Judgment · High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.07.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.1223 of 2001 The Additional Special TahsildarLand Acquisition OfficerAdi Dravidar WelfareHarur .. Appellant / Referring OfficerVs.P.Ranganathan .. Respondent / ClaimantAppeal filed under section 54 of the against the judgmentand decree dated 03.11.1999 passed by the learned SubordinateJudge, Dharmapuri in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1992.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (A.S)For Respondent : Mr.R.MahalingamJUDGMENTHeard both sides.

Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded bythe learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri vide judgment dated03.11.1999 in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1992, the Land AcquisitionOfficer has filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the partiesare referred to here under according to their litigative statusbefore the trial Court.

A 'resume' of facts, absolutely necessary and germanefor the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act on 25.06.1989 intending to acquire thelands in Survey No.31/2A totalling an extent of 1.36.5 hectaresin Bandarachettipatti Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Districtfor the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. Aftercomplying with the procedure, the land acquisition officerpassed the award dated 18.03.1991 assessing the compensation ina sum of Rs.150/- per cent. The land owner being aggrieved by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18(1)of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, on theclaimant's side C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5were marked. On the side of the respondent RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhancedthe compensation from Rs.150/- per cent to Rs.400/- per cent.

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 without adhering to the establishedprocedure simply enhanced the compensation by choosingonly Ex.A5.

The point for consideration is as to whether the SubCourt's enhancement of compensation from Rs.150/- per cent toRs.400/- per cent is just and proper.

A mere perusal of the judgment of the trial Court wouldhighlight that even though as many as five documents, viz.,Exs.A1 to A5 were marked, the Sub Court relied on only Ex.A5 onthe sole ground that PW2 the purchaser under Ex.A5 was examined. In my opinion, the said procedure adhered to by the trial Courtwas not correct.

Now, it has become a trite proposition of law that mereproduction of the certified copy of the sale deeds would besufficient evidence and those deeds need not be proved byexamining the necessary party concerned so as to prove thegenuineness of those sales. Further more, in this case, theland owner did choose to place reliance only on Ex.A5 leavingother documents, obviously on the ground that in Ex.A5 alone, higher valuation is contemplated. Hence, I proceed to analyseall the documents, viz., Exs.A1 to A5 to find out as to whichdeed among those documents would be a proper one for being takenas the sample deed. The tabulation of the deeds concerned runs thus:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No.ExhibitsDate of Sale Extent of landAmount----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Ex.A105.02.1988 0.25 cents Rs. 8,000/-2. Ex.A210.04.1989 0.33 cents Rs. 4,400/-3. Ex.A310.04.1989 0.22 cents Rs. 8,800/-4. Ex.A422.05.1989 0.13 cents Rs. 5,200/-5. Ex.A531.05.1989 0.59 cents Rs.30,000/------------------------------------------------------------------------------ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The above tabulation would at once unambiguously andunequivocally highlight that Ex.A1 is the proper document, whichwould be of guidance to this Court to assess the correctvaluation. Ex.A1 emerged on 05.02.1988, so to say, one year andfour months anterior to the publication of Section 4 (1)Notification dated 25.06.1989, whereas the other documentsemerged only shortly before the publication of Section 4 (1)Notification. Further more, the lands contemplated in Exs.A2 toA5 are not proved to be situated near the land acquired; whereas a perusal of the sketch Ex.B3 would reveal that land in Survey No.81/3 contemplated under Ex.A1 is situated very near tothe land acquired in Survey No.31/2A. As such, Ex.A1 could betaken as the criterion for assessing the compensation.

Accordingly, a perusal of Ex.A1 would demonstrate thatan extent of 25 cents of agricultural land was sold for a sum ofRs.8000/- which connotes that per cent of land was sold for asum of Rs.320/-. Accordingly, for the land acquired, a sum ofRs.320/- per cent could be awarded as compensation. The sale inEx.A1 took place one year and four months before the Section 4(1) Notification. Hence, 10% increase in the value couldrightly be given as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courtrendered in (2004) 6 SCC 533 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others). An excerpt from it would runthus: "6. The lands which are the subject-matter ofthese appeals are acquired for the same purpose as inthe aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981 i.e.subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation ofprices in regard to these lands. Hence, we think itjust and appropriate to give 5% increase in the marketvalue in respect of the lands in these appeals. Inthe result these appeals are also allowed and theimpugned judgments are modified by reducing the amountof compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting toRs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 per bigha + 5%escalation. The respondents are entitled to statutorybenefits available under the Act based on the amountof compensation as modified above. No costs. Civil Appeal No.4157 of 20037. The land which is the subject-matter of thisappeal is acquired for the purpose as in theaforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981 i.e.subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The question of deduction towards development chargesin this case would not arise for the reason that the sale deedis relating to agricultural land and the land acquired now isalso an agricultural land. It is not the case where the sampleland is having the potentiality of becoming plot and in theEx.A1 sale deed, the potential value is found incorporated andthe notional beneficial value is also not given in this case. In such a case, the question of effecting any deduction towardsdevelopment charges would not arise. In this connection, Iwould like to cite the following decisions: (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 others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others](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]The question of deduction comes only if the potential plotvalue of the land is taken into account. But, in this case, the sample deed, refers to only agricultural land and its valueis taken as such, for assessing the compensation relating to theland acquired. Only 10% increase is given because of one yearduration between the emergence of the sale deed Ex.A1 and the Section 4 (1) Notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In the result, the judgment and decree of the trialCourt is modified to the effect that the rate per cent of theland acquired shall be Rs.352/-. Accordingly, the appeal ispartly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Vj2Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri+ 1 cc to Mr. Mahalingam, Advocate SR No. 41222+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.41256A.S.No.1223 of 2001VM(CO)SR/11.8.2008