66, 67/97, For appellants:Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.GP (AS)for 1st appellant/GovernmentMr.M.Devaraj for 2nd appellant/SIPCOTFor respondents: Mr.V.Raghavachari in A.S.Nos.429 to 442, 545 to 559, 565, 566,720 721 & 726 of 2008 Mr.R.Bharath Kumar in A.S.553 to 558 728 and 729 of 2008 No appearance in A.S.Nos.559, 560, 562, 722 to 725, 561727, 567 to 569and 570 to 573.COMMON JUDGMENT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) forthe first appellant/Government, Mr.M.Devaraj, learned StandingCounsel for the second appellant/SIPCOT, Mr.V.Ragavachari andMr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for some claimants.2. These appeals arise out of the acquisition made inrespect of formation of SIPCOT at Hosur, Phase II. The lands ofthe claimants were situated in Moranapalli Village. The acquiringauthority issued a Notification under section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act dated 6.9.1995. After following due procedure,the awards were passed in respect of the appeals on hand in AwardNos.1/1997, 2/1997 and 3/1997. The acquiring authority fixed thecompensation at the rate of Rs.2,48,630.20 per Hectare, which isapproximately Rs.1 Lakh per Acre. 3. The respondents/claimants objected to the lower rate ofcompensation. On the claimants' objection to the lower rate ofcompensation, the matters were referred for determination ofmarket value by the jurisdictional Reference Court, which in thepresent case is the Sub Court, Hosur. 4. The Reference Court registered the references as variousLAOPs starting from LAOP No.46 of 1997. The Reference Courtgrouped the various LAOPs in different batches. In respect ofLAOP No.46 of 1997, it was heard along with five other LAOPs anda common judgment was delivered on 13.6.2007. Likewise, in LAOPNo.90 of 1997 and batch cases (in respect of 17 LAOPs) anotherjudgment was pronounced on the very same day, namely 13.6.2007.On the same day, in LAOP Nos.103 to 105 of 1997, another judgmentwas pronounced. Thereafter, in respect of 20 LAOPs starting from57 of 1997, judgment was pronounced on 13.8.2007. In that case,the Reference Court took the benefit of its earlier threejudgments, which were marked as Exs.C.15, C.16 and C.17.Therefore, it is proper that the matters are first dealt withappeals arising out of LAOP No.46 of 1997 and other cases asagreed to by the parties before this Court. Printed copies ofpleadings were circulated.5. The following table will show the various LAOPs andtheir corresponding Appeal Suits.Sl.No.APPEAL No.L.A.O.P. No.1429/200890/19972430/200893/19973431/200894/19974432/200895/19975433/200896/19976434/200897/19977435/200898/19978436/2008100/1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.APPEAL No.L.A.O.P. No.9437/200846/199710438/2008106/199711439/2008107/199712440/2008108/199713441/2008109/199714442/2008110/199715545/2008103/199716546/2008104/199717547/2008105/199718553/200868/199719554/200869/199720555/200870/199721556/200871/199722557/200872/199723558/200873/199724559/2008 74/199725560/200875/199726561/200876/199727562/200877/199728565/2008101/199729566/2008102/199730567/2008115/199731568/2008116/199732569/2008117/199733570/2008118/199734571/2008119/199735572/2008120/199736573/2008121/199737720/200857/199738721/200858/199739722/200859/199740723/200860/199741724/200861/199742725/200862/199743726/200864/199744727/200865/1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.APPEAL No.L.A.O.P. No.45728/200866/199746729/200867/19976. In the first batch of judgments starting from LAOP No.46of 1997, before the Reference Court on behalf of the claimants,one S.Gowdareddy, (he respondent in A.S.No.440 of 2008) wasexamined as C.W.1. On the side of the claimants, 8 documents werefiled and marked as Ex.C.1 to C.8. On the side of the acquiringauthority, one R.Munusamy was examined as R.W.1. On their side,4 documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to R.4. Ex.R.1 isthe topo sketch of the village. Ex.R.2 is the statistical datacollected at the time of the acquisition. It is seen from therecords that before the acquiring authority for the period from22.9.1992 to 21.9.1995, i.e., which was a period of three yearspreceding Section 4(1) Notification, 1091 sale transactions tookplace at the Sub Registrar's office at Hosur. The authorityrejected 907 sale documents on the ground that they were sold ashouse sites and on the basis of the square feet rate. Similarly,28 other transactions, which took place in the area within theSIPCOT complex were also rejected on the ground that they are nottrue indicator of the market rate. Five documents were rejectedby stating that they are 'Nanja' lands, whereas the landsacquired were 'Punja' lands. Majority of the documents wererejected, on other grounds, namely, some documents wereundervalued, etc, the authority took note of the document inSerial No.308, which according to them is the land situated atthe centre of the acquired lands and covered by a Sale DeedNo.3901 dated 21.9.1993. In that case, in respect of SurveyNo.151/3, 0.91 Acre land was sold at the rate of Rs.91,600/-.Therefore, per Acre rate worked out to Rs.1,00,660/-, even thoughthe land was not of the same quality and Tharam, comparable tothe lands, which were acquired in the same village. Therefore,the market rate of the acquired land came to be fixed atRs.1,00,660/- per acre or at the rate of Rs.2,48,630.20 perHectare. 7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have filedtheir own documents. The claim of the claimants was that the landvalue is Rs.15 Lakhs per Acre and therefore they should have beenpaid Rs.15,000/- per Cent. The documents relied on by them,namely Ex.C.1 to C.8 were all various sale deeds, whichadmittedly came into being before the Section 4(1) Notificationwas issued and were more closer to the Section 4(1) Notificationunlike the data land relied on by the acquiring authority. Inhis oral evidence, wherein R.W.1 admitted that he did not evenvisit the lands in question and he was not sure whether the dataland was comparable to the lands acquired. The Reference Courtrelied on the two documents, namely Ex.C.7 Sale Deed dated20.12.1994 and Ex.C.8 Sale Deed dated 29.12.1994. Thereafter,the Reference Court, relying upon Ex.C.8, Sale Deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.12.1994 had arrived at the market rate on the finding that itwas more comparable to the lands acquired. 8. On the basis of the contention raised by the acquiringauthority, the court gave 40% deduction towards developmentcharges. This was on the plea that they will have to develop theland by forming approach road, electricity supply and providingdrainage channels. Though, it was contended that 65% deductionshould be given, the court below after referring to certain legalprecedents and on the claim made by the authority fixed 40%deduction towards development charges. It recorded a factualfinding that the land in Ex.C.8 and the acquired land are of thesame quality and tharam and it is more closer to the acquiredland and a comparable land. It is under these circumstances, theReference Court fixed the market rate at Rs.4,77,600/- per Acreand also awarded the other statutory dues regarding solatium,additional compensation and interest. Similar judgment waspronounced in respect of the other LAOPs on the same day. As setout above, in LAOP No.57 of 1997 and batch cases (in respect of20 LAOPs) by a common judgment dated 13.8.2007, the same rate wasfixed. In ordering the said compensation, the court below alsotook note of its earlier judgments, which were marked asExhibits.9. The contention raised by Mr.V.Ravi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader (AS) was three-fold. The learned SpecialGovernment Pleader took pains to explain that the authoritieshave undertaken the exercise of considering the sale transactionin respect of 1091 sale transactions which took place in thepreceding three years and hence the Reference Court cannotdislodge the statistical data provided by the acquiring authoritycovered by Ex.R.2. The Reference Court was not correct instating that it was their burden to disprove the documents filedby the claimants. He also referred to a passage, where the courtbelow made a statement that Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8 cannot be omitted,unless the acquiring authority proves by evidence that they weregot up documents for the purpose of this case. This findingrecorded by the Reference Court cannot be torn out of context.While appreciating the documentary evidence placed before it,such comment was made by the Reference Court. The Reference Courtnever shifted the burden on the State to justify thecompensation. 10. However, it must be noted that the Supreme Court videits judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special LandAcquisition Officer, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, after layingout certain guidelines for fixing the market rate ofcompensation, in paragraphs 4 (1) and 4(3) had observed asfollows:4. The following factors must be etched on the mental https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ screen:(1)A reference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act is not an appeal against the awardand the court cannot take into account thematerial relied upon by the Land AcquisitionOfficer in his award unless the same material isproduced and proved before the court.(3)The court has to treat the reference as anoriginal proceeding before it and determine themarket value afresh on the basis of the materialproduced before it.11. The Supreme Court had also made clear that a referenceis not an appeal. Equally the burden lies on the authorities tojustify before the Reference Court the compensation awarded bythem and convince the court by producing necessary data. Merelyrelying upon the statistical data cannot make the Reference Courtto arrive at a just compensation by finding out the market rate.In the present case, the claimants have proved to thesatisfaction of the Reference Court by producing necessarydocuments, which are relevant to the issue on hand and convincedthe court about enhancing the compensation to which they areentitled to.12. The learned Special Government Pleader also submittedthat the court below was not justified in awarding 40%development charges and it ought to have provided 65%. In thiscontext, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the SupremeCourt NELSEN FERNANDES & OTHERS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITIONOFFICER, SOUTH GOA AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447. Inthat case, the Supreme Court held that for the purpose ofdetermining development charges, the purpose for which the landsacquired also will be a relevant factor and in some cases, theremay not be any necessary to award deduction towards developmentcharges. 13. The Supreme Court again in Kanta Devi and others vs.State of Haryana reported in (2008) 15 SCC 201 had also held thatthe normal rate of deduction can be 1/3. If there is any otherrequirement, that has to be proved to the satisfaction of thecourt. In the present case, the Reference Court considered theclaims of both parties and fixed the deduction towardsdevelopment charges at the rate of 40%. Though Mr.V.Ragavachari,learned counsel for the claimants contended that 40% is on ahigher side, in the absence of appeals by the land owners, thisCourt is not inclined to go behind the percentage fixed by theReference Court. It is suffice to state that 40% deduction ismore than the requirement.14. The next submission made by the learned Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Pleader was that when the acquisition is for a commonpurpose, this Court cannot go on the basis of tharam or qualityof soil. It was erroneous for it to determine the market rate.Though there is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by thelearned Special Government Pleader, in the present case theacquisition is undoubtedly for formation of SIPCOT (Phase II),since Phase-I was already under operation and the entire landswere to be used only for industrial purpose. In the presentcase, the Court took note of the market rate, which is revealedby Ex.C.8 and adopted an uniform rate in respect of all thelands. It must be noted that the Supreme Court in the latestjudgment in SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. KARIGOWDA ANDOTHERS reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 had held the Reference Courtis also empowered to take note the value of the lands inadjoining villages and cannot go into a minute determination onsuch issues. The purpose of such acquisition and the unity ofdevelopment can be a relevant factor. In this context, thefollowing passages found in para 75 to 77 can be usefullyreproduced:75. It is a settled principle of law that lands ofadjacent villages can be made the basis fordetermining the fair market value of the acquiredland. This principle of law is qualified by cleardictum of this Court itself that whenever directevidence i.e. Instance of the same villages areavailable, then it is most desirable that the courtshould consider that evidence. But where suchevidence is not available court can safely rely uponthe sales statistics of adjoining lands provided theinstances are comparable and the potentiality andlocation of the land is somewhat similar. Theevidence tendered in relation to the land of theadjacent villages would be a relevant piece ofevidence for such determination. Once it is shownthat situation and potential of the land in twodifferent villages are the same then they could beawarded similar compensation or such othercompensation as would be just and fair.76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown toour legal system where lands of a number of villagesare acquired for the same public purpose or differentschemes but on the commonality of purpose and unitedevelopment. The parties are expected to placedocumentary evidence on record that price of the landof adjoining village has an increasing trend and thecourt may adopt such a price a the same is notimpermissible. Where there is commonality of purposeand common development, compensation based onstatistical data of adjacent villages was held to beproper. Usefully, reference can be made to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union ofIndia and Union of India v. Bal Ram.77. In this regard we may also make a reference to thejudgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union ofIndia where sale instances of the adjacent villageswere taken into consideration for the purpose ofdetermining the fair market value of the land inquestion and their comparability, potential andacquisition for the same purpose was hardly indispute. It was not only permissible but even morepractical for the courts to take into considerationthe sale statistics of the adjacent villages fordetermining the fair market value of the acquiredland." (Emphasis added).15. The last submission made by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader was that Ex.C.7 and C.8 are sale of smallplots of the lands and that should not have been made the basisfor determination of market value. It is not as if that theexemplar of sale of small plots of lands can never be consideredfor determination of market value. This position of law has beenclarified by the Supreme Court in RISHI PAL SINGH & OTHERS VS.MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER reported in (2006) 3SCC 205, wherein the Supreme Court has held that if there isacquisition of large tracts of land in the absence of otherreliable data, exemplars of small plots can be considered fordetermination of market value. In such cases, exemplars of saleof small plots of land can be considered after making adequatediscount. In this case, the acquiring authority though had thedata on 1091 sale transactions for the reasons best known tothem, they ignored many of the relevant data in arriving at thecompensation by giving trivial reasons. The Court below wasforced to accept the evidence of the claimants and acceptedEx.C.8 as the true indicator of the market value of the land,which was acquired. The Court below rejected the exemplar of thedata land produced by the acquiring authority on the ground thatit is not comparable and that it was located at the distantplace, whereas Ex.C.8 is more closer to the acquired land.16. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined toentertain the well considered judgments dated 13.6.2007 in threebatches and the last judgment dated 13.8.2007, wherein its ownearlier award was taken note of. Hence, all the Appeal Suitsstand dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of thecase, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. It isalso made clear that though a common judgment is rendered inrespect of all the appeals, the learned Special GovernmentPleader (A.S) and the learned Standing Counsel for SIPCOT areentitled to get separate set of fees in respect of each appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondentsstates that in A.S.No.429 of 2008 filed against LAOP No.90 of1997, the respondent/claimant M.Sowdammal died even before theaward passed by the Reference Court. As this Court had onlyconfirmed the finding of the court below, it is suffice that theappeal was also dismissed on merits. It is for the legalrepresentatives of the respondent M.Sowdammal to work out theirrights by executing the judgment of the Reference Court. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.ajrTo1.Subordinate Judge, Hosur2. The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Hosurcopy toThe section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Madras1 cc to Mr.M. Devaraj, Advocate, Sr. 571701 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 575661 cc to Mr.aR. Bharathkumar, Advocate, Sr. 5732027 ccs to Mr.V. Raghacahari, Advocate, Sr. 57393 to 57418, 57420A.S.No.429 of 2008 & batch casesCK, PKB (CO)kk 4/10