Madras High Court
Sabanayakar Kattalai By Its vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 May, 2010
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.05.2010
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
Appeal Suit No.101 of 2004
Sabanayakar Kattalai by its
Hereditary Trustee, Dharmapuram Mutt
Dharmapuram. ... Appellant.
vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Mayiladuthurai. ... LAO/Respondent
2. The Senior Manager,
Civil Supply Corporation,
Tanjore. ... Requisitioning Body/Respondent
3. Thamilarasi. ... Second Claimant/Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Sec.96 of CPC against the Judgment made in LAOP.No.44 of 1986 dated 24.12.1996 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge,Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1
Mr.V.Selvanayagam for R2
No appearance - R3
JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment in LAOP.No.44 of 1986 confirming the quantum of compensation in Award No.3/1985 dated 15.10.1985 at the rate of Rs.45/- per cent for the acquired land in S.F.No.257/3B3A in Erukkur village for construction of Modern Rice Mill by Civil Supplies Corporation, the land owner has preferred this Appeal.
2. An extent of 11.97 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A in Erukkur village, Seerkalai Taluk was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Modern Rice Mill by the Civil Supplies Corporation. Notification under Sec.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 18.07.1983. Urgency provision under Sec.17 of the Act was invoked. Notification under Sec.9(1) and Sec.10 were published on 17.08.1983 and on 05.08.1983 possession of the land was taken.
3. Land Acquisition Officer has gathered 15 sale deeds i.e. 11 sale deeds for Nanja lands and 4 sale deeds of Dry lands. Since, no sale had taken place within Erukkur village, sale deed nearby Arasoor village was taken into consideration by the LAO. Serial No.12 Document No.730 dated 30.03.1981 pertaining to S.F.No.37/1 was taken as data land and on that basis the value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.45/- per cent. Serial No.13 [ Document No.89 dated 27.01.1982] relates to another S.F.No.277/2 in which one cent was sold at Rs.38.63. Based upon the data sale deed [Document No.730/1981] dated 30.03.1981, LAO has fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.45/- per cent.
4. Out of total extent of 11.97 acres, Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai claimed ownership over the entire extent of land whereas 2nd Claimant Tamilarasi claimed ownership in 3.66 acres by virtue of Ex.B1-sale deed [30.05.1977]. The 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi had also earlier filed W.P.No.8886/1983 before High Court contending that acquisition was not for the public purpose and W.P.No.8886/1983 came to be dismissed as withdrawn.
5. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 and also Sec.30 of LA Act were made. Before the Reference Court, one Ganesan-Hereditary Trustee of 1st Claimant-Sabanayakar Kattalai was examined as CW1. One Rajangam, husband of 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi was examined as CW2. 1st Claimant has marked Ex.C1-copy of Judgment in LAOP.No.45/1986 dated 04.08.1987. Onbehalf of 2nd Claimant, Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of LAO.
6. By the Judgment in LAOP.No.45/1986 dated 04.08.1987, market value of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent and the same was marked as Ex.C1. Reference Court held that the said Judgment in LAOP.No.45/1986 is not binding upon the Court and there was no basis for claiming enhanced compensation. Reference Court further held that there is no evidence to show that in and around the acquired lands, there are Industries and Factories. Finding that the value fixed in LAOP.No.45/1986 [04.08.1987] cannot be taken as basis, Reference Court held that value at the rate of Rs.45/- per cent fixed by the LAO is quite reasonable and there are no grounds for enhancement. Reference Court has also ordered 9% interest for one year period from 05.09.1983 and thereafter interest at 15% p.a. Reference Court has not awarded 12% additional market value and 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation.
7. In S.F.No.257/3B3A totally 11.97 acres were acquired. Reference Court held that Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai would be entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of 8.31 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A. In respect of remaining 3.66 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A, Reference Court held that Appellant-1st Claimant would be entitled to 4/5th share in the land value and trees i.e. Rs.54,544/-. Pointing out that the 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi has purchased the superstructure and that she has also developed the land, Reference Court held that in respect of value of the land and trees, 2nd Claimant would be entitled to 1/5th share i.e. Rs.13,636/- and the compensation for the well and electric motor pumpset i.e. Rs.13,775/- totalling Rs.27,411/- was ordered to be paid to the 2nd Claimant.
8. Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for Appellant contended that the acquired land is very near to the developed area like godown of Food Corporation of India, Railway station and other residential area and the acquired lands have potential for future development. It was submitted that in respect of the lands acquired in S.F.No.257/1C in LAOP.No.45/1986, Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.800/- per cent and the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the market value fixed in LAOP.No.45/1986 which was produced before the Court as Ex.C1. It was further contended that the lands involved in this case i.e. S.F.No.257/3B3A is very near and similar to the lands acquired in S.F.No.257/1C and while so, Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that market value fixed in LAOP.No.45/1986 cannot be taken as basis for fixing the market value. It was further submitted that the enhancement made in LAOP.No.45/1986 was also confirmed by the High Court. Learned counsel for Appellant vehemently objected to the manner of apportionment of compensation in respect of 3.66 acres.
9. Mr.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for LAO has submitted that LAO has taken the relevant sale deed [Document No.730 dated 30.03.1981] and has rightly fixed the market value at Rs.45/- per cent. Regarding enhancement of market value in LAOP.No.45/1986 which was confirmed by the High Court in A.S.Nos.954/1987 and 46/1988, learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the lands involved in this Appeal [S.F.No.257/3B3A] is of the same taram and quality of S.F.No.257/1C for which enhancement was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
10. We have also heard Mr.V.Selvanayagam, learned counsel appearing for Requisitioning Body/Civil Supplies Corporation.
11. The point falling for determination is whether the Reference Court was right in confirming the compensation of Rs.45/- per cent awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
12. For construction of Modern Rice Mill by the Civil Supplies Corporation, lands to an extent of 11.97 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A were acquired. As is seen from Ex.C1, in respect of the acquired land in S.F.No.257/1C [LAOP.No.45/1986 dated 04.08.1987], market value was enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent. In LAOP.No.45/1986, two sale deeds were produced showing that as per the guideline register, the lands were sold at Rs.1500/- per cent. Pointing out that the acquired land is surrounded by building, learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the market value at Rs.800/- per cent. Challenging the enhancement of market value, Government preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.46/1988. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai has preferred A.S.No.954/1987. By common Judgment dated 14.03.2001 in A.S.Nos.954/1987 and 46/1988, Justice P.SATHASIVAM [as his Lordship then was] confirmed the enhancement of market value at Rs.800/- per cent and dismissed both the Appeals. Enhancement of market value in respect of S.F.No.257/1C at Rs.800/- per cent is very much relevant. From Ex.B6-Topo sketch, it is seen that S.F.No.257/3B3A is adjacent to S.F.No.251/1C i.e. on the southern side of S.F.No.251/1C.
13. From the evidence of CWs.1 and 2, it is seen that the acquired land is nearer to National Highways which is suitable for construction. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that the acquired land is suitable for construction of house and the acquired land is very nearer to the Railway Station and Electricity Sub Station. In their evidence, CWs.1 and 2 have categorically stated that Food Corporation of India is situated nearby and the acquired land is very nearer to the developed area and other residential area.
14. CW1 has also produced Ex.C1-copy of Judgment in LAOP.No.45/1986 to substantiate for enhancement. CW1 has clearly stated that the land involved in this Appeal is adjacent to the land in S.F.No.257/1C and the same is substantiated by Topo sketch [Ex.B6]. Onbehalf of LAO, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
15. Enhancement made in LAOP.No.45/1986 did have bearing in fixing the market value. While so, Reference Court was not justified in saying that the Judgment in LAOP.No.45/1986 enhancing the market value at Rs.800/- per cent is not binding. While fixing the market value, LAO normally tend to fix lesser market value.
16. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired lands. As held by the Supreme Court in (2009) 4 MLJ 137 (SC) [Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.Project v. Mahaboob and another], even though the land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings, the Collector is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. Holding that the Land Acquisition Officers seldom make reasonable offer and they tend to err on the safer side and invariably assess very low compensation, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the 'safer' side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meagre awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil Court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference Courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. ....."
17. As pointed out earlier from the Topo sketch [Ex.B6], it is seen that S.F.No.257/1C and S.F.No.257/3B3A are adjacent to each other. In the Judgment in LAOP.No.45/19886, Survey Number of the acquired land appears to have been wrongly stated as S.F.No.287/1C1. From the Award, it is seen that the correct Survey Number is only 257/1C which is adjacent to the lands acquired in this Appeal. Since, both the acquired lands [S.F.No.257/1C and 257/3B3A] being adjacent to each other and also same taram and quality, we are of the view that the market value of the acquired land in this Appeal fixed at the rate of Rs.45/- per cent by the LAO which was confirmed by the Reference Court is to be enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land [S.F.No.257/3B3A] is enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent. Reference Court has not ordered statutory benefits i.e. 12% additional market value and 30% solatium on the enhanced market value. As per Sec.23(1) of LA Act, land owners are entitled to 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of Award or delivery of possession which ever is earlier and 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and were are of the view that the same are to be awarded.
18. In this Appeal, an extent of 11.97 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A was acquired. Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai is entitled to claim enhanced compensation for 8.31 acres. In so far as, remaining 3.66 acres, 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi has claimed right. One Rajangam, husband of 2nd Claimant was examined as CW2. In his evidence, CW2 has stated that 2nd Claimant has purchased 3.66 acres in S.F.No.257/3B from one Sampath Naidu under Ex.B1-sale deed [30.05.1977]. The recitals in Ex.B1-sale deed read as under:-
@moapy; fz;l brhj;Jf;fspd; fPH; epyk; gFjp ghj;jpaija[k; j';fs; ngUf;F khw;wpf; bfhs;st[k; ehd; rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/@
19. The said Sampath Naidu traced is right through sale deed dated 31.12.1966 [Document No.3342/1966]. Ex.B2 is the said sale deed dated 31.12.1966 under which the said Sampath Naidu has purchased an extent of 3.66 acres in S.F.No.257/3B from one R.S.Sambandam Chettiar and others. While alienating the superstructure and other electric fittings etc., right in the land was also conveyed under the said sale deed. In Ex.B2-sale deed it is clearly stated as @/////// MjPdj;Jf;F fPH;epyk; gFjpghf;fp bfhLf;f ntz;oaJ U:gha; 900-? ehsJ njjpapy; buhf;fk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ U:gha; 100-? rhrd brhj;Jf;fs; charge ghj;jpakhf rhrd ghf;fpj; Jiff;F rk;ge;jk; brl;oahh; ngUf;F vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUf;Fk; g[nuhnehl;L K:y;ak; gj;J U:gha; 24.000-? (,Ugj;jp ehyhapuk; U:gha;) Mf rhrdj;Jif (ehh;gjpdhapuKk;) v';fs; gj;jhfptpl;lgoahy; moapy; fz;l brhj;Jf;fis /////////// rh;tRje;jpuj;Jld; mile;J mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;SfpwJ/ ////////// fPH;epyk; gFjp ghj;jpaija[k; c';fs; ngUf;F khw;wpf; bfhs;SfpwJ/@ Ex.B3 [20.01.1967] is the lease deed infavour of said Sambandam Chettiar by Appellant-Sabanayar Kattalai.
20. In his evidence, CW2 has stated that pursuant to the documents, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the superstructure and are also having right in the ground. Ex.B4 is the joint patta granted under updating survey scheme for S.F.No.257/3B3B infavour of Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai and 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi. The said Tamilarasi [2nd Claimant] also appears to have paid kist under Ex.B5.
21. Based upon Exs.B1 to B4, Reference Court has held that 1st Claimant-Sabanayakar Kattalai is the owner of the land measuring 3.66 acres. Based upon Exs.B1 to B4, Reference Court held that 2nd Claimant had been in possession and enjoyment of 3.66 acres coupled with the right in the land. Even though, there was lease deed [Ex.B3], Reference Court held that there was no document to show that 2nd Claimant attorned tenancy to the Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai and the trial Court held that the landlord and tenant relationship is not established. From Exs.B3-lease deed, it is clear that Sampath Naidu had only become a tenant under Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai. Even though, he had become tenant, the parties have dealt with the superstructure and the said Sambandam Chettiar had alienated the same to Sampath Naidu under Ex.B2 sale deed dated 31.12.1966 who in turn sold the same to the 2nd Claimant under Ex.B1-sale deed dated 30.05.1977. 2nd Claimant was in enjoyment of the property by paying kist. Since Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai is the land owner in respect of the value of the land [3.66 acres] and trees thereon, lower Court rightly held that Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai would be entitled to 4/5th share and 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi would be entitled to 1/5th share. Since the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent, the Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai would be entitled to 4/5th share of enhanced compensation in respect of 3.66 acres along with proportionate solatium and additional market value and interest. Even though, 2nd Claimant has not preferred any Appeal, she would be entitled to 1/5th share of enhanced compensation in respect of 3.66 acres. Since the 2nd Claimant has not preferred any appeal, we do not propose to consider the question of enhancement of compensation in respect of well and electric motor pumpset. Since the acquired land is very near to Food Corporation of India, Railway Station and other developed area and applying the Judgment in A.S.Nos.954/1987 and 46/1988, the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.45/- per cent is enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent payable with 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of delivery of possession i.e. 05.08.1983; 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation; 9% interest for one year period from the date of possession and thereafter interest at 15% p.a. till the date of deposit.
22. In the result, Judgment of the Reference Court in LAOP.No.44/1986 dated 24.12.1996 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladurai confirming the market value of acquired land at Rs.45/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is enhanced to Rs.800/- per cent payable with 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of delivery of possession i.e. 05.08.1983; 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation, 9% interest for one year period from the date of possession and thereafter interest at 15% p.a. till the date of deposit and this Appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai would be entitled to the entire enhanced compensation along with solatium and interest in respect of 8.31 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A. In respect of 3.66 acres in S.F.No.257/3B3A, Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai would be entitled to 4/5th share of the enhanced compensation along with proportionate solatium and interest. 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi would be entitled to 1/5th share of the enhanced compensation along with proportionate solatium and interest.
The Respondents 1 and 2 directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with solatium and interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Appellant-Sabanayakar Kattalai and 2nd Claimant-Tamilarasi are permitted to withdraw their respective share as apportioned. Reference Court is directed to send communication to the 2nd Claimant to enable her to withdraw the compensation apportioned to her.
[R.B.I.,J] [M.V.,J]
05.05.2010
bbr
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Mayiladurai.
R.BANUMATHI, J.
and
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
bbr
Judgment in
A.S.No.101 of 2004
05.05.2010