Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar(L.A) vs Thiyagarajan on 18 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 423
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.3220, 3226, 3232, 3235 & 3236 of 2020
A.S.No.265 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar(L.A)
Unit II Arasu Cements Factory,
Ariyalur. ..Appellant
vs.
1.Thiyagarajan
2.Saminathan
3.Natchathiram
4.Deputy General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation,
Arasu Cements Factory
Ariyalur. ..Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against
the judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Ariyalur in
LAOP.No.11/2001 dated 16.02.2017.
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
A.S.No.269 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar(L.A)
Unit II Arasu Cements Factory,
Ariyalur. ..Appellant
vs.
1.Chinnapillai
2.Managing Director,
Arasu Cements Corporation,
Chennai.
3.Deputy General Manager,
Arasu Cements Factory
Ariyalur. ..Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against
the judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Ariyalur in
LAOP.No.72/2003 dated 16.02.2017.
A.S.No.270 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar(L.A)
Unit II Arasu Cements Factory,
Ariyalur. ..Appellant
vs.
1.Karuppaiyan
2.Managing Director,
Arasu Cements Corporation,
No.735, IInd Floor, LLA Building,
Annasalai, Chennai.
3.Deputy General Manager,
Arasu Cements Factory, Ariyalur. ..Respondents
2/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against
the judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Ariyalur in
LAOP.No.132/2000 dated 03.03.2017.
A.S.No.271 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit-II,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
Ariyalur. ..Appellant
vs.
1.Palanisamy
2.Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai.
3.Deputy General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd.,
Ariyalur. ..Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against
the judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Ariyalur in
LAOP.No.119/2000 dated 03.02.2017.
A.S.No.272 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit-II,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
Ariyalur. ..Appellant
vs.
3/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
1.Samithurai
2.Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai.
3.Deputy General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation,
Ariyalur. ..Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against
the judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Ariyalur in
LAOP.No.23/2003 dated 03.02.2017.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader(AS)
[in all A.S]
COMMON JUDGMENT
The issues involved in the First Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. The appeal suits are filed, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur in the following L.A.O.Ps:
L.A.O.P.Nos. Dated A.S.Nos.
L.A.O.P.No.11/2001 16.02.2017 A.S.No.265/2020
L.A.O.P.No.72/2003 16.02.2017 A.S.No.269/2020
L.A.O.P.No.132/2000 03.03.2017 A.S.No.270/2020
L.A.O.P.No.119/2000 03.02.2017 A.S.No.271/2020
L.A.O.P.No.23/2003 03.02.2017 A.S.No.272/2020
4/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
2. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Special Tahsildar in order to establish a Government cement factory for the public purposes. Acquisition of 300 acres were done in that particular area and the Land Acquisition Officer relying on three documents in respect of the sale of adjacent lands, fixed the compensation as Rs.300/- per cent. Those three sale deeds referred by the Land Acquisition Officer were pertains to the private sale between two private persons and the sale occurred without having any knowledge about the acquisition or the establishment of a Government cement factory in that locality. Thus, it is to be construed that the sale was executed without understanding the fact regarding the possible hike in cost in respect of the lands acquired. Subsequently, the lands were acquired and the cement factory is established and it is an admitted fact that the Government cement factory is situated adjacent to the Ramco Cements and under those circumstances, the LAOP Court relied on two sale deeds registered by the Management of Ramco Cements, wherein the sale consideration was Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,363/- respectively. These two documents were relied on by the claimants. 5/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 Ramco Cements situated adjacent to the cement factory, executed a sale in favour of the some private lands owners. Those two documents were marked by the claimants before the trial Court and accordingly Rs.1,500/- per cent in one document and Rs.1,363/- in another document is found. The Trial Court weighed the nature of the documents and the sale executed between these properties in respect of the documents marked as documents by both the parties. On one hand, three documents were relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer and those three documents are in relation to private sale and occurred without having any knowledge about the development of Government cement factory or otherwise. As far as the other two documents are concerned, the adjacent cement factory Management namely Ramco Cements, executed a sale deed and purchased the portion of the land from Private persons and the Ramco Cements paid Rs.1,500/- per cent and Rs.1,363/- per cent respectively. Taking note of these documents, LAOP Court arrived a conclusion that Rs.1,200/- would be the just compensation for the claimants to be paid by the Government. The trial Court considered the nature of the documents as well as the locational advantages and also the character of the land, 6/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 which was acquired. The trial Court in clear terms, arrived a conclusion that the compensation of Rs.300/- per cent is very less and absolutely inadequate. Rs.300/- per cent is not only unacceptable. It is not a fair fixation by the Land Acquisition Officer. After arrived such a conclusion, the LAOP Court further proceeded in considering two documents filed by the claimants and three documents filed by the LAOP officer. While considering these documents, the trial Court made a finding that the three documents relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, where the private transactions between the Private persons and those persons were unaware of the fact regarding the establishment of a Government Cement factory. Therefore, such a sale cannot be considered as a bench mark for the purpose of fixing a just compensation for the claimants. However, the genuinity of the transactions made by the Management of Ramco Cements can be relied upon as the Ramco Cements company is situated adjacent to the Government cement factory and the nature of the establishment is also one and the same. Thus, the trial Court had taken a decision to rely on these two documents filed by the claimants, one stating that Rs.1,500/- per cent is the sale consideration and another Rs.1,363/- per cent as sale 7/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 consideration. Taking note of these two documents, the trial Court arrived a conclusion that Rs.1,200/- per cent, would be the just compensation.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated that there is no reason to consider those two documents as the distance between the acquired lands as well as the purchased lands by the Ramco Cements is far away and therefore, the enhancement of compensation is perverse. The Land Acquisition Officer produced three documents in respect of the sale took place in the adjacent lands and those documents are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent claimant disputed the contentions by stating that various factors are considered by the LAOP Court and more specifically, the nature of the land is similar and the acquired lands are also to be utilized for the purpose of establishing a cement factory and the sale document produced by the claimants are also in relation to the sale of land to the 8/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 adjacent cement factory. Thus, there is no infirmity as such and the trial Court rightly fixed the compensation of Rs.1,200/- per cent and consequently, the appeal suits are liable to be rejected.
5. Considering all these factors, this Court is of an opinion that it is an admitted fact that the lands were acquired for establishing a Government cement factory. Further it is admitted that adjacent to the acquired land, the Ramco Cements is also running a cement factory. Thus, both the acquired land as well as the Ramco Cements campus is situated adjacent and accordingly, the trial Court had taken the sale document submitted by the claimants, wherein they could able to establish that the Ramco Cements purchased the land, which is adjacent to the acquired land for Rs.1,500/- per cent and Rs.1,363/- per cent. With reference to the other three documents filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is brought to the Notice of this Court that the sale took place prior to the acquisition and the purchaser and the seller, who all are the private persons, did not aware of the fact regarding the establishment of a Government cement factory in that locality. Thus, the sale consideration in that document cannot be relied 9/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 upon as the value of the land was correctly assessed in the case of Ramco Cements sale and under these circumstances, the Trial Court also relied upon those two sale deeds submitted by the claimants and arrived a conclusion that Rs.1,200/- per cent would be appropriate and a just compensation.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that distance alone cannot be the criteria for the purpose of fixing a just compensation. Even in case, where the distance is less, the character and nature of the land may differ in some cases, where there is a distance. The nature of the land may be one and the same and under those circumstances, the value fixed for that land is to be fixed for the acquired land. The factors leading for fixation are to be the considered for granting compensation. The factors in respect of the present case is concerned, not only the distance, but the nature of the land and the purpose, for which, the land is acquired as well as the nature of the documents produced by the respective parties before the trial Court. The lands are acquired admittedly for the purpose of establishing a cement factory. Ramco Cements is situated adjacent to the acquired 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 land. Ramco Cements just before the acquisition, purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- per cent and Rs.1,363/- per cent. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the sale of private persons was done without having the knowledge regarding establishing a Government Cement Factory in that locality. Taking note of all these factors and considering the nature of the land and for the purpose for which it is established, this Court is of an opinion that there is no perversity or infirmity in respect of the enhancement of compensation made by the LAOP Court as against the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. The Courts have to adopt a liberal approach in respect of fixing a just compensation for the land losers, who all are contributing their land for public purposes. Undoubtedly, right of property being a constitutional right, the land acquisition is an exception for the purpose of acquiring the land to utilize the same for public purposes. Under these circumstances, the land losers are loosing their property right and fixation of just compensation is of paramount importance. At any cost, the claimant should not feel that they have not received an 11/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 adequate compensation for their property. Under those circumstances, what would be the best value for the land, is to be ascertained carefully by the acquisition officer and as well as by the Courts, while dealing with the enhancement or fixation of compensation.
8. In the present case, admittedly, the acquired lands is utilized for the purpose of establishing a cement factory. Cement factory is a commercial venture. No doubt, the products are going on to be utilized for public purposes. Still it is a commercial venture and therefore, the Court should consider that the fixation of compensation should not be less than that of the one, which shall be adequate and with reference to the land value of the adjacent lands, which all are situated nearby to that locality.
9. This being the facts and circumstances to be considered for fixing of fair and just compensation, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the LAOP Court has not committed any error or perversity in respect of considering the two documents filed by the claimants, which all are nothing but the sale deeds executed by the 12/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 Management of Ramco Cements for purchase of lands for the explanation of their cement factory. Thus, the guidelines adopted by the trial Court is in consonance with the established principles and taking note of the value fixed in these two documents, the trial Court fixed Rs.1,200/-, which is less than that of the consideration fixed in those two documents produced by the claimants. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation enhanced by the trial Court and accordingly, the enhancement stands confirmed.
10. The learned Special Government Pleader made a submission that the LAOP Court has committed an error in not deducting the development charges, which is mandatory as per the statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in several judgments, held that the development charges may be fixed up to 75%, considering the facts and circumstances as well as the purpose, for which, the lands are acquired. Thus, the deduction of development charges is mandatory and the quantum of deduction can be ascertained based on the nature of the land and for the purpose, for which, the lands are acquired. 13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
11. In the present case, the lands are acquired for developing a cement factory, which is a commercial project and therefore, it cannot be construed as a non profitable industry. The Government may not yield more profit. However, it is to be considered that a cement factory is established and under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to fix 25% as development charges. This being the factum, the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Ariyalur in the L.A.O.P.Nos., which were mentioned in the above tabular column are confirmed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as Rs.1,200/- per cent. However, the appellant is permitted to deduct the development charges of 25% proportionately with reference to the lands acquired from the respective claimants. It is made clear that in respect of all other aspects, the claimants are entitled to get the benefit as per the decree passed by the Trial Court. The appellants are directed to settle the entire compensation amount within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 14/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020
12. With this modification, the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Ariyalur in the the following L.A.O.P.Nos. stand confirmed:
L.A.O.P.Nos. Dated A.S.Nos.
L.A.O.P.No.11/2001 16.02.2017 A.S.No.265/2020
L.A.O.P.No.72/2003 16.02.2017 A.S.No.269/2020
L.A.O.P.No.132/2000 03.03.2017 A.S.No.270/2020
L.A.O.P.No.119/2000 03.02.2017 A.S.No.271/2020
L.A.O.P.No.23/2003 03.02.2017 A.S.No.272/2020
13. Consequently, all the First Appeals stand partly-allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.02.2020 Index : Yes Internet: Yes Speaking order Kak 15/16 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kak To The Sub Court, Ariyalur.
A.S.Nos.265, 269 to 272 of 2020 18.02.2020 16/16 http://www.judis.nic.in