The Land Acquisition OfficerSpecial Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Krishnagiri v. Munusamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.07.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.1222 of 2001The Land Acquisition OfficerSpecial Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare)Krishnagiri .. Appellant /RespondentVs.Munusamy .. Respondent /ClaimantAppeal filed U/sec.54 of the Land Acquisition Act againstthe judgment and decree dated 10.11.1997 passed by the learnedSubordinate Judge, Hosur in L.A.O.P.No.353 of 1996.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (A.S)For Respondent : Mr.D.ShivakumaranJUDGMENTHeard both sides.2. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded bythe learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur vide judgment dated10.11.1997 in L.A.O.P.No.353 of 1996, the Land Acquisition Officerhas filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the parties arereferred to here under according to their litigative status beforethe trial Court.3. A resume of facts, absolutely necessary and germane forthe disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act on 26.07.1990 intending to acquire thelands in Survey No. 375/2 totalling an extent 0.73.0 hectares inAnnialam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District for thepurpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complyingwith the procedure, the land acquisition officer passed the award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 16.03.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum ofRs.16,000/- per acre to Rs.2,18,333/- per acre. The land ownerbeing aggrieved by it got the matter referred to the Sub Courtunder Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, C.Ws.1 and 2 wereexamined and Ex.C1 was marked and no one was examined on the sideof the respondent and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimatelythe Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,000/- per acreto Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement,the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, thegist and kernel of them would run thus:The Sub Court simply relied on Ex.C1, whichhappened to be the self-serving document of the landowner himself and awarded compensation. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decreeof the trial Court.6. The point for consideration is as to whether the SubCourt's assessment of compensation from Rs.16,000/- per acre toRs.2,18,333/- per acre is justifiable and proper.7. A mere perusal of the judgment of the trial Court wouldamply make the point clear that the Sub Court relied on Ex.C1, theonly document marked on the side of the land owner. Theratiocination as found set out in the judgment and decree of theSub Court is that the land owner himself an year anterior toSection 4 (1) Notification voluntarily sold the land and thatwould be the best criterion to assess the compensation. Insupport of this, the Sub Court also relied on the decision of theHon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2625 (Special DeputyCollector and another vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others).However, the Sub Court wrongly understood the cited precedent. Anexcerpt from the decision is extracted here under for readyreference:"8. The best evidence of the value of propertyare the sale transactions in respect of theacquired land to which the claimant himself is aparty; the time at which the property comes to besold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature ofthe consideration; and the manner in which thetransaction came to be brought out. They are all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relevant factors. In the absence of such a saledeed relating to the acquired land, the saletransactions relating to the neighbouring landsin the vicinity of the acquired land. In thatcase, the features required to be present are: itmust be within a reasonable time of the date ofthe notification; it must be a bona fidetransaction; it should be a sale of land similarto the land acquired or land adjacent to the landacquired; and it should possess similaradvantageous features. These are relevantfeatures to be taken into consideration to provethe market value of the acquired land as on thedate of the notification published under Section4(1) of the Act. This would be established byexamining either the vendor or the vendee. If itis proved that they are not available, the scribeof the document may also be examined in thatbehalf. Section 51-A of the Act only dispenseswith the production of the original sale deed anddirects to receive certified copy for the reasonthat parties to the sale transaction would bereluctant to part with the original sale deedsince acquisition proceedings would take longtime before award of the compensation attainsfinality and in the meanwhile the owner of thesale deed is precluded from using the same forother purposes vis-à-vis this land. The markingof the certified copy per se is not admissible inevidence unless it is duly proved and thewitnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, areexamined. This principle has been repeated in acatena of subsequent decisions of this Court."As such, the said precedent warrants the following approach.9. I am of the considered opinion that the Court ought notto have relied on the document executed by the land owner himselfvery near to the land acquired. With great care, the same shouldhave been scrutinised. It has to be seen as to whether such saledeed, viz., Ex.C1 is having any proximity or similarity with othersale deeds emerged in that vicinity. Ex.R2, the sales statisticswould reveal that the land acquisition officer in an impartialmanner gathered all the sales particulars, which emerged in thatvicinity and accordingly, Ex.C1 relied on by the land owner iscited as document No.2. Out of those 24 documents found set outin the sales particulars as in Ex.R2, item No.9, only resemblesthat of item No.2. Except that, all other 22 items are not in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any way nearer to the valuation as in Ex.C1 and item No.9 in Ex.R2and in such a case, the natural presumption is that for somespecial reasons, the parties should have brought about those twodocuments and that cannot be the criteria for assessing thecompensation. My mind is redolent with the famous maxim oneswallow does not make a summer. Simply because one or two salesemerged because of the special needs of the parties concerned,that cannot be taken as a rule for assessing the compensation. Asurvey of the remaining sales particulars as found set out inEx.R2 would indicate that the prices were fluctuating in that areaand it was not above Rs.57,417/-. The first item could rightly berelied on for the reason that it contain a higher value among thesaid 22 sale deeds. I am fully aware of the fact that the landowners should not be prejudiced and in the meanwhile, thereshould not be windfall in favour of the land owners. Hence, byway of striking a balance, I would like to rely on Ex.C1 in Ex.R2,which is extracted here under for ready reference.------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl.No.2Document No.& Dt. 74/11.01.1990Survey No.375ClassificationDryFull Extent0.95.5Soil Classification -Taram]Assessment Rate ]8-1.5Per acre4.94Extent sold0.02.0Name of the vendorMunusamyName of the VendyMunirajiSale amountRs.16,375/-Value of structure if any ---Net Sale amountRs.16,375Rate per hectareRs.8,18,750/-RemarksSale between the relatives------------------------------------------------------------------Accordingly, if viewed, the rate per cent would come toRs.232.45. It is also hereby made clear that the said first itemin Ex.R1 is relating to agricultural land and the land acquiredalso is an agricultural land. In such a case, no deductiontowards development charges need be given. If at all the value ofa small plot is taken as the criterion for assessing thecompensation, necessarily at least 1/3 should be deducted towardsdevelopment charges and a catena of decisions rendered by theHon'ble Apex Court is cited here under fruitfully: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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 othersvs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa andothers](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]Accordingly, if viewed, it is clear that so far this case isconcerned, no deduction towards development charges is required asonly agricultural value of the sample land alone is considered andawarded for the land acquired.8. In view of the above, the judgment and decree of thetrial Court shall stand modified to the effect that per cent ofland acquired, the compensation is assessed in a sum ofRs.232.45. I make it clear that the land owner is entitled toother statutory entitlements as per law. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be noorder as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarvj2To1.The Subordinate Judge, Hosur.2.The Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Chennai-104.+1cc to Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate Sr 41297+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 41255GV (CO)km/14.8.A.S.No.1222 of 2001