The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Madurantakam v. Chandra Ammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate : 25.08.2009THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARA.S.Nos.483, 484, 486, 487, 489,491,492,493,494 of 2002The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Madurantakam ... Appellant in all A.S/Referring Officer-Vs.-1.Chandra Ammal ... Respondent in AS.No.483/02/Claimant2.Danalakshmi ... Respondent in AS.No.484/02/Claimant3.Duraisamy Naicker ... Respondent in AS.No.486/02/Claimant4.Sarangapani Naicker... Respondent in AS.No.487/02/Claimant5.R.Kanniayyappa Naicker ... Respondent in AS.No.489/02/Claimant6.N.Thambira7.N.Adikesavan ... Respondents in AS.No.491/02/Claimant8.K.Nemilisamy Chettiar ... Respondent in AS.No.492/02/Claimant9.Adikasava Naicker ... Respondent in AS.No.493/02/Claimant10.Parthasarathy11.Muthulakshmi (Minor)12.Chitra (Minor)13.Yuvaraj (Minor) ...Respondents in AS.No.494/02/Claimant(minors are rep.by guardianand father Parthasarathy)These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of Land AcquisitionAct against the common Judgment and Decrees dated 30.04.1996 passedby the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, inL.A.O.P.Nos. 30,32,31,41,37,36,38,40,33 of 1994. For Appellant : Mr.A.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For Respondents : No AppearanceCOMMON JUDGMENTAll these appeals have been preferred by the Government throughthe Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar WelfareDepartment, Madurantakamagainst the common judgment and decreesdated 30.04.1996 made in L.A.O.P.Nos. 30 of 1994 to 33 of 1994, 36 of1994 to 38 of 1994, 40 of 1994 and 41 of 1994. The above saidL.A.O.Ps along with three other L.A.O.Ps namely L.A.O.P.Nos.34, 35and 39 of 1994 were disposed of by a common judgment of the learnedAdditional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu dated 30.04.1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.A total extent of 8.91 acres (equivalent to 3.605 Hectares)of dry land in Neelamangalam village, Cheyyur Taluk, formerlyChengalpattu District, now Kancheepuram District) comprised invarious subdivisions of Survey No. 147,148 and 239 was acquired bythe Government for providing house sites to house less Adi Dravidarsof said village. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the LandAcquisition Act for the above said acquisition was published in theTamil Nadu Government Gazette on 12.11.1991. Publication of the samewas also made in the newspapers on 05.12.1991. After hearingobjections in respect of the proposed acquisition and following theprocedure, the Government decided to go ahead with the proposedacquisition. The declaration under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, which was approved by the Government in its G.O.3(D)No.662, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.09.1992was published in the Tamail Nadu Gazette and the newspapers on13.09.1992. Publication in the locality was also effected in thelocality. After award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixedthe market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.86/- per centrelying on a sale deed dated 11.08.1989 and awarded compensation tothe land owners from whom the above said lands were acquired. Theland owners, not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation bythe Land Acquisition Officer, made requests for making reference tothe Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for fixingreasonable amount as compensation for the lands under acquisition.Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer, namely the SpecialTahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Madurantakam made references under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct. The same were taken on file by the trial court as L.A.O.P.Nos.30 of 1994 to 33 of 1994, 36 of 1994 to 38 of 1994, 40 of 1994 and 41of 1994. The claimants and the L.A.O.P.Nos. 30 of 1994 to 33 of1994, 36 of 1994 to 38 of 1994, 40 of 1994 and 41 of 1994 (ReferringOfficer)3.The trial court, namely the learned Additional SubordinateJudge, Chengalpet conducted a common trial in all the above saidL.A.O.Ps in which one witness was examined as CW1 and one documentwas marked as Ex.A1 on the side of the claimants in all the abovesaid L.A.O.Ps. Similarly RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 to B4 weremarked on the side of the Referring officer. The learned AdditionalSubordinate Judge, after hearing the argument advanced on either sideconsidered the evidence (both oral and documentary) adduced on bothsides in the light of such arguments and upon such consideration,came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 29.10.1991 bearingdocument No.1782 of 1991 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, acertified copy of which has been produced as Ex.A1 reflected thecorrect market value of acquired land as on the date of 4 (1)notification. In accordance with the said finding, the trial courtfixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.250/- per cent andawarded enhanced compensation in all the above said L.A.O.Ps. Thelearned Additional Subordinate Judge also calculated the statutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefits like, additional market value from the date of 4(1)notification till the date of award or date of taking possessionwhichever is earlier, Solatium, interest in accordance with therelevant provisions, namely Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of theLand Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the Government was directed topay enhanced compensation in all the above said L.A.O.Ps.30 to 41 of1994. As against the decrees made in L.A.O.P.Nos. 30 to 41 of 1994the Government has come forward with separate appeals, totally 12 innumber. However, in three such appeals, namely AS No.485 of 2002,filed against the award made in L.A.O.P No.39 of 1994, A.S.No.488 of2002 filed against the award made in L.A.O.P No.34 of 1994 andA.S.No.490 of 2002 filed against the award passed in L.A.O.P No.35 of1994, service of notice has not yet been completed. Hence omittingthe above said three appeals, the remaining 9 appeals are taken upfor disposal by this common judgment.4.A issue that arises commonly in all these appeals forconsideration is whether the market rate fixed by the trial court forthe acquired land is excessive warranting reduction of the amountawarded by the trial court as enhanced compensation?5.The only point on which the referring officer has come forwardwith these appeals is on the question of fixation of market value forthe acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed themarket value at Rs.86/- per cent. As against the same, the learnedAdditional Subordinate Judge has fixed the market value of theacquired land at Rs.250/- per cent. Regarding the method adopted forcalculation of total amount of compensation, there is no controversyand it is admitted on behalf of the appellant by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader that the total amount of compensation has beenfixed following correct procedure prescribed under the Act. On theother hand, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend thatthe appellant is aggrieved by the fixation of the market value at therate of Rs.250/- per cent as against Rs.86/- per cent adopted by theLand Acquisition Officer.6.According to the submissions made by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader, the document relied on by the learned AcquisitionOfficer was the one which reflected the correct market value of theacquired land, as the same was a document pertaining to a portion ofthe acquired land itself. It is the specific contention of thelearned Special Government Pleader that whenever there are documentswhich happened to be executed within the period of scrutiny inrespect of the very same survey number comprising the acquired land,then such sale deed should be preferred to any other sale deed. Theabove said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader, atthe out set seems to be a tenable one. However, when there are saledeeds relating to adjacent lands which have more proximity of timewith the 4(1) notification in comparison with the sale deeds that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ happened to be executed in respect of a portion of the survey numberrelating to the acquired land itself, then if both the lands arecomparable, the former should be preferred and the latter should berejected as not reflecting the correct market value of the acquiredland as on the date of 4(1) notification.7.In the cases on hand, the sale deed relied on by the LandAcquisition Officer was one that came into existence on 11.08.1989whereas the sale deed relied on by the claimants as reflecting thecorrect market value of the acquired land is of the date 21.10.1991.There was a time gap of 2 years and add between the sale deed reliedon by the Land Acquisition Officer and the sale deed relied on by theclaimants. The Court can take Judicial notice of the fact thatduring the relevant period, the market value of the acquired landshould have increased. In fact the certified copy of the sale deedrelied on by the Land Acquisition Officer has been marked as Ex.B4,whereas the certified copy of the sale deed relied on by theclaimants has been marked as Ex.A1. The data sales collected by theLand Acquisition Officer has been marked on the side of therespondent as Ex.B2. The topo-sketch showing the lay of the acquiredland and the adjoining lands in the area has been marked as Ex.B3. Acomparative study of Exs. A1, B3 and B4 will show that the propertysold under Ex.A1 is the land adjoining the acquired land.8.The Land Acquisition Officer, who has been examined as thesole witness on the side of the respondent before the trial courtmade an attempt to explain the reason for the rejection of Ex.A1 bystating that the the soil quality of the land sold under Ex.A1 washigher than the acquired land. But, what was the basis on which thesoil quality of the lands were fixed have not been stated by RW1. Inaddition to that he has also admitted that the register relating tothe soil quality of the lands has not been produced. Both the landsare classified in the Revenue records as dry lands. It is not thecase of the appellant that the lands sold under Ex.A1 had betterfacilities than the acquired land. In the award by the LandAcquisition Officer, soil quality has not been cited as reason forthe rejection of the sale under Ex.A1. On the other hand, the onlyreason assigned therein was that a sale in respect of a portion ofthe property comprised in survey number relating to the acquired landhas been selected as the sample sale for fixation of the market valueof the acquired land.9.A thorough re-appreciation of evidence adduced in these caseswill show that the Land Acquisition Officer made a search for adocument reflecting lesser market value. It is not the case of theappellant that the sale under Ex.A1 was not a genuine one. It is notthe case of the appellant that the said sale deed had been createdfor the purpose of seeking compensation at a higher rate. However,the learned Special Government Pleader made an attempt to show thatthe said document would have been created for the said purpose after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ coming to know that the adjoining land was sought to be acquired bythe Government. But the learned Special Government Pleader cannotimprove the case by introducing a new plea which had not been takenbefore the trial court. No suggestion was put to CW1 when he was inthe box to the effect that the said sale did not reflect the marketvalue of the land and that the price quoted therein was higher thanthe market value. It was also not suggested to the said witness thatthe purchaser had a keen interest to purchase that property so thathe could have offered a higher price than the market value. It isalso clear admission made by RW1, that the properties were inspectedand measured only after the publication of Section 4(1) notificationwas effected. When such is the case, this Court finds no reasonwhatsoever to reject Ex.A1, as not reflecting the market value of theacquired land. The sample sale relied by the Land AcquisitionOfficer was of the year 1989. Within two years thereafter the marketprice would have increased considerably. In fact the increase inmarket price from the date of Ex.B4 to the date of Ex.A1 is lessthan 3 times. Therefore, this Court finds no defect or infirmity inthe finding of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge to the effectthat it was Ex.A1 and not Ex.B4 which would reflect the correctmarket value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1)notification. There is no scope for interfering in the said findingof the trial court.10.As pointed out at the beginning of the judgment that there isno other controversy regarding the method adopted for arriving at thetotal amount of compensation. Since the only contention raised onbehalf of the appellant is that the market value fixed by the trialcourt is at a higher rate, the award of the lower court (AdditionalSubordinate Judge of Chengalpattu) deserves to be confirmed. Thereis no merit in these appeals and the same deserve to be dismissed.Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall beno order as to the cost since none of the respondents have chosen toappear either in person or through the advocate.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrargpaTo.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.Copy to : The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.41332A.S.No.483 of 2002CK(CO)EM/22.9.09