Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La), ... vs Pavayammal And Another on 7 December, 2000
ORDER P. Shanmugam, J.
1. The Land Acquisition Officer/respondent is the appellant herein.
2. A.S.No.54 of 1992 relates to the acquisition of an extent of 1.1.05.hectares of land in Survey No.511/2 of Periasemur Village, Erode Taluk for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 15.7.1981. An Award No.2 of 1986 was made on 11.8.1986 fixing a compensation at the rate of Rs.83,940 per hectare (Rs.33,984 per acre). At this rate, on the acquired land along with trees and building, a total compensation of a sum of Rs.1,82,510.15 was awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded 30% solatium and interest of 12% on this amount. The learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation and fixed the land value at Rs.9,800 per acre (which is equivalent to Rs.98,000 per hectare or Rs.3,967 per cent). Aggrieved by this enhancement, the above appeal is preferred.
3. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Court below ought to have rejected the claim of the respondents since they have not proved the market value with the relevant documents. The reliance of Ex.A.2 namely the value fixed in O.P.Nos.13,14 and 16 of 1984 is improper. He submitted that due allowance should be given for developmental charges.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the lands are located very near to the Erode Town and are eminently suited for putting up house sites. According to him, there are cinema theatres and industrial establishments, shops, kalyana mandapam, educational institutions, housing colonies near the acquired lands. He further submitted that the price of the lands was increasing day-by-day since Erode has become the District Headquarters and therefore, the value fixed by the learned Judge itself is very low and requires to be enhanced at the rate of Rs.20 per sq.ft. and he was preferred a cross appeal on that basis.
5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents and considered the matter carefully.
6. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, there were 244 sales between 16.7.1978 and 15.7.1981, i.e., three years prior to the notification under Section 4(1). Of these, sale item No. 147 was taken as a data land, which is an extent of 1.04- 1/2 acres of land in S.No.266-A (New S.No.504/4), has been sold for Rs.40,000 per acre as per the document Ex.B.2 dated 20.7.1979. According to the Officer, this land is located very near to the acquired lands and is comparable so far as the value is concerned and therefore, he fixed the value at Rs.33,984 per acre (Rs.83,940 per hectare). However, the Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into account the potentiality of the lands under acquisition and the advantages that the lands enjoy and their nearness to the industrial establishments, housing colonies, cinema theatres, etc. The Officer had also not taken into account the developments that have taken place and the rising prices consequent on the formation of the Periyar District with Headquarters at Erode. Taking into account these developmental aspects and potentialities of the lands being used as house sites, the advantages they enjoy and the similar value fixed under Ex.A.2, the learned Judge has found that reliance of Ex.B.2, the data sale deed dated 20.9.1979, cannot be accepted. At the same time, the learned Judge did not agree with the value fixed under Ex.A.2 in reference to L.A.O.P.Nos.13,14 and 16 of 1984 dated 5.7.1990, which works out to Rs.7 per sq.ft., which is equivalent to Rs.3,05,200 per acre.
According to him, the lands are not comparable and there are differences between the facilities enjoyed by the lands covered under Ex.A.2 and the lands under acquisition. However, considering the potentiality and the rising prices and the facilities that the lands under acquisition are enjoying, he has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.98,000 per hectare from Rs.83,940 as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. He has taken into account Ex.A.2 valuation which worked out to Rs.7 per sq.ft. and has enhanced the sum to Rs.9.10 per sq.ft. (Rs.9,800 per acre). The reference Court has found that Ex.B2 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the compensation. As pointed out, the potentiality of the land and the advantageous location of it have to be taken into account while fixing the compensation. Even the award under Ex.A4 is in reference to land acquisition of the year 1973 and therefore due allowance should be given for the rise in the prices. But the appellants have not established with any comparable sale of the land in the locality within three years from the date of the notification. Therefore we are constrained to fix a reasonable amount representing the market value under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that as against the award under Ex.A4, the first appeal is still pending before this Court. The learned Government Pleader refers to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case reported in Hookiyar Singh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, , wherein it was held that the burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification is always on the claimants. We do not find any materials to differ from the view taken by the learned Judge or to enhance the compensation further.
7. It has to be further seen that since the lands under acquisition are undeveloped dry lands, deductions have to be made from the market value for development charges. In Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , their lordships have held that the deductions can be between 33 1/3 to 53% from the market value and giving additional deduction of 12% i.e., total deduction of 65%, was held to be not illegal. In Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), , the Supreme Court held that when sale deeds of smaller pieces of lands are found to be genuine and reliable, sufficient deductions should be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of land and hence, 40% deduction was upheld. In K. Shiva Devamma v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, , the Supreme Court upheld the deduction of 53% under building rules and further deduction towards development charges at the rate of 33 1/3%.
8. Following the above ratio, we have to give due allowance to the developmental charges. The lands under acquisition are large extents of dry lands. Before they can be put to use, allowance has to be made for the purpose of developing the same by providing drainage, roads, electricity, etc. In the above circumstances, we fix 33 l/3% as development charges to be deducted from the market value of the lands. Accordingly, we fix the market value at Rs.6,534 per acre. The total compensation for the land in S.No.511/2 to the extent of 110.5 acres is fixed at Rs.7,22,007.
9. It is further seen from the learned Judge's order that solatium was awarded by including the interest, which is not permissible. In Yadava Rao P. Pathed v. State of Maharashtra , it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not correct to award interest on solatium following the Supreme Court judgment in Premnath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited, . In the latter judgment, their lordships held that no interest is payable on solatium under Section 23(2) or an additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Similarly, no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Section 23(1A).
10. For the above reasons, the value fixed for the lands and buildings is hereby modified to the extent indicated. However, the solatium is not payable for the interest under Section 23(1A). Solatium and interest are payable only on the market value awarded. The above appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. The Cross Objection is dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps. are closed.