Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs R.Srinivasan on 6 July, 2009
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH A.S (MD). Nos.548 to 551 of 1996 A.S (MD). Nos.750 to 752 of 1996, 228 to 231 of 1997 and 497 to 500 of 1997 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 13157 to 13164, 7746 to 7748 of 1997 and 11244 , 11247 of 1999 and Cros. Obj. Nos.133 of 1997, 85 of 1997, 25 of 1998, 52 of 1998, 50 of 1998, 36 of 1999 and 109 of 2001 The Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, Sivakasi ... Petitioner in AS.No.548 of 1996 vs. 1.R.Srinivasan 2.Radhakrishnan 3.Thiruvengadasamy 4.The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Elllis Nagar, Madurai ... Respondents in AS.No.548 of 1996 PRAYER in AS.No.548 of 1996 Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the order dated 18.07.1995 passed in I.A. No.53 of 1988 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur. !For Petitioner in AS.No.548 of 1996 ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader ^For Respondents in AS.No.548 of 1996 R1 ... Mr.V.Radhakrishnan R2 & R3 ... Mr.Govi Ganesan R4 ... Mr.P.Thilakkumar * * * * * :COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court wherein, the valuation has been fixed by the Court below at sum of Rs.2,500/- per cent, thereby enhancing the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.17,784/- per hectare the above appeals have been filed. Similarly the cross appeals have been filed by the respondents/claimants seeking enhancement for a sum of Rs.3,500/- per cent.
2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
Lands in Survey Nos.89 to 93 of Pandanthal village, Sattur Taluk were acquired for the purpose of construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing board under the Sivakasi Neighbourhood Scheme. The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 23.04.1986. Thereafter, an award has been passed in Award No.5 of 1984 dated 23.12.1987 fixing a sum of Rs.17,784/- per hectare. The Reference Court has enhanced the sum to Rs.2,500/- per cent. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Sivakasi. The respondents/claimants in the appeals have also filed cross appeals.
3. In view of the fact that in all the cases, the 4(1) Notification is the same and also in view of the fact that the same award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced to Rs.2,500/- by the Reference Court in different judgments and decrees, the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
4. The Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no basis for fixing the amount at Rs.2,500/- per cent by the Reference Court. Further the sale deed relied upon by the claimants are all for smaller extent of land and the lands acquired are agricultural lands. It is further submitted that the Court below has committed an error in not making suitable deductions towards the developmental charges and also for relying upon the sale deeds which are for lesser extent. The learned Government Pleader has also contended that Ex.B1 ought to have been taken into consideration for fixing the value.
5. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and the cross objectors, that the lands acquired are having huge potentiality. The lands are surrounded by 100 Match Factories, 150 other factories, 100 Match Trading Companies, 15 Commission Sandies, Co- operative Match Societies, 2 Candle Manufacturing Industries and 7 Ginning Factories. It is further submitted that the lands are adjoining Sattur Municipality. It was further submitted that the lands are adjoining Chennai- Kanyakumari National Highways. According to the learned counsel that Sattur Municipality is the Taluk Headquarters of Ramanathapuram District. Apart from that there are residential colonies, petrol bunks, power station, rice mills and schools surrounding the area. The learned counsel has also submitted that in view of the potentiality of the land, the amount fixed is very low and therefore there must be an enhancement of Rs.1,000/- per cent. According to the learned counsel for the respondents that no doubt the valuation for the previous years acquisition for the same scheme have been covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in As.Nos.948, 949 and 978 of 1990 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has fixed a sum of Rs.1,630/- per cent, however the Division Bench has taken into consideration Ex.A2 and Ex.A6 sale deeds alone for consideration and the valuation mentioned in Ex.A9 was not taken into consideration, for the only reason that the vendor of the said document was not examined. According to the learned counsel that the said finding has been given based upon the law prevailing at that point of time and in view of the subsequent change in law by which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the vendor of the document need not be examined while considering the valuation fixed therein Ex.A9 will have to taken into consideration.
6. Heard the counsels for the appellant as well as the respondents. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the fact that the earlier acquisition of lands which was the subject matter of AS. Nos.948, 949 and 978 of 1990 dated 02.02.2001 are from the same village and for the same purpose they have been acquired. The 4(1) Notification was published in the earlier Division Bench's case on 10.07.1985 and the document relied upon by the claimants in the earlier case were also the same. The Hon'ble Division Bench has taken into consideration of document No.2 and 6 and on that basis fixed the valuation. The Hon'ble High Court has declined to consider Ex.A9 on the ground that the vendor of the document has not been examined. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court, that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench has become final. The Hon'ble Division Bench has made a deduction of 1/3rd of the valuation fixed towards the developmental charges. The further difference between the earlier case and the present case is that the difference in the period of Notification. Therefore, the only question for consideration before this Hon'ble Court is as to whether what is the amount that could be fixed over and above the amount fixed by the Hon'ble Court earlier.
7. It is well settled principle of law that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in an earlier occasion can be taken into consideration for fixing the value for subsequent Notification. Therefore this Court will have to proceed keeping the valuation fixed by the Hon'ble High Court earlier in mind while fixing the valuation in the present cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ex.A9 was not looked into by the Hon'ble High Court earlier only on the ground that the vendor has not been examined. Therefore according to the learned counsel that a sum of Rs.3,500/- will have to be fixed per cent. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that Ex.A9 is dated 24.06.1985 and the publication of 4(1) Notification having been made on 23.04.1986, an increase of 12% should be made on that basis from the valuation fixed under Ex.A9.
8. In the judgment reported in 2004 8 SCC 270 (Cement Corporation of India Limited vs. Purya and others), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the non-examination of the vendor or vendee of a sale deed is not required while considering the said sale deed for fixing the valuation. The said judgment is also followed by the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court reported in 2005 13 SCC 63 (Pattammal and others vs. Union of India and another). Therefore this court is of the opinion that on a consideration of the relevant material Ex.A9 can be taken into consideration while fixing the valuation.
9. It is also to be seen that it is not the case of the appellant that Ex.A9 land is far away from the acquired lands. While fixing the valuation, the Court has to sit in the armchair of the willing seller and purchaser and decide the valuation. While fixing the valuation on the basis of comparable sale transaction, the transaction fetching the maximum price and most advantageous to the claimants have to be taken into consideration. It has been held by Hon'ble Division Bench in 2003 1 MLJ 781 (The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3, Tiruvallur vs. Rathinareddi), that while fixing the valuation, the value beneficial to the claimants should be taken into consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above said facts, Ex.A9 will have to be taken into consideration. In fact in the judgment reported in 2008 11 SCC 65 (State of Haryanan vs. Gurubagsingh and others), it has been held that the earlier judgment will be a relevant and important factor for fixing the valuation for subsequent acquisition of lands.
10. In so far as the development charges are concerned, the Court below has taken into consideration of the said charges and made deductions by deducting 1/3rd of the valuation. However, in so far as the reliance made by the Reference Court in Ex.A2, Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 are concerned being sale deeds containing smaller extent of land, the Reference Court has not made any deductions towards the same. Admittedly in the cases on hand, the lands acquired are undeveloped agricultural lands. Therefore suitable deductions ought to have been made. In this connection, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench in the judgment, the Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode vs Ramayiammal and others reported in 2009 (1) CTC 467, where it has been held that there shall be a deduction of 20% while relying upon smaller extent of land. Therefore following the same in the present case on hand a deduction of 20% will have to be made.
11. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, Ex.A9 is of the year 1985, whereas the Notification under Section 4(1) has been published on 23.04.1986. Therefore, an enhanced amount should be fixed from Ex.A9, considering the future development and potentiality of the land. In these cases, it is admitted by the RW1 about the huge potentiality of the lands and the developments made surrounding the lands acquired. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 2008 11 SCC 65 (State of Haryana vs. Gurubag singh and others), wherein an enhancement of 12% p.a every has been made. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2009 (1) CTC 467 (the Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode vs. Ramayiammal and others), has observed that while following the judgment reported in 2008 11 Scale 637 (the General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Ramesh Bai Jeevan Bai Patel and another), has held that there shall be an increase of 10% from the previous year in so far as the market value is concerned. In the cases on hand, Ex.A9 is dated 24.06.1985 and the publication of the 4(1) Notification was on 23.04.1986. Therefore, taking into consideration of the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that an enhancement of 10% can be made out of the valuation fixed at Rs.3,500/- per year. Therefore, considering the above said facts, the valuation is fixed at Rs.3,500/- per cent and after taking into consideration of 1/3rd deduction towards the development charges as deducted by the Hon'ble Division Bench earlier and deducting 20% for relying upon the sale deeds containing smaller extent of land and adding 10% towards increase in the land value after Ex.A9 this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.2,053.07/- can be fixed and the same can be rounded of to Rs.2,055/- per cent. It is also made clear that the claimants are entitled to get the solatium, interest and other statutory benefits provided under the Act. Hence the judgment and decree of the Reference Court is hereby modified by fixing the valuation at a sum of Rs.2,055/- per cent with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the cross appeals are dismissed. The appellants are given time to deposit the amount ordered by this Court before the Court below within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps are closed.
cs To
1.The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Elllis Nagar, Madurai
2.The Learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur