Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Oae ... vs Tmt. E. Alamelu Ammal, Union Of India ... on 28 March, 2003
Author: M. Chockalingam
Bench: M. Chockalingam
JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
1. Large extent of lands in Meyyur village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District including those that are subject matter of the above appeals were acquired at the requisition of the Department of Atomic Energy to meet the requirements of Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25.5.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted award enquiry, before whom the land owners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. On the basis of a sale transaction that took place on 11.6.1985, in which an extent of one cent was sold in S.F.No.151 for Rs.100/-, the said Officer fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per cent. Not being satisfied with such fixation, the land owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the requisition made to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to a Civil Court, the Claimants/Land Owners had stated that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and the same has to be enhanced. Land Owners put forth different claim in the said requisition, which varied from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-.
3. Before the reference Court, both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence. The reference Court disposed of the references by a common Judgment, which is dated 28th July, 1993, fixing the market value at Rs.700/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such fixation, the appellant/State has preferred the above appeals. In some appeals, respondent/Land Owners have filed cross objections.
4. The respondent/Land Owner in A.S.906 of 1995 has filed C.M.P.No.9170 of 2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to receive the document filed, which is a sale deed dated 3.4.1987. The copy that has been filed is a certified copy of sale deed and there can be no difficulty or objection for this Court to take the same on record. In fact, the Court, after hearing the counsel for respective parties, allowed this application. The said document has been marked as Ex.A-4.
5. The question for consideration is whether the fixation of market value by the reference Court at Rs.700/- per cent is just and proper. Or in other words, whether the value fixed at Rs.700/- per cent has to be maintained, reduced or increased.
6. On behalf of the Claimants, four documents are available for consideration and oral evidence of two witnesses CW-1 and CW-2. On behalf of the Government, five documents have been filed and the deposition of Land Acquisition Officer is also made available.
7. The settled legal position is that when the Claimants/Land Owners pray for enhanced compensation, the burden is on them to prove the same. The above appeals have been filed by the State questioning the fixation of market value by the reference Court at Rs.700/- per cent. Hence the evidence that has been let in by both the parties has to be considered.
8. Let us now proceed to consider the documents that are placed before the Court for consideration. Even at this stage it may be mentioned that the oral evidence let in by both the parties is not much helpful for this court to fix the market value.
9. Ex.A-1 is the topo sketch of the Meyyur village. This document gives an idea about the location of various survey numbers.
10. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 12.10.1987. From that it could be seen that an extent of about 10 cents was sold for a consideration of Rs.9,750/-, which would work out to Rs.1,000/- roughly. In the said document it is also mentioned that the guideline value is Rs.2,540/- per cent. Basing on this document it is contended by the Land Owners that the fixation at Rs.700/- per cent is alarmingly low.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning body would contend that S.No.230 is a very vast area and the extent of 10 cents sold is comprised in S.No.230/2A4/B/2 and in the plan available before the Court, it is not clear as to whether it lies on the northern side or middle portion or southern side of S.No.230. That apart, the learned counsel would also contend, that was a vacant plot meant for constructing house and that being so that sale is not a comparable transaction as the lands acquired are agricultural lands with no scope for developing those lands as house sites. The attention of the Court was also drawn by the learned counsel to the fact that there is no evidence available on record that closeby to the acquired land there are important landmarks like school, college, hospital or residential colonies. The learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning body brings to the notice of this Court the Act called Tamil Nadu Nuclear Installations (Regulation of Buildings and Use of Land) Act, 1978. Section 6 of the said Act is to the effect that no person other than the Government or the Central Government or any local authority shall
(a) erect or re-erect a building on any land; or
(b) put to use any agricultural land to any non-agricultural purpose; or,
(c) carry out any engineering, mining or other operation on any land;
within the sterilised area without a licence of the Nuclear Installation Local Authority. Section 2(8) has defined the term "sterilised area" as the area within 4.8 kilometres from any portion of the boundary of such nuclear installation. According to the learned counsel, as the acquired lands are admittedly within the Sterilised area, the persons will be very reluctant to come forward to purchase any portion of the acquired lands for the purpose of putting up construction. The submission that is made is that only the persons who desire to cultivate the land will purchase the acquired lands without any hesitation. Thus, one who requires a plot of land to put up construction in that area or a factory will be very reluctant to buy the acquired lands since he/she has to go before the Nuclear Installation Local Authority to get a licence and again if they want to remodel or reconstruct the house or put the land for a different user, he/she will have to obtain permission. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the requisitioning body submits that Ex.A-2 sale transaction is not a comparable one. On the question of Government itself fixing market value at Rs.2,540/- the learned counsel contended that the market value cannot be fixed on the basis of guideline value fixed by the Government and that apart that is not in respect of the acquired lands.
We have considered the rival contentions and we are of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning body is right in his submission. The acquired lands are admittedly situated in sterilised area. Anybody, who purchases the land to put up a construction must go before the Nuclear Installation Local Authority to get a licence and they have to put up construction as per the conditions of the licence. After so putting up construct, if they want to remodel or put up construction for different use, again they have to go before the said authority and get permission. Similarly, if one desires to put up a small factory, necessary permission has to be obtained. Certainly this would dissuade anybody to come forward to buy the land situated within the sterile area.
Again, as rightly pointed out, S.No.230 is a vast area and that land is outside the sterile area. That apart it is far away from the acquired land and it is not known as to where exactly these ten cents are situated. That being so, it would be rather difficult to accept the sale transaction under Ex.A-2, which is a housing plot as comparable sale transaction. The witnesses, who have been examined by the land owners, have not highlighted the importance of the acquired lands with reference to their location (i.e.,) existence of important landmarks nearby the acquired lands. True, the Government has fixed market value at Rs.2,540/- per cent. But, that is with reference to that land and that cannot be a relevant factor with reference to the acquired lands. That apart, the Court cannot blindly act on that taking that as a basis as held by Supreme Court in (P.Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others) and (U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others).
For the above reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the document Ex.A-2 is of no use to this Court to come to the conclusion with regard to market value.
11. The next document that is available is Ex.A-3. It is a sale transaction that took place on 5.7.1986. Under this document, an extent of 35 cents in S.No.143 was sold for a consideration of Rs.10,500/-, which would work out to Rs.300/- per cent. In fact this is the document that is relied on by the reference Court. If one peruses the plan that is available on record, it would show that it is very close to the data sale. The evidence of the revenue official is to the effect that the distance between the acquired land and data land is three furlongs. This land viz., S.No.143 is just two survey numbers further down south and we can just add one furlong to that. Hence, the distance between the acquired land and S.No.143 is four furlongs. This land obviously was purchased only for agricultural purposes. From the plan it could be seen that this land also comes within the sterile area. That being so, this sale transaction can be treated as comparable sale transaction. But of course there are some plus factors viz., Section 4(1) notification was in April, 1988 and that the sale took place about two years prior to that. Secondly the acquired lands abut the east coast canal while the other land in S.No.143 is somewhat interior. At this stage, we confine to say that the reference Court is right in taking this sale transaction into consideration as comparable one.
12. The document now filed before this Court is marked as Ex.A-4 and under which an extent of 10 cents was sold at the rate of Rs.1,650/- per cent. That property is part of S.No.158 and the sub-division number is given as 74/A1. It could be seen that S.No.158 is of large area. The plan that is provided is not containing various sub divisions of main survey number. Hence it is not known as to where exactly this property is situated. However, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners pointing out the words in that document used while describing the boundary, which reads as under, "bka;a{h; ckhp (Fg;gj;Jf;F) gf;fk;/ ghl;ilf;F bjw;F"
would contend that it must be somewhere in the middle of the said survey number. In the absence of a plan indicating the sub-divisions, it would be rather difficult to locate the said extent in the plan with the help of few words referred supra. But one thing to be certain that this extent is also beyond the sterile area and the said property was purchased only for the purpose of putting up construction. Thirdly, this land is far away from the acquired land. Here again, the market value fixed is at Rs.1,650/- for that land may not be of any relevance for us to fix the market value of this land. The above reasons would persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that the said sale transaction is not a comparable one.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the land owners drew the attention of this Court to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and pointing out certain sale instances submitted that in those cases the price fetched in respect of the closeby lands was much higher. Admittedly, the copies of those sale transactions have not been marked. Materials not having been placed before this Court, this Court cannot act on the sales statistics given in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. (See: (Chimanlal v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Poona)).
14. On behalf of the Revenue, Ex.B-1 has been marked. It is a certified copy of sale transaction under which an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.151 was sold on 10th June, 1985 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-. In fact, this is the document that has been relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondents/land owners have examined the purchaser under the said document and who has deposed that at the time of purchase the land was uneven and that he purchased the property from the owner, who is residing at Madras, for a cheaper price. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the State that the said sale transaction is a comparable one for various reasons viz., this land was sold as a house site and the transaction took place three years prior to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
15. Now, having analysed various documents filed before the Court, this court has to consider whether the fixation of Rs.700/- as market value by the reference Court placing reliance on the sale transaction in respect of 30 cents of land comprised in S.No.143, is correct. This Court has already pointed out that the said sale transaction is comparable one and that also comes within the sterile area. CW-1, who has been examined by the Land owners has not deposed that in and around the acquired lands, there are important landmarks and that there is a scope for developing them into house sites. This Court has also pointed out that the acquired lands come within the sterile area and if at all anybody comes forward readily to purchase, only those who mainly desire to carry on agricultural work, which should mean, but for the acquisition, the prospective purchasers of the lands in question will certainly be limited in number. Taking Ex.A-3 as basis, this Court has to add some amount while fixing the market value for two reasons viz., the notification is two years subsequent to Ex.A-3 and secondly the acquired lands abut east coast canal and that further three crops are raised every year, whereas S.No.143 that is subject matter of Ex.A-3 is somewhat interior. In fact, the case of the respondent/land owners is the price of the acquired land was increasing year by year. Taking an over all view in the matter, and doing some guess work, which necessarily the Court has to do in cases of this nature, this Court is of the view that the market value of Rs.600/- per cent would be proper in all these cases.
16. It is made clear that for the purpose of Section 23(1)(A) of the Act, the date of commencement is 27.4.1988.
17. In the result, the above appeals are allowed in part and the market value of the acquired lands is fixed at Rs.600/- per cent. No costs. Consequently the connected cross objections are dismissed. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.