The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri v. M.Sivalingam & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.07.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUA.S.Nos.1209 and 1210 of 2001 The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri... Appellant in both appeals/1st Respondent Vs.

M.Sivalingam2.M.Selvaraj3.M.Muniammal4.Chandra.. Respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.1209/2001T.H.Munieer Ahmed.. Respondent No.1 in A.S.No.1210/20015.The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri... 5th and 2nd Respondent in A.S.Nos.1209 and 1210 of 2001 These appeal suits have been preferred under Section 54 ofthe Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of thelearned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in LAOP Nos.58 and 59 of1988 dated 15.12.1999.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.GP (AS)For Respondents : Ms.Shanmuga Priya for Mr.V.Raghavachari for RR1 to 4 in AS.No.1209 of 2001 Mr.R.Swaminathan for R1 in AS.No.1210 of 2001 Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, For RR5 and 2 in AS Nos.1209 and 1210/2001COMMON JUDGMENTHeard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader (AS), Ms.Shanmuga Priya for Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.1209 of 2001,Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for first respondent inA.S.No.1210 of 2001 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Pleader for the Managing Director, Annai SathyaTransport Corporation, Dharmapuri. Pleadings set was printed andoriginal records were summons and they were perused.

The appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer cum RevenueDivisional Officer, Krishnagiri. The two appeal suits are filedagainst the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri in LAOP Nos.58 and 59 of 1988,dated 15.12.1999. Theland of the private respondents/claimants were acquired for thepurpose of running a Motel to be run by the fifth respondent AnnaiSathya Transport Corporation (presently amalgamated with Tamil NaduState Transport Corporation Ltd.).

In A.S.No.1209 of 2001, the claimants' lands were takenover to an extent of 0.52.0 hectares for a compensation ofRs.10,833.16 fixed by the acquiring authority. He had fixed thevalue of house found in the land at Rs.30,700/- and the tree valueas Rs.401/-. As against these valuations, on an objection beingraised by the claimants, the matter was referred to thejurisdictional reference court, which is the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The Sub Court registered the reference as LAOP No.58of 1988. After trial, it increased the compensation by fixingRs.2,36,705/- per hectare. The value for the house was enhanced toRs.50,000/-. For the value of the tree, there was no change and theadditional compensation was directed to be paid. It is as againstthe said judgment and decree, A.S.No.1209 of 2001 was filed.

A.S.No.1210 of 2001 is directed against the LAOP No.59 of1988. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation for the landacquired to an extent of 1.05.5 hectares at Rs.20833/- per hectare. The value of the Well was fixed at Rs.5200/- and the value of houseand basement was fixed at Rs.2,035/-. On an objection being raisedby the claimant, the land owner, the matter was referred to thereference court, which is the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The Sub Courtregistered the reference as LAOP No.59 of 1988. The Sub Court fixedthe land value at Rs.2,36,705/- per hectare. The value of the Welland basement was not changed. It is as against these judgment anddecree, these appeal suits were filed.

The appellant contended that increasing the compensationby the Reference Court was on higher side and would amount to 10times increase. Reliance placed upon Ex.P.3, sale deed was createdfor the purpose of the case. Even P.W.2 had admitted that theproperty was purchased for an higher rate inspite of knowledgeregarding acquisition proceedings. It was further contended thatthe reference court cannot award more than what was claimed by theclaimant before the Land Acquisition Officer.

Before the reference court, both LAOPs were triedtogether and common evidence was let in. On the side of theclaimants, three witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.3 and fourdocuments were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. On theside of the appellant, two witnesses were examined and fivedocuments were filed and they were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The trial court framed the first issue, i.e. Whether thecompensation fixed by the acquiring authority was proper and if notto what relief, the claimants are entitled to. In respect of thatissue, the findings recorded by the Sub Court was that adjacent tothe land acquired, there are schools, hospitals and bus standsituated and it is adjacent to Chennai Bangalore National Highwaysand also situated nearer to Krishnagiri Municipality. Even earlier, lands were purchased and houses were constructed. Therefore, theyare entitled to get additional compensation. It was also held thatthere is a theatre located. Further, in the Highways, there is apetrol bunk. There are many buildings and hotels adjacent to theplace of acquisition. The Reference court rejected the exemplarfurnished by the appellant and found that as per Ex.C.2, the landto an extent of 1800 sq.ft was sold to Rs.9900/-. As per Ex.C.3,the land to an extent of 0.02 cent was sold to Rs.18,500/-.Therefore, fixation of compensation by the acquiring authority wasgrossly under estimated. Even the adjacent lands were converted tohouse sites and lay outs were found. It also held that in casewhere there was no comparable sale of land, smaller exemplar can betaken note of after giving sufficient discount. So far thevaluation of basement and well is concerned, there is no appeal tothat issue. The issue is only in respect of the valuation of land. The reference court also held that Ex.C.2 was relating to very samesurvey number in which acquisition was made. Therefore, it hadenhanced the compensation.

It must be stated that the Supreme Court in Rishi PalSingh v. Meerut Development Authority reported in (2006) 3 SCC 205,held that even if there are vast tract of land are acquired, evenexemplar of small plots can be considered for determining themarket value and if such exemplar of small plots are considered, then adequate discount can also be given. The following passagefound in paragraph 5 may be usefully extracted herebelow: "5. On merits the learned counsel submitswith reference to the impugned judgment of the HighCourt that only two reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the order of the Reference Court and remanding the case back to it. First reason is that exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court are of small plots of landwhereas the acquisition is of a large tract of landi.e. about 180 acres. The second reason given inthe impugned judgment for remand is that exemplarsfiled by the acquiring authority i.e. theappellants (sic respondent) before us, were notconsidered by the Reference Court. The learnedcounsel for the appellants has taken us through thejudgment of the Reference Court to show that boththe reasons given by the High Court in its impugnedorder are factually incorrect. With respect to thefirst reason, that is, exemplars of small plotshave been taken into consideration by the ReferenceCourt, in the first instance our attention was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ invited to some judgments of this Court to urgethat there is no absolute bar to exemplars of smallplots being considered provided adequate discountis given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar inlaw to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case, specially when otherrelevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after makingadequate discount. This is a case in whichappropriate exemplars are not available. TheReference Court has made adequate discount fortaking the exemplars of small plots intoconsideration. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to this part of thejudgment of the Reference Court which has resultedin the High Court completely overlooking therelevant discussion in the judgment of the Reference Court. "

Very recently, the Supreme Court in Sangunthala Vs.Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010(3) SCC 661 considered the scope of Section 23 and after referringto its previous decisions, in paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34 held asfollows: "24. In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number ofbuildings on the lands acquired and the said landsbeing occupied by the buildings are to be treatedas house sites. The basic purpose that has beentraced out in the evidence and as admitted by theRWs is that the lands were acquired for thepurpose of putting up residential quarters. As aportion of the land is being considered as housesite, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeing put in better use as house sites in the nearfuture. 25. The other important factor is the proximity ofthe plots to two residential colonites i.e. AnnaNagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on recordthat Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as suchit is reasonable and proper to conclude that thepresent lands under dispute were near theresidential colonites. 26. It should also be taken into consideration thatthe disputed lands were situated near the factorypremises and further were adjoining the main roadwhich connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaidlands are potential house sites. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ .....34.In view of the admitted case that the landsacquired were potential house sites we do not agreewith the views taken by the High Court whilecalculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are thetwo sale deeds containing particulars of the saletransactions held three years prior to the Section4(1) notification. The Reference Court after closeperusal of the aforesaid documents held that thesame disclose that out of more than 100 sales, anumber of sales in respect of the lands were soldas house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village andthe adjacent survey numbers in Thekkampatty Villagewere also sold as house sites. "

Again, the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v.Karigowda reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 in paragraph 91 held asfollows: "91. It is a settled rudiment of law thatthe court, in given facts and circumstances of thecase and keeping in mind the potentiality andutility of the land acquired, can award highercompensation to ensure that injustice is not doneto the claimants and they are not deprived of theirproperty without grant of fair compensation. Reference, in this regard, can be made to thejudgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officerv. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao20. While adopting theaverage sale method as the formula for awardingcompensation to the claimants, we are also of theconsidered view that in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case and the fact that theland is being compulsorily acquired, the claimantsshould be awarded a higher compensation. Thecompensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000 per acre for the wetland and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400 peracre for the dry land would be just and faircompensation and would do complete justice betweenthe parties. This element of increase had not beenadded by the SLAO which ought to have been done. "

Therefore, in the light of the above, it cannot be saidthat the reference court committed any mistake in awarding highercompensation. On the contrary, the court below had taken note ofall relevant facts and went by available evidence (both documentaryand oral) and came to a correct conclusion.

The contentions of the learned Special GovernmentPleader (AS) was that the court below cannot give more compensationthan what was claimed by the claimant before the authority andplaced reliance upon Section 25 introduced by Amendment Act (TamilNadu Amendment Act 16/1997), wherein it was declared thatcompensation awarded by the court cannot be more than what was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimed by the person interested. That amendment was introducedlong after the Section 4(1) notification and also after thereference was made under Section 18(1).

Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Bhimasha v. LandAcquisition Officer reported in (2008) 10 SCC 797 on the basis ofthe protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, held that the value determined by public document in terms of Section 23 was acceptable and the value can be higher than what wasclaimed. The following passages found in paragraphs 4 to 6 from thesaid judgment may be usefully extracted below: "4. The land acquisition officer fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.13,100per acre for dry land and Rs.1000 for phot kharabland. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the trial court awardedcompensation at the rate of Rs.36,200 per acre. Onappeal, the High Court referred to the yieldnotification and price list issued by the competentauthority as also the average price of both the cropsin relation to the relevant year and concluded thatmarket price of the land comes to Rs.66,550 per acre. However, the High Court refused to award compensationat the said rate on the premise that the appellanthad claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.58,500 peracre.5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the record. In the impugned order the HighCourt, after taking note of the yield notificationissued by the Government and price list notified bythe competent authority for crops (both are publicdocuments) concluded that market value of the land isRs.66,550 per acre. Therefore, the appellant’somission to make appropriate claim before the HighCourt after paying the requisite court fee cannot becastigated as one lacking bona fide.6. In our view, the High Court should have, aftertaking note of the peculiar facts of the case and themarket value determined by it, awarded highercompensation to the appellants subject to thecondition of paying the balance court fee. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justicecould be met if the impugned order is suitablymodified.

In the light of the above, this court is not inclined tointerfere with the judgment and decree passed by the court below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, both the Appeal Suits will stand dismissed. However, theparties are allowed to bear their own costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarvvkToThe Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.538962 cc to Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr.No.53664,536631 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, Sr.No.53393 JUDGMENT IN A.S.Nos.1209 and 1210 of 2001MRD {CO}TP/24.8.2010.