The Special TahsildarMetro Water Scheme PoonamalleeNo.1, Pumping Station roadChintadripet, Chennai-2 v. Nelavthy Ammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate : 21.9.2006CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJAA.S.NOs.198 and 199 OF 2004& C.M.P.Nos.6400 & 6410 of 2001 & 9715 of 2006The Special TahsildarMetro Water Scheme PoonamalleeNo.1, Pumping Station roadChintadripet, Chennai-2....Appellant in both appeals-Vs.-Nelavthy Ammal.. Respondent in A.S.No.198/20041. Danalakshmi Ammal2. Damodara Mudaliar3. Kamatchi4. Srinivasan5. Indirani6. Venukumar7. Priya R.7 impleaded as party respondent vide order dated 8.9.2006 in C.M.P.NO.9434 of 2006 ..Respondents in A.S.NO.199/2004.Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 22.9.2003 made inL.A.O.P.Nos.2 of 2001 and 1 of 2002 on the file of Additional DistrictJudge (Fast Track Court No.4), Poonamallee. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P. For Respondents : Mr.R. Mahalingam for RR 1,2,4 o 6 AR.L.Sundaresan,SC for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for R7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Balasubramanian, J)The Government is challenging the higher compensation awarded by theReference Court. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader forthe State and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the landowners. L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2001, out of which A.S.No.198 of 2004 had arisenrelates to acquisition of 2.30.5 hectares of land in Survey No.3/1.L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2002, out of which A.S.No.199 of 2004 had arisen relatesto acquisition of 1.88.0 hectares of land in Survey No.4/2. The acquiredlands are in Meppur Vilalge. The purpose of acquisition is stated to befor a public purpose namely, to locate a water treatment plant for ChennaiMetro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The total extent acquired fromseveral land owners including the present land owners is 5.19.5 hectaresequivalent to 12.84 acres. The Award Enquiry Officer had a sale deeddated 19.12.1997 for an extent of 2.57 acres in Survey Nos.14/1 and 14/2respectively wherein, the total consideration was fixed at Rs.1,28,500/-working out to Rs.500/- per cent. On that basis, for the respectiveextents of lands acquired, the Award Enquiry Officer passed an award. Atthe instance of the land owners a reference under Section 18(1) of theLand Acquisition Act was made and that is how L.A.O.P.NOs.2 of 2001 and1 of 2002 were taken up before the Reference Court for disposal. Beforethe Reference Court, the land owner in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2002 gave evidenceas Claimant Witness No.1 in both the proceedings. A revenue official wasexamined as R.W.1 in both the proceedings. Exs.A.1 to A.3 came to bemarked through C.W.1. The Reference Court after taking into account theentire materials including the potential value of the lands sought to beacquired and the similarities and dissimilarities of the lands surroundingthe acquired lands, accepting Ex.A.2 as a comparable sale deed, fixed thecompensation at Rs.12,208/- per cent. The State, as already stated, isbefore this court challenging those two awards giving an enhancedcompensation. Since originally both the matters came to be disposed of bya common judgment and the fact that the lands in question are in closeproximity to each other, we are inclined to disposed of both the appealsby a common judgment.2. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader arguing for theState would submit that the lands acquired is most comparable only to thesale deed dated 19.12.1997 relied upon by the Award Enquiry Officer as thedata sale deed; all the locational advantages, which Claimant WitnessNo.1 claim to be in close proximity to the lands acquired, are far away;the lands acquired definitely requires development, which is not going totake place over night; considerable expenditure would have to be incurredin developing the lands acquired; the lands are described to be lands fitfor cultivation whereas the intended use is to have a water treatmentplant; therefore for converting the usage of the land from agriculturalpurpose into a potential area, for putting up a water treatment plant,substantial sum of money must be spent; Ex.A.2 is in respect of a small https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ extent of 2600 sq.ft. which is shown to be a fully developed house site;therefore the land conveyed under Ex.A.2 cannot be taken as a comparableland for the acquired lands and even assuming that this Court acceptsEx.A.2 as a comparable sale deed, yet, substantial deductions have to bemade for development charges for the lands acquired and for converting itsuse from one of agricultural purpose into one of potential water treatmentplant site. In this context, learned Special Government Pleader reliedupon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3168(BASAVVA v. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) to contend as to what should bethe approach of a Court when comparable sale deeds relate to small extentof land while the acquired land is a large tract of land.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land ownerswould submit by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in(2006) 3 S.C.C. 205 (RISHI SINGH v. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) thatthere is no Bar to have data sale deeds of small plots being considered inarriving at the market value of the land. By relying upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court reported in 1991(4) S.C.C. 506 (BHAGWATHULA SAMANNA v.SPL.TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER), learned Senior Counsel wouldcontend that when the comparable land and the acquired land are found tobe similar in all aspects, then there is no need at all for making adeduction from the compensation payable, whether such comparable sale deedis in respect of a smaller extent or of a larger extent. Relying upon thejudgment of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2002(9) S.C. 299 (KASTURI ANDORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA), learned Senior Counsel would contend that evenassuming this Court is going to make a deduction towards developmentcharges, it need not exceed 20% on the facts of this case. Learned SeniorCounsel took considerable pains in taking us through the entire judgmentas well as the evidence of the claimant in proof affidavit; his crossexamination and the evidence of R.W.1 to contend that the importance ofthe locality, in which the acquired lands are situated, is so very highand in demand, there is no need at all to make any deduction.3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel for the land owners, weinitially applied our mind to find our whether the lands acquired is in anunderdeveloped area or a developed area and whether it has any locationaladvantages and potentialities, since that would be a guiding line indeciding what would be the market value of the lands acquired. It has comeout in evidence that hardly within a distance of 500 feet or 1000 feetChennai - Bangalore National Highway is situated. It has also come out inevidence that in close proximity to the lands acquired, the highwayleading to Tirupathi from Chennai branch off from Chennai - Bangalorehighway. The evidence also shows that in Chennai - Bangalore Highwayand not at a distance far away from the acquired lands, factories ofinternational repute have come out. Instead of extracting the proofevidence of the claimant, it is better we state hereunder as to what theofficial witness himself had admitted in his evidence in cross :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Both the acquired lands are adjoining eachother; Chennai-Bangalore National Highway is closeto the acquired lands and the said highway was thereeven before the issuance of the notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; theacquired lands come within the jurisdiction ofPoonamallee Municipality; at a distance of 15 kmsfrom the acquired lands, Chennai Corporation limitsbegins; from the acquired lands places likeKancheepuram, Sriperumbudur and Ranipet are allsituated in the National Highway - all within adistance of 40 kms; National Highway road willalways have a busy motor vehicular traffic; veryclose of the acquired lands, there is a GraniteCompany called "Enterprises and Enterprises";SIPCOT Industrial Complex and several other smallcompanies are very close to the acquired lands; thePoonamallee bypass road is very close to theacquired lands; 500 feet from the acquired landsChennai-Tirupathi Highway is situated; behind theacquired lands there is a highway Motel and severalother hotels; Chembarambakkam Lake is the mainsource of water supply to Chennai and the said lakeis situated within 1 km from the acquired lands;whether three crops a year can be cultivated in theacquired lands or not, he does not know; close tothe acquired lands, there are thick residentialareas; two temples are situated close to theacquired lands; whether there are Cinema Theatersclose to the acquired lands, he does not know;whether there is a rice mill close to the acquiredlands, he does not know; however via the acquiredlands, town buses to Chennai go in the road; thereis a town bus stand for Meppur; 7 km away is SriRamachandra Medical College Hospital; SaveethaDental College as well as Saveetha physiotherapyCollege are in the Poonamallee bypass; he does notknow whether the acquired lands are potential forbeing used as factory sites; he does not know theclassification of lands and the nature of its soil;whether they can be used as house sites, he doesnot know and Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.3 are among severalsale deeds collected by the Award Enquiry Oficer."This evidence of R.W.1 is more than sufficient to hold that the acquiredlands are in prime and potential area, in close proximity of which, thereare several factories of international reputation. Therefore the StateGovernment cannot be allowed to contend that the acquired lands are inunderdeveloped area. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. We have already noted that under Ex.A.2 a fully developed housesite have been sold and we find that on three sides of the plot sold underEx.A.2 there are houses and on the fourth side there is a road. Inbetween the land covered under Ex.A.2 and the acquired lands, there isanother house site in Survey No.11/1B. We perused that sale deed also,since it is available on the file of the Award Enquiry Officer and it isreflected in the award proceedings itself. The documents relating toSurvey No.11/1B are document Nos.3 and 13 referred to in the Award EnquiryProceedings. The description of the land sold under document No.13 isshown as a Village site of an extent of 3540 sq.ft.; it was sold on30.5.1997 for a total price of Rs.99,000/- working out to Rs.12,193/- asvalue per cent. A part of the land situated in Survey No.11/1B is soldunder document No.3, (i.e.) an extent of 1749 sq.ft. (used as a villagesite) out of which 195 sq.ft. is a pathway and it is sold on 25.3.1996 fora total price of Rs.44,712/- working out to Rs.10,028/- per cent. So itis clear, that the lands situated in Survey No.11/1B adjoining the landsacquired have been sold on 25.3.1996 and 30.5.1997 and the awardproceedings itself show that the value per cent on those two sale deedscomes to Rs.10,028/- and Rs.12,193/-. Notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act in this case was issued on 11.1.1999. We havetaken into account Ex.A.2 sale deed which is dated 3.2.1998 i.e. closestto the date on which Section 4(1) notification was issued in this case.From a perusal of the plan Ex.P.4, we find that the data land relied uponby the revenue is not even shown in the plan. R.W.1 did not depose thatthe lands acquired by the Government for locating a water treatment plantfor Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board is not ready/fit forputting up the plant construction. He does not even depose that the landshas to be developed so as to enable its usage as a site for constructingthe water treatment plant. In the light of our discussion referred toabove, we conclude that the lands acquired is comparable on all aspectsnot only to the land covered under Ex.A.2 situated in Survey No.11/4 butalso the lands situated in Survey No.11/1B, which is adjoining the landsacquired. We also hold that the evidence on record disclose that allinfrastructural facilities are available for putting into use the acquiredlands immediately. There is dearth of evidence from the Governmentshowing that the lands acquired has to be developed for being put into usefor the purpose for which it was acquired.5. Now let us apply our mind as to what would be the market value ofthe land. The Reference Court accepting Ex.A.2, fixed the market value ofthe land at Rs.12,208/- per cent. This is mainly based on Ex.A.2. We havealready found that under document Nos.3 and 13 noted in the award thatlands were sold at the rate of Rs.10,028/- and Rs.12,193/-, the former on25.3.1996 and the later on 30.5.1997. Ex.A.2 is dated 3.2.1998. Comparedto the sale deed dated 30.5.1997, the sale price reflected in Ex.A.2 isslightly on the higher side and therefore the possibility of the landvalue going up cannot be totally lost sight off. In 2006(3) S.C.C. 205the Supreme Court had held that there is no Bar in law that data sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deeds of small plots being considered and in an appropriate case,especially when other relevant or material evidence is not available,such data sale deeds can be considered after making adequate deductions.In (1991) 4 S.C.C. 506 cited supra, the Supreme Court had held ashereunder:-" If smaller area within the large tract is alreadydeveloped and suitable for building purposes and have in itsvicinity roads, drainage, electricity connections etc., thenthe principle of deduction simply for the reason that it ispart of the large tract acquired may not be justified."The above referred to judgment was considered by the Supreme Court in thejudgment reported in 1995(5) S.C.C. 426 (K. VASUNDARA DEVI v. REVENUEDIVISIONAL OFFICER) wherein the Supreme Court had held that when saledeeds of smaller pieces of land are found to be genuine and reliable,sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the market value of largetracts of land. In JT 2002(9) S.C. 299, the Supreme Court on the facts ofthat case, sustained the deduction at 20% made by the High Court towardsdevelopment charges. However in A.I.R.1996 Supreme Court 3168, the caselaw brought to our notice by the learned Special Government Pleader, theSupreme Court went on to indicate that deduction of 53% towardsdevelopment charges is valid. This judgment shows that the Supreme Courton facts found that the lands acquired though capable of development, yet,they took into account the fact that development of land would have takenyears. In the case on hand we find that the infrastructural facilitiesare readily available for the acquired lands. R.W.1 did not even deposethat expenses must be incurred for development and development is likelyto take a number of years. The Supreme Court in A.I.R 1996 S.C.3168 heldthat each case depends upon its own facts. The facts noted by us on theinfrastructural facilities; locational advantages and potential value ofthe lands acquired, stare at the face of the State.6. But however we cannot lose sight off the fact that the landsacquired, even according to the land owners are cultivable lands and underactual cultivation raising three crops a year. Therefore for convertingthe agricultural lands into potential house site some development has tonecessarily take place. In the context of several facts noted by usattached to the acquired lands, we are of the opinion that 10% from thevalue per cent namely, Rs.12,208/- can be deducted and if such adeduction is made, it comes to Rs.9,766.40, which we are inclined toround it off to Rs.10,000/-. Therefore the award in challenge so far asfixing the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.12,208/- per cent isset aside and consequently, the market value is reduced to Rs.10,000/-per cent. The land owners would be entitled to the payment ofcompensation of the lands acquired from them on the value of Rs.10,000/-per cent. The judgment of the Reference Court on all other aspects issustained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. It appears that there is some dispute regarding apportionment.This court is informed that some of the legal heirs of the land owners arenot impleaded. In our considered opinion, we need not give any directionfor apportionment since, if such a dispute is brought to the notice ofthe Collector, he is bound to refer that dispute to the Civil Court fordecision. Under these circumstances, we make it clear that if any of theleft out persons, who are entitled to have a share in the compensationamount approaches the Collector raising such a dispute, then the Collectorshall refer that dispute to the Reference Court for decision. We make itclear that the Reference Court can wait for a period of thirty days fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to decide payment out. Boththe appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.Consequently, the connected CMPs are also closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTr/To1. The Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No.IV Poonamallee.2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court Madras-104.2 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.44326, 44327.2 cc To Mr.K.Balaraman Naidu, Advocate, SR.44288.1 cc To Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate, SR.44289.A.S.Nos.198 and 199 of 2004& connected CMPs. BV(CO)RVL 17.10.2006