Lalitha Bai v. The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition)Revenue Divisional Officer,Adi Dravidar Welfare,Thirupattur,Vellore District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 11.09.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.Nos.528 of 2006 and 618 of 2008 andM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2008 Lalitha Bai .. Appellant in A.S.528 of 2006 and respondent in A.S.618 of 2008Vs. The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition)Revenue Divisional Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Thirupattur, Vellore District. .. Respondent in A.S.528 of 2006 Appellant in A.S.618 of 2008 Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learnedAdditional District Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Tirupattur, VelloreDistrict in L.A.O.P. No.130 of 2002 dated 25.04.2005.For Appellant in A.S.528 of 2006and respondent in A.S.618 of 2008 :: Mr.P.S.KothandaramanFor Respondent in A.S.528 of 2006 :: Mr.V.Raviand Appellant in A.S.618 of 2008 Special Government Pleader (AS)COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decreedated 25.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District SessionsJudge (F.T.C.), Tirupattur in L.A.O.P. No.130 of 2002. Forconvenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according totheir litigative status before the lower Court.

Heard both sides.

The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of1.40 acres in S.No.111/2 in Vengili Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the purpose of providing housing sites to Adi Dravidar communitypeople. After complying with the procedures, the Land AcquisitionOfficer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum ofRs.15,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by such awarding of thecompensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the .....Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.4. During enquiry before the lower Court, on the side of theclaimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A2 were marked. On theside of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 weremarked.

The lower Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.15,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per acre.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Government preferred the appeal on the following grounds: The judgment of the Reference Court is niggard and bereft ofreasons for awarding enhancement, as it is obvious from itsdiscussion itself that the Reference Court neither relied on the LandAcquisition Officer's value nor the value as contemplated underEx.A1, which the land owner relied on.

Whereas, the land owner being not satisfied with theenhancement awarded, did choose to file A.S.No.528 of 2006 forfurther enhancement based on Ex.A1 itself.

The point for consideration is as to whether the ReferenceCourt was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,000/-to Rs.45,000/- per acre and whether the land owner is entitled tofurther enhancement of compensation over and above Rs.45,000/- peracre.

Both sides reiterated their grounds of appeal and prayedfor granting their respective reliefs in their appeals.

A perusal of the sales statistics as contained in Ex.B3would reveal that the Land Acquisition Officer took intoconsideration as many as 35 sales particulars which emerged anteriorto the publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 18.08.1982. Hehad chosen item No.26 as the guiding factor for assessing thecompensation, on the ground that the sale as contemplated in itemNo.26 in Ex.B3 is relating to the land in S.No.111 in which the LandAcquisition Officer acquired the land. The said sale took place on03.03.1982, so to say about five months anterior to Section 4(1)Notification. Accordingly, he fixed the compensation at the rate ofRs.15,000/- per acre. Whereas, the Reference Court correctlydisagreed with the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer byreferring to item No.23 in Ex.B3, which demonstrates that per acre https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was sold in a sum of Rs.27,344/- by virtue of the sale deed dated21.01.1982. The Reference Court expressed its disagreement with thesuggestion made by the land owner to place reliance on Ex.A1 the saledeed which emerged on 13th August 1981, on the ground that a smallextent of land was sold under Ex.A1 and ultimately, withoutelaborating on what grounds he was awarding a sum of Rs.45,000/- peracre, awarded the same.

It is therefore just and necessary to analyse theavailable records to see as to what could be the just compensationawardable. In this case, Ex.A1 obviously emerged a year anterior topublication of Section 4(1) Notification and hence it cannot bestated that it is a cooked up document purely brought about for thepurpose of boosting up the value of the land so as to get enhancedcompensation. However, one thing should not be lost sight of. Theproperty sold under Ex.A1 was measuring an extent of 21,455 sq.ft. of Manai over which already there was a building which was demolishedand it is glaringly clear from the very description of it that it issurrounded on three sides by Main Street and one side by house andthat too in a well developed colony. It is situated in S.No.94/4.Whereas, the land acquired is bearing S.No.111/2, which is anagricultural land. But, Ex.B4, the sketch would clearly exemplifythat there is proximity in distance between the land acquired and theplot contemplated in Ex.A1.

The learned counsel for the land owner placing reliance onEx.A1 would stress upon the fact that the purpose of acquisition isfor providing free house sites for Adi Dravidar people. As perEx.A1, the plot value of one per cent of land comes to Rs.1219.68pand after deducting one third towards development charges, the netvalue per cent would be higher than what the Reference Court awarded. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader would oppose on theground that a small extent of plot area in a colony cannot be equatedwith an area of 1.40 acres for assessing the compensation for theland acquired.

At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the followingdecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: (1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India](3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others](5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others].

A perusal of the aforesaid decisions would leave no doubtin the mind of the Court that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble ApexCourt, even the sale relating to small plot of land can be taken intoconsideration, provided necessary deductions are effected and thereshould be proximity in time and distance between the land acquiredand the data land.

The learned counsel for the land owner would cite thedecision of the Division Bench reported in 1985 MLJ 116 [Director of Survey cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry and others vs. Mohammed Ghouse and others]. In my considered opinion, in the wakeof the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Division Benchdecision cited by the learned counsel for the land owner may not beapplicable because in the said decision cited by him, it is foundstated that sale of small bits of land cannot be taken as the basisfor the purpose of fixing the market value of acquisition of largeextent of land.

To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, Iwould state that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Courtadmittedly stood superceded by the recent decisions of the Hon'bleApex Court that even sale relating to small extent can be relied, subject to various conditions as set out in those decisions.

As such, in this factual matrix, a balance has to bestruck in between the two. The value as contemplated in Ex.A1 cannotbe ushered in for the purpose of assessing compensation for 1.40acres of land, which is an agricultural land, even though it issituated near the Adi Dravidar colony. For the purpose of the carvingout plots and for providing road, drainage and park facilities, muchexpenditure would be required. Hence, as such the value ascontemplated under Ex.A1 cannot be taken as the safe criterion forassessing the large extent of land acquired. A perusal of Ex.B3would indicate that the sales statistics are all pertaining toagricultural lands, which had not taken into account the potentialvalue of the lands in that area becoming habitation one. Hence, I amof the considered opinion, that a balance has to be struck betweenthe value as contemplated in Ex.A1 and the value which was adopted bythe Land Acquisition Officer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

As per Ex.A1, the following formula emerges: Ex.A1 refers to an extent of 2145 sq.ft. Sale price Rs.6,000/-Per sq.footRs.6000/2145 = Rs.2.80Sale per cent435.6 X 2.80 = Rs.1219.68/-and if viewed, for one acre it comes to Rs.1,21,968/-. It iscertainly far above Rs.15,000/- per acre as assessed by the LandAcquisition Officer. No other sales particulars in Ex.B3 wouldsupport the valuation as contemplated in Ex.A1 because it is obviousthat Ex.A1 is relating to a plot in a fully developed colony. Evenafter deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.1,21,968/- , it comes to Rs.81,312/-,which again is on the higher side only. As such, in my consideredopinion, half of the value as contemplated in Ex.A1 should be takento be the potential value of the land acquired and as such, it wouldcome to Rs.60,984/- and after deducting 1/3rd, the remaining 2/3rdcomes to Rs.40,656/-. However, the trial Court awarded a sum ofRs.45,000/- per acre. In such a case, considering the large extentof land, the award passed by the Sub Court cannot be treated asexorbitant and in view of my discussion supra and the calculationworked out, the sum of Rs.45,000/- already awarded by the Sub Courtwarrants no interference. In view of the ratiocination adhered toabove, the question of further enhancing the compensation does notarise at all. As such, in this view of the matter, both the appealsstand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed.

The learned counsel for the land owner would make anextemporary submission to the effect that 12% interest on solatium asrecently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also may be awarded inthis case. It is quite obvious that as per the dictum of the Hon'bleApex Court reported in 2002(2) LW 39 SC Sunder vs. Union of India, the land owner also is entitled to 12% interest on 30% solatiumalready awarded in this case. Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.Additional District Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Tirupattur, Vellore District2.The Section OfficerV.R.SectionHigh court Ms-104.+1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.51858+1 cc to Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Advocate, SR.No.51975 A.S.Nos.528 of 2006 and 618 of 2008 RJ(CO)BK(24/10/2008)