The Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Venugopal Pillai (Died) Kuppanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 01.04.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAAppeal Suits Nos.303 to 309 of 2004, 406 to 421 of 2004The Special Tahsildar (LA),Master Plan Complex,Tiruvallur.Appellant in allthe Appeal Suits/ Referring Officerv.Venugopal Pillai (Died)Kuppanna Respondent in A.Ss.(Brought on record as L.R.Nos.303, 407, 408of deceased Venugopal Pillaiand 412 of 2004/as per order dated 19.03.2008 Claimant in CMPs. Nos.574 to 577 of 2008)1. Venkatesan2. Damodaran3. ParthasarathyRespondents in A.S. No.304 of 2004/ClaimantsArumugapillaiRespondent in A.S.No.305 of 2004/Claimant1. Sampoorna Ammal (died)2. Karunakaran3. Senthamarai4. Anjalakshmi5. N.Sujatha6. Minor N.PriyaRespondents in A.S.(Minor R6 rep. By mother & No.306 of 2004/Natural Guardian R4)Claimants(R2 to R6 brought on record as L.Rs.of deceased R1 vide order dated 19.04.2006 in CMP. No.5171 of 2006)Vaduvambal Respondent in A.S.No.307 of 2004/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. Vasantha2. AndalammalRespondents in A.S.No.308 of 2004/ClaimantsAdikesavalu PillaiRespondent in A.S.No.309 of 2004/ClaimantT.A.KannanRespondent in A.S.No.406 of 2004/Claimant1. Veeraraghavan (died)2. Saroja3. Tamil Selvi4. Senthil MuruganRespondents in A.S.(R2 to R4 brought on record as L.Rs.No.409 of 2004/ of deceased R1 vide order dated Claimant 20.04.2006 in CMP.5172 of 2006)DhamodaranRespondent in A.Ss.Nos.410 & 419/2004/ClaimantRajalakshmiRespondent in A.S.No.411 of 2004/Claimant1. Rajeswariammal (died)2. KuppannaRespondent in A.S.(R2 brought on record as L.R.No.412 of 2004/ of deceased R1 vide order dated Claimant 15.02.2006 in CMPs.1776 & 1777/2006)A.KannanRespondent in A.S.No.413 of 2004/ClaimantG.LoganathanRespondent in A.S.No.414 of 2004/ClaimantGowriRespondent in A.S.No.415 of 2004/ClaimantBalaramanRespondent in A.S.No.416 of 2004/ClaimantLakshmananRespondent in A.S.No.417 of 2004/ClaimantAndalammalRespondent in A.S.No.418 of 2004/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. K.Raghu2. Latha Yadav3. Paipitha YadavRespondents in A.S.No.420 of 2004/Claimants1. Lakshmiyammal (died)2. Yasothammal3. Balaraman4. Lakshmanan5. Nagabushanam6. Gowriammal7. Renuka8. Devika9. KejaRespondents in A.S.10.GuruNo.421 of 2004/Claimants(R2 to R10 brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased R1 vide order dated 19.04.2006 in CMP.No.4555/2006)Appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,against the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur dated09.01.2003 made in L.A.O.Ps. Nos.27, 25, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 6 to 8,10 to 22 of 2000. For appellant: Mr.V.Ravi, Special Gov. PleaderFor respondents in A.Ss. Nos.303, 304, 306,307 309, 407, 409, 412, 420, 421 of 2004: Mr. G.Jermiah For respondents in A.Ss. Nos.305 & 308, 406, 413 and 418 of 2004: Mr. A.R.SureshFor respondents in A.Ss. Nos.410, 414 & 419/04 : Mr. A.PalaniappanCOMMON JUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.An extent of 28.34 acres in block No.II and 29.85½ acres in blockNo.III in various survey numbers, (totalling to 115 survey numbers andpart thereof) situated in No.56, Perumbakkam village, Tiruvallur Talukand District have been acquired for the purpose of construction ofoffice building, staff quarters under Master Plan complex inTiruvallur District headquarters under the provisions of LandAcquisition Act, 1894 by invoking the urgency clause under section 17of the Act. Section 4(1) notification was published in the TamilnaduGovernment gazette on 12.06.1998 and published in the local dailies on18.06.1998. The substance of the notice was published in the locality https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 22.06.1998. The draft declaration under section 6 of the Act wasapproved and published on 23.06.1998. Possession was also taken on23.12.1998 and 80% of the compensation was paid. After issuance ofnotice under section 9(1) and 10(1) and individual notice undersection 9(3) of the Act, the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer,passed awards in Award Nos.1 and 2/1999 dated 28.06.1999. Whilepassing awards 94 sales statistics which took place from 22.06.1995 to22.06.1998 were collected. The Land Acquisition Officer has takenitems Nos.33, 34 and 35, sale deeds which relate to survey Nos.106/5,etc., 111/1 etc., and 107/1 etc., as data sale deeds and determinedthe compensation at Rs.417/- per cent, (i.e., at Rs.41,700/- per acre)for wet land and 2/3rd of the amount Rs.278/- per cent for dry land asreflecting the true and correct market value. The Land AcquisitionOfficer granted statutory solatium, additional market value andinterest. The other sale deeds were discarded for the reason thatsome of them pertain to poromboke land; some of them relate to housesites; some of them relate to meagre extent of land sold for highervalue; some of them situated far away from the acquired land; some ofthem were combined sale of plot and building; and some of them werelow lying land of lesser value.2. The claimants/owners of the land received 80% of thecompensation on protest and sought for reference under section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the same the Land AcquisitionOfficer referred the matter to the Court of Subordinate Judge,Tiruvallur. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants claimed Rs.50,000/-per cent by contending that the compensation determined by the LandAcquisition Officer was far below the market rate in the vicinity onthe date of the 4(1) notification. The officer has not followed theprovisions of section 23 of the Act for the determination of thecompensation. There is no discussion as to how he determined thecompensation. The Land Acquisition Officer has not applied either thecapitalisation method or obtained any expert opinion to find out thereal market value, or the comparable sale method valuation. 4. It was further contended that the acquired lands wereclassified as land situated in urban areas and situated on thesouthern side of the Highway Road from Chennai to Tirupathi. Thedistrict headquarters is in a walkable distance. There arenationalised banks, schools, hospitals, bazars, market within thedistance of one km. The railway station is situated 2 kms away fromthe acquired land. There are number of housing layouts and coloniesformed in and around the acquired land. The multi national companieslike 'Caterpillar', Lancer company, Hyundai car company are nearer tothe acquired land. There are many Engineering and Arts collegessituated near the land. 5. The claimants marked as many as 18 sale deeds before theReference Court to sustain their claims. The reference Court hastaken into consideration the sale deed Ex.C1 dated 21.08.1996 which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was in respect of the land in survey No.17/1 Perumbakkam village soldat Rs.13,085/- per cent. Having regard to the lye of the land and thefact that the land under Ex.C1 is situated on the northern side of theChennai – Tirupathi highway, which is in all respects identical to theacquired land, Ex.C1 was taken as a comparable document. On thatbasis, the Reference Court determined the value of the lands acquiredat Rs.13,085/- per cent and reduced 25% of the value towardsdevelopment charges, thereby determined the compensation to Rs.9,814/-rounded off to Rs.9,810/-. Additional amount of 12% from the date of4(1) notification till the date of the award; 30% solatium; andinterest @ 9% for one year from the date of taking possession, thenthereafter 15% till the date of payment of compensation, were awarded.The correctness of the said award is canvassed in these appeals by theLand Acquisition Officer.6. Though in the memorandum of appeal, a ground has been takenquestioning the correctness of taking Ex.C1 as a comparable sale deed,at the time of argument, the learned Government Pleader did not pressthe same. However, he contended that 25% of deduction arrived at bythe Reference Court cannot be regarded as correct percentage ofdeduction. Having regard to the nature of the land, which isagricultural land, under developed and low lying land, the deductioncould be atleast 65%. In order to sustain his case the GovernmentPleader relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases ofBasavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 and LandAcquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village V. Nookala Rajamallu, AIR2004 SC 1031. He further contended that under Ex.C1, dated 21.08.1996the extent of the land sold was 1299½ square feet. The value fetchedfor the small extent cannot be regarded as reflecting the correctmarket value. There should be some deduction for the large area ofland acquired.7. Per contra, Mr.Jermiah, learned counsel spearheading thearguments on behalf of all the claimants contended that the potentialvalue of the land, which is situated on the northern side of Madras-Tirupathi Highways, is taken into consideration by the Reference Courtin determining the compensation. The facilities available in andaround the acquired land has also been elicited from R.W.1, who hasadmitted in unequivocal terms about the existence of houses andcolonies in and around the acquired land and the further fact that thecollectorate and other offices, a portion of the Master Plan complexwere constructed in the acquired land without making any developmentis also admitted by him. Hence, the deduction made by the ReferenceCourt at 25% is justifiable one. He further contended that thededuction towards largeness of the area acquired is not applicable tothe facts of the present case as the individual holdings of theclaimants are very small ranging from a minimum of 4 cents to amaximum of 1.75 acres. The claimants are agriculturists solelydepending on their marginal holdings.Having regard to the extent ofthe land acquired from each of the individual claimant, the referenceCourt has come to the correct conclusion that Ex.C1 reflects thecorrect market value of the land. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. He further contended that 4(1) notification was published on12.06.1998 whereas Ex.C1 was dated 21.08.1996, two years prior to thedate of publication of 4(1) notification. It is common knowledge thatevery year the value of the land increases. That aspect of the matterhas not been taken into consideration. Per year the enhancement ofthe value of the land can be fixed to atleast of 10%. If that be so,at the time of 4(1) notification the value of the land would have beenincreased by 20% (10% per year) over and above the value of Ex.C1. Inorder to substantiate his case, on the above points, he relied on thedecisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kasturi v. State ofHaryana, AIR 2003 SC 202, Dy. Director, Land Acquisition v. MallaAtchinaidu, (2006) 12 SCC 87, Smt. Lila Ghosh v. State of West Bengal,2003 (4) CTC 789 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Courtin the case of The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Sivagangaiv. Muthu Konar, 2004 (5) CTC 56.9. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerials available on record.10. Let us consider the contentions raised by the respectiveparties with reference to the materials on record.11. The extent of the dry lands acquired is 1.94 acres in blockNo.II and 3.71 acres in block No.III. It is evident from the awardNo.2/99 dated 28.06.1999 that the dry lands are situated in the midstof wet lands and which were also cultivated from the wells in thenearby lands. The Land Acquisition Officer has accepted that the dryland could be treated on par with the wet lands in the said awarditself. This is also accepted by R.W.1 in his evidence. Hence, weare of the view that the Reference Court is correct in determining thevalue of the dry land on par with the value of the agricultural lands.If that be so, there is no necessity for the Land Acquisition Officerfor reducing the value of the dry land to 2/3rd of the value of thewet lands. On this aspect of the matter, we are in agreement with theReference Court in treating the value of the dry land, which is somarginal in extent, compared to the extent of land acquired, valuedthe same on par with the wet land. 12. Let us consider whether the Reference Court is correct inreducing 25% of the value for development expenses. The ReferenceCourt relied on the decision reported in 1995 (2) LW 561 to adopt 25%deduction for development charges. It is evident from the extractedportion of the judgment taken in aid that the acquired land in thatcase was classified as dry land being surrounded by housing coloniesand industrial establishment. That finding was arrived at based onevidence. Further, the potential value of being used as a house sitewas also taken into account. For plotting out the land andearmarking the road, the development charges was fixed at Rs.25%. Weare of the view that the said judgment cannot be factually applied tothe present case. As stated in the summation of facts, the landsacquired in these cases are agricultural lands, under-developed lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in low lying areas. 13. On the principle of deduction in determining thecompensation, the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v. State ofHaryana, AIR 2003 SC 202, having considered the entire case laws onthis issue, has held that in the event of the Court finding that suchsales are genuine and are reliable and the lands have comparablefeatures, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the justand fair market value of large tracts of land. The time lapse for thedevelopment and waiting period for development are also relevantconsideration for determining of just and adequate compensation. Soholding the Court held that 20% deduction was proper in that case.14. On the basis of the materials available on record such asaward proceedings and the evidence of C.W.1 and R.W.1 it is clear thatthe acquired lands are agricultural lands and at the time ofacquisition there was paddy cultivation. The lands are not developedlands though certain houses were built in the nearby area. Theacquired lands cannot be regarded as a developed area and it continuedto be an agricultural land. Obviously its valuation would differ to aconsiderable extent from the lands used for house sites. It is alsoobvious that Ex.C1 was sold as a house site, which is of an extent of1299½ sq. ft. In accepting the land covered under Ex.C1 ascomparable land, the potential value of the acquired land was takeninto consideration. Hence, the decisions in the cases of Kasturi v.State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, Lucknow Development Authority v.Krishna Gopal Lahoti, 2008-1-LW 117, Deputy Director of LandAcquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu, (2006) 12 SCC 87 and Lila Ghosh v.State of West Bengal, 2003 (4) CTC 789 are not advancing the case ofthe claimants any further.15. The deduction to be made towards development charges cannotbe provided in a straight jacket formula. It would depend upon thefacts of each case. It would vary depending upon the nature of theland, its location, expenditure involved for development and the arearequired for road and other civil amenities to develop the land so asto make plots for residential and commercial purposes. The land maybe plain or even the soil of the land may be soft or hard or bearingon the foundation for the purpose of making construction, maybe theland is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but thatland may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deepditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developingthe area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fullydeveloped and nothing more is required to be done for developmentalpurposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a landand it is so located. In this case, it was not established so. In theabsence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining hisland is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extentof the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the landis abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give theland the character of a developed land. (See Special Land AcquisitionOfficer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429 and Ravinder Narayanan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481.) 16. Of-course Ex.C1 has not been doubted by the appellant. Thesale took place within the reasonable time prior to the date of 4(1)notification and the land under Ex.C1 is also just adjacent to theChennai-Tirupathi highway and possessed of similar advantage. Theonly difference is that Ex.C1 was in respect of house site whereas theacquired lands are, in fact, agricultural lands and agriculturaloperations were being carried on even at the time of acquisition. 17. In such a case, the necessary deduction for the extent ofland acquired for the formation of road and other civic amenitiesexpenses for development of the site by laying internal roads,drainage, sewer and electricity lines and developing the land suitablefor putting up of building and the interest on the lay out for theperiod of development and realisation of price, have to be considered.If the above factors are taken into account, the deduction of 45% ofthe value of Ex.C1, in our considered view, would be proper. 18. So far as largeness of the area is concerned, we are of theview that such a plea cannot be advanced in the facts andcircumstances of the present case. As seen from the award, theindividual holding of each claimant, which was acquired was verymarginal ranging from 0.00.4 acres to a maximum of 1.75 acres.Though a larger extent has been acquired for the purpose of MasterPlan Development of the newly formed headquarters, from the point ofview of each claimant, having regard to the extent as stated aboveacquired from each of the claimant, the concept of reducing the valueof certain percentage for the largeness of the area cannot be madeapplicable to the present case. 19. In respect of the other contention of Mr.Jermiah as to theenhancement of the value of the land, there appears to be some force.It is common knowledge that the value of the real estate, i.e., landedproperty increases year by year as the land available does notincrease but the demand for the same increases. Of-course, in thedecision relied on by him, the Division Bench of this Court in thecase of The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Sivagangai v.Muthu Konar, 2004 (5) CTC 56, has observed that "in fixation of rateof compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, there is always someelement of guess work. However, that has to be based on somefoundation. It must spring from the totality of evidence, the patternof rate, the pattern of escalation and escalation of price in theyears preceding and succeeding the 4(1) notification." After soobserving, the Division Bench arrived at a enhancement of 15% peryear. That was a case in which the lands were acquired were dry landssuitable for putting up of construction and as such they were acquiredfor the purpose of making provision to house sites to Adi dravidarsunder the Tamil Nadu Act. But so far as the facts of the present caseare concerned, as already stated, the acquired lands are agriculturallands. Hence, enhancement of valuation in respect of dry land cannotbe taken in an abstract manner as enhancement for the agricultural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land. Because the increase in the value of dry land is always on thehigher than the increase in the value of agricultural land, as theformer could be used for construction of buildings for residential orcommercial purposes, as it is. The cost involved for developing thedry lands is much lower than the cost involved in developing theagricultural lands for the purpose of putting up construction ofbuilding for the Master Plan complex.20. Having regard to that the lands are agricultural lands,underdeveloped and require heavy expenses for developing the same, thejustifiable enhancement of the value, in our view, would be 5% peryear. If so fixed, the claimants would be entitled to an increase of10% from the value stated in Ex.C1 for two years. 21. We have already concluded that 45% of the value has to bededucted towards development charges. The reference Court has alreadygiven 25% deduction. Hence, out of the 45% of deduction now arrivedat, after deducting the 25% arrived at by the Reference Court andafter adding 10% towards escalation of price, the further deductionwill be 10% over and above the value arrived at by the ReferenceCourt. The amount awarded by the Reference Court (Rs.9,810/-) isreduced to the extent indicated above in so far as the value of theland is concerned. Thus, the value of the land is determined atRs.8829/- per cent. 22. The reference Court has granted an additional amount of 12%under section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of publication of 4(1)Notification till the date of the award. In this case, 4(1)notification was published on 12.06.1998. Possession of the land wastaken on 23.12.1998. The award was made on 28.06.1999.23. As per the statutory provisions, the Court is mandated inevery case to award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per centper annum on the market value for the period commencing on and fromthe date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to thedate of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of theland, which ever is earlier. Thus, it is clear that the starting pointfor calculation of 12 percent is the date of 4(1) notification.However, there are two terminal points. One is the date of award andthe other is the date of taking possession of the land. If the twoterminal points are available after the 4(1) notification, theterminal point, which occurs earlier shall be taken up for calculationof the amount. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special LandAcquisition Officer, (2002) 1 SCC 142.24. In this case, as stated above, possession has been taken overprior to the date of the award. Hence, the reference Court is notcorrect in granting additional amount at 12% till the date of award.The claimants are entitled to the said amount under section 23(1-A) ofthe Act from the date of publication of 4(1) notification, i.e., from12.06.1998 and till the date of taking possession of the land, i.e., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ till 23.12.1998 only. The order of the Reference Court standsmodified to this extent in respect of additional amount.25. In respect of solatium and interest on solatium, the order ofthe Reference Court stands confirmed in the light of the decision ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, 2001Suppl. (3) SCR 176. 26. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmfTo1.The Subordinate Judge,Thiruvallur.+3ccs to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate Sr 18231+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 18168 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 18169VSV (CO)km/17.6. A S Nos.303 to 309 of 2004,and 406 to 421 of 2004