The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Special Minor Irrigation Programme, Virudhunagar v. Karuppiah

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED :30.04.2009CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHANA.S.Nos.140 to 166 of 2006andM.P(MD)Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 & 2of 2006.1.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Special Minor Irrigation Programme, Virudhunagar. : Appellant/Referring Officer in all A.S Vs.Karuppiah : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.140/2006Mariyappan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.141/20061.Muthiah2.M.Arumugam : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.142/2006Alagar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.143/20061.Karuppiah2.Palani3.Katturaja : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.144/2006Alagiri Devar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.145/2006Chinna Muthiayan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.146/2006Kandasamy : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.147/2006Pitchai Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.148/2006Silambu Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.149/2006Pappammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.150/2006Raja Nagulu Chettiyar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.151/2006Vettai Moopper : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.152/2006Meenammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.153/2006Seeniyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.154/2006Mayandi : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.155/2006Maya Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.156/2006S/o.Muthiah ThevarMaya Thevars/o.Sangili Thevar : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.157/2006Malaichamy Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.158/2006Ganapathi Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.159/2006Rajamani : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.160/2006Marriyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.161/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.Sangu Muthu2.Muthiah S/o.Silambu Thevar : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.162/20061.Chinna Muthiah S/o.Arumugam2.Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam3.Malaiyandi S/o.Arumugam : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.163/2006Guruvammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.164/2006Ayyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.165/2006Velan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.166/2006Prayer:- These Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of LandAcquisition Act, against the common judgment and decree dated09.12.2002 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.125,116 to 124,126 to 138, 283 to286 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Aruppukottai. For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh in All A.S.Nos Addl. Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Kadar Karai in A.S.Nos.140,141, for.Sakkaravarthi 143,147,148, 150 to 159, 161 & 165/06 For Respondent in A.S.145/2006 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan COMMON JUDGMENTThe Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Special MinorIrrigation Programme, Virudhunagar, is the appellant in all theappeals.2.The following Lands in Mallanginar village of KariapattiTaluk, Virudhungar District, were acquired for the purpose offormation of new channel under the Chennamatti Anaikattu Schemeunder 4(1) notification dated 03.10.1991. S.No. Survey No. Extent (in hectare 01. 77/2B2 0.09.0 77/3B2 0.09.0 77/5A1 0.04.0 02. 101/6A 0.03.0 03. 102/3B1 0.11.5 04. 94/1B7A 0.00.5 05. 102/3A1 0.22.0 06. 101/1B2 0.03.0 102/1C1 0.04.5 101/4A 0.10.0 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 07. 94/1B2B 0.06.0 08. 94/1B5A 0.01.5 09. 101/3B 0.04.0 10. 102/2B1 0.06.5 11. 89/6A1 0.01.5 12. 327/3A 0.00.5 13. 77/5B 0.04.0 77/6A 0.05.0 78/3B 0.06.5 14. 89/2A2 0.15.5 89/3C2 0.06.5 15. 75/5A 0.06.0 77/1B1B 0.00.5 77/9B2 0.08.516. 75/4B4B 0.07.017. 89/6A2A 0.01.518. 325/2G1 0.02.519. 94/1B6A 0.01.0 20. 325/1A2 0.03.0 325/1B2 0.00.5 325/1D2 0.10.021 327/4A1 0.00.522. 325/2A2 0.04.0 ½23. 76/6E2 0.10.524. 94/1B4A 0.06.025. 325/2A2 0.04.026. 325/2E1 0.05.527. 76/6C2 0.05.0 76/6D1 0.12.5 76/AB1B 0.01.53.The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with thelegal formalities, passed an award in his Award ProceedingsNo.1/93-94 dated 30.06.1993 by considering various documents andfixed the market value at Rs.7,170.97/- per hectare for punjaland and Rs.10638.14/- per hectare for 'garden punja'. Notbeing satisfied with the award passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, the claimants/respondents sought for reference underSection 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.Nos.125,116 to 124, 126 to 138, 283 to 286 of 2001 on the file of thePrincipal Sub Court, Aruppukottai. The learned Principal SubJudge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,980/- per Cent.Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed by the appellant.4.Before the lower Court, all the L.A.O.Ps were jointlytried and common judgment was pronounced and evidence was let inL.A.O.P.No.125 of 2001 and that was taken as common evidence. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4the side of the respondents/claimants, the claimant inL.A.O.P.No.125 of 2001 examined himself as P.W.1 and three otherwitnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked and on theside of the appellant, one witness was examined and 5 documentswere marked.5.The point for consideration in these appeals is whetherthe enhancement of compensation fixed by the lower Court atRs.1,980/- per Cent is justified or not?6.The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.S.C.HeroldSingh, appearing for the appellant contended that the ReferringOfficer after considering 38 sale deeds and after taking intoaccount the quality, tharam and theervai of those lands involvedin those 38 sale deeds and compared the same with the quality,tharam and theevai of the acquired land selected the land inSurvey No.75/3B, which was sold on 01.10.1990 at the rate ofRs.7,717.97/- per hectare and on that basis fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land and therefore, the enhancement by thelower Court is highly arbitrary, excessively and liable to beset aside.7.On the other-hand, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents Mr.S.Kadar Kari would contend that the lands aresituate adjacent to Mallanginar village, which is a panchayatunion having more than 10,000 houses and the acquired lands aresurrounded by Government Higher Secondary School, Primary HealthCentre, Veterinary Hospital, Cinema Theatre, Match BoxIndustries and the acquired lands are punja lands and potentialhouse sites and the Referring Officer without taking intoaccount the various factors stated above has selected the land,which is not situate nearer to the acquired land. He furthercontended that the witness examined on the side of the appellantalso admitted about the population of Mallanginar village andthe Madurai-Virudhunagar via. Mallankinar goes nearer to theacquired land.8.On the side of the respondents, 11 sale deeds were markedand they are from 24.05.1990 to 11.09.1991. As rightly pointedout by the learned Sub Judge, though the sale deeds Ex.C1 to C9were earlier to the date of publication of the 4(1)notification, lands were sold for exorbitant prices and 1-1/2months prior to the acquisition, the land was sold under Exs.C10and 25 days prior to the acquisition, land was sold under Ex.C11and those lands were sold at the rate of Rs.3,052/- per Cent.Under the earlier sales covered under Exs.C1 to C8, the landswere sold at the rate of Rs.3,052/- to 4,983/-per Cent.Therefore, it is seen from the various sale deeds that theneighbouring lands were sold for more than Rs.3,000/- per Centone year prior to the date of 4(1) notification and around thetime of notification, the lands were sold for Rs.2,822/- perCent and that was taken into consideration by the lower Courtfor arriving at the market value of the acquired land.9.Further the lower Court analyzed the evidence of R.W.1and has come to the conclusion that R.W.1 fixed the market valueon the basis of the classification made 40 years earlier,whereas the sales under Exs.C1 to C4 would prove that the valueof the lands not less than Rs.2,822/- per Cent in and around thedate of notification and took into consideration the value at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5Rs.2,824/- per Cent for fixing the market value of the acquiredland. In my opinion, the reasons stated by the lower Court forfixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,833/- perCent is slightly on the higher side.10.The lower Court after fixing the market value atRs.2,833/- per Cent having regard to the nature of the property,which is undeveloped deducted 1/3rd toward development chargesand arrived at the market value of the acquired land atRs.1,980/- per Cent. 11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents alsosubmitted that in a similar case, lands were acquired for thesame purpose viz. formation of small minor irrigation projectand the connecting channel in Mandhoppu village, VirudhunagarDistrict, this Court in A.S Nos.362 to 364 of batches fixed themarket value at Rs.1,500/- per Cent dated 09.09.2003.12.In my opinion, the conclusion of the lower Court for thevalue of the land covered under Exs.C10 and C11, which were atthe rate of Rs.2,822/- per Cent can be taken into considerationfor arriving at the market value of the acquired land may not becorrect. The reason is those sales were one or 2 months prior tothe notification and there is every possibility of inflating ofthe prices. Hence, in my opinion, taking into consideration ofall these aspects, the market value of land acquired for thepurpose of acquisition can be tentatively fixed at Rs.2,200/-per Cent and after deducting 1/3rd towards development chargesthe market value can be fixed at Rs.1,500/- per Cent. In thejudgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.362 to 364 of 1994 batches,relating to neighbouring village lands, the Division Bench ofthis Court also arrived at Rs.1,500/- per Cent and it was alsoagreed by the respondents counsel that they have no objectionfor fixing the same value for the acquired land also.13.Hence, the market value of acquired land is fixed at1,500/- and the appeal is partly allowed. In other aspects, thedecree and judgment of the lower court is confirmed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(R)/True Copy/Sub-Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai2.The Section officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Maduraierrl/3c – 7.8.2009A.S.Nos.140 to 166 of 2006andM.P(MD)Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2006.30.04.2009