The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar v. Shanmughakani

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED :17.04.2009CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHANA.S.(MD)No.252 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2008The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar. :Appellant / Referring Officer-Vs-Shanmughakani :Respondent / ClaimantPrayer:-This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 made inL.A.O.P.No.16 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant:Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,Government AdvocateRespondents :Mr.Shanmugakani, Party-in-personJUDGMENTThe Special Tahsildar(L.A), Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar,is the appellant.2.The lands belonged to the respondent to an extent of 1.24.5hectares were acquired by the appellant, by issuing Section 4(1)notification, dated 09.08.1995 and possession was taken over on 24.04.1997and the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed anaward in Award No.4/96-97 dated 20.02.1997 fixed the market value atRs.23,030/- per hectare. The claimant not being satisfied with the marketvalue fixed by the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Actand the case was referred to Sub Court, Sivakasi, in L.A.O.P.No.16 of2006. 3.Before the learned Sub Judge, Sivakasi, the claimant examined himselfand two witnesses and marked 4 documents. On the side of the appellant,one witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. The learned SubJudge after analyzing both the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced thecompensation to Rs.1,000/- per Cent. The appellant aggrieved by theenhancement of compensation filed the appeal.4.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether theenhancement of compensation awarded by the lower Court is justified ornot?5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Ex.R5,a Division Bench judgment of this Honourable Court passed in A.S.No.81 to87 of 2002 in the case of The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),Special Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar, wherein the market valueof similar land was fixed by this Honourable Court at the rate of Rs.600/-per Cent and contended that the land, which was acquired in this case, isalso situate nearer to the land, which was subject matter of the appeal inA.S.Nos.81 to 87 of 2002, (Ex.R5) and therefore, the same value is to befixed for the acquired land also. It is seen from Ex.R5, the landsacquired in that appeal were also for the purpose of Special MinorIrrigation Project and the survey number of the land is also 586 and itssub-division. The village in also same at Vadapatti. Section 4(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2notification is also same in these appeals and that appeals covered underEx.R5. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader requestedthat the same value can be fixed for the acquired land also in thisappeal.6.Per contra, the respondent, who appeared as party-in-person,pleaded that he has filed Exs.C1, C2 and C3, which would show that theproperties in the nearby area were sold for a sum of Rs.4,000/- and aboveper Cent and therefore, the learned Sub Judge has correctly fixed themarket value at Rs.1000/- and there is no need to interfere with the awardpassed by the learned trial Judge.7.In this case, the Acquisition Officer has considered 64 documentsand after rejecting 63 documents on various grounds has taken intoconsideration the land in Survey No.560/1A, which was mentioned as ItemNo.13 in the list of documents, considered by him and arrived at thefigure of Rs.23,030.30/- per hectare, which works out to Rs.90/- per Cent.On perusal of the rough sketch filed by the appellant and marked as Ex.R3I find that the data land considered by the Acquisition Officer issituate, east of the acquired land and in between the acquired land andthe data land, there are lands in Survey Nos.571, 572 and 573. It is seenfrom the various sale deeds considered by the Acquisition Officer, serialNo.35 relates to document No.798 dated 16.03.1995 in respect of SurveyNo.572 of an extent of 0.48.0 hectare and that was sold at the rate ofRs.1,50,000/- per hectare. That document was rejected by the AcquisitionOfficer on the ground that it is situate one mile away from the acquiredland. The reason given by the Acquisition Officer is not correct as theland in Survey No.572 is adjacent to the acquired land and it is nearer tothe acquired land, than the data land considered by the AcquisitionOfficer. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer ought to have considered thesale deed in respect of Survey No.572 for arriving at the market value ofthe acquired land.8.The lands covered under Exs.C2 & C3 are situate, according to therespondent, at a distance of less then 1 km and therefore, those landsought to have been taken into consideration for fixing the market value.The respondent further contended that while arriving at the market value,the Acquisition Officer as well as the Court should have taken intoconsideration the value of neighboring lands and select the highest valuefor fixing the market value and should not have taken the lowest valueespecially when the lands were compulsorily acquired by the Governmentagainst the wishes of the owner. No doubt, it is true that while fixingthe market value of the property, the Court has to consider the price,which a willing vendor might reasonable expect to receive from the willingpurchaser but at the same time disinclination of the vendor to part withhis land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must bedisregarded. The potentiality land is also to be considered and certainprinciples have been enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court whilefixing the market value, in a judgment reported in 2003(4) Supreme CourtCases 481 in the case of Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India,that the requisites for a sale to merit consideration as a comparable saleare:(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date ofnotification under Section 4(1); https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;(iii)it should be of the land acquired or of the landadjacent to the land acquired; and(iv)it should possess similar advantages”9.Therefore, while considering the market value to be fixed for theacquired land, the lands adjacent to the land can be taken intoconsideration and other lands, which possess similar advantages can alsobe considered.10.In this appeal as stated above, the land in Survey No.572 was soldfor Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare on 16.03.1995, and the land is situateadjacent to the acquired land. Therefore, in my opinion, the value ofthat land in Survey No.572 can be safely construed as representing thecorrect market value and if that is taken into consideration, the marketvalue of the acquired land will be only 600/- per Cent. This market valueis also accepted by the division Bench of this Honourable Court in A.S.81to 87 of 2002, which is covered under Ex.R5. Therefore, in my opinion,the learned Sub Judge has erroneously fixed the market value at Rs.1000/-per Cent and it has to be reduced to Rs.600/- per Cent and accordingly,the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.600/- per Cent andthe respondent is entitled to claim Rs.600/- per Cent.11.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the decree andjudgment of the trial Court is modified and the valuation of the marketvalue of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.600/- per Cent. In otheraspects, the order of the trial court is confirmed. Consequently,connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Writs)/ TRUE COPY /Sub Assistant RegistrarTo:1.The Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi.2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar.+3CC to Mr.T.Shanmugakani, Advocate. SR.No.7331.erRP/21.04.09/1P/6C.A.S.No.252 of 200817.04.2009.