Madras High Court
Anandan (Deceased) ... 1St vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2022
Bench: T.Raja, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
A.S.No.566 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 10.01.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 10.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.566 of 2018
1.Anandan (Deceased) ... 1st Claimant/1st Appellant
2.Kuppu ... 2nd Claimant/2nd Appellant
3.Mari ... 3rd Claimant/3rd Appellant
4.Rajambal
5.Ponnamalai
6.Rajapuchpam
7.Valarmathy ... Appellants/LRs of First Appellant
Appellants 2 & 3 LRs of the deceased First Appellant already on record and
Appellants 4 to 7 brought on record as LRs of the deceased First Appellant
vide Court order, dated 05.01.2018 made in C.M.P.No.18179 of 2017 in
A.S.SR.No.88770 of 2014 (K.K.S.J., & P.V.J.,)
Versus
1.Union of India,
Rep. By Secretary to Govt., (Revenue Dept.),
Government of Puducherry,
Having office at Chief Secretariat,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
A.S.No.566 of 2018
Goubert Salai, Puducherry – 605001. ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent
2.The Sub-Collector (Rev.) (North)-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer,
Kamaraj Salai, Saram,
Puducherry – 605013. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Prayer : First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 to set aside the award, dated 23.07.2014 and made in L.A.O.P.No.14
of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court at Puducherry
in so far as rejecting the claim of the Appellants to the extent of
Rs.17,44,20,388/- worked out at the rate of Rs.678/- per Sq.ft over and
above the sum of Rs.100/- fixed by the lower Court and fix the
compensation at the rate of Rs.778 per Sq.ft and allow the appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Mahimai Raj
For Respondents : M/s.N.Mala,
Government Pleader
for Pondicherry
Assisted by Mr.Alexander
Government Advocate
(Pondicherry)
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment was made by Mr.Justice.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy) The Appeal Suit:
This Appeal Suit in A.S.No.566 of 2018 is filed by the Appellants/Landowners aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2010 dated 23/07/2014 and praying for further enhancement of value of their https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 lands at the rate of Rs. 778/- per sq. ft.
Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeal Suit:
2. The appellants are the owners of the lands comprised in R.S.No.25/2, admeasuring 02.39.00 Hectares (2,57,257.21 sq. ft) in Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Puducherry. By a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 09/06/2006, the said extent was acquired along with larger extent for expansion for Airport/facilities. Section 6 Declaration was published on 25/04/2007.
3. On 28/11/2006, the Land Acquisition officer inspected the acquired lands and made notes of valuation. The L.A.O took note of a total number of 874 sales effected during the relevant period that is for a period one year preceding the 4(1) notification (08/07/2005 to 07/07/2006). Of the sales data collected, he rejected 78 sales data on the ground that those were sales along with superstructures. Thereafter, he rejected 45 sales data on the ground that they relate to sale of less than 500 sq. ft. He further rejected 576 sales data on the ground that there are faraway and finally retained 175 sales data. Out of the retained, the highest was in Sl. No. 164 at the rate of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 Rs. 167/- per sq.ft. was rejected on the ground that the sale was transacted on 01/02/2006 anticipating acquisition. The next highest data in Sl.No.128 at Rs.66/- was taken and by giving standard deduction of 33.3% deduction towards developmental charges, assessed a value at Rs. 41/-. Since the guideline value was Rs. 60/- more than the assessed value, he took the same.
4. Thereafter, an award was passed in award No.1/2009 dated 21.01.2009 at the said rate of Rs.60 per sq. ft. In respect of the lands in question, the Land Acquisition officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the rightful claimant to receive the award and the said reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.199 of 2009 and, by an award dated 09.09.2009, it was held that all the three claimants were entitled to one-third each. Thereafter, as per the requisition of the appellants made earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining higher compensation and the same was taken on file L.A.O.P.No. 14/2010.
5. A claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming to enhance the value at Rs. 778 per sq. ft. The same was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter. Thereafter, all the three claimants, namely Anandan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 Kuppu and Mary, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-5, copies of the sale deeds were marked on their behalf. The Land Acquisition Officer examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Trial Court, thereafter, considering the contention of either side and the evidence on record found that no independent sale deed was filed by the claimants. The Exs.P-1 to P-5 are the sale deeds found in the data of the respondent and the respondent had rejected them already by giving various reasons. Therefore, the Court on its own held that it is safe and correct to fix the value at Rs.100 per sq. ft. and accordingly enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal suit has been filed before this Court.
The Contentions in the Appeal Suit:
7. In the present Appeal Suit, originally the claimants also filed ten additional documents which included eight sale deeds during the period 2005-06 and photographs of the acquired land. The purpose of filing the said additional documentary evidence is that, during the hearing of the Appeal Suit, the then Bench observed whether it is possible to produce more https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 sale deeds than the ones already marked in the trial so as to throw more light on the actual market value. And, therefore, the additional evidence, producing the said sale deeds which were part of the sales data originally compiled by the respondent. The Government Pleader had filed her response by listing the documents filed both originally along with L.A.O.P and along with the C.M.P.No.6666 of 2021 as additional documents by offering remarks as to why the same cannot be taken into account.
8. Again, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.S.Mahimai Raj, would submit that even though the additional documents are produced, as per the original documents marked before the Trial Court itself, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation. He would submit that the documents marked by the appellants in Exs.P-1 to P-5 form part of the sales data produced by the respondent themselves, within the check period of one year. Therefore, that lends additional credence to the documents and the Trial Court erred in rejecting the same only on the ground that they form part of the respondent’s sales data. He would further submit that the highest among the comparable data should be taken and Ex.P-1 being at the rate of Rs. 777.77 per sq. ft. should be taken into account and, rounding it off, the appellant’s https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 claim of Rs. 778 per sq. ft. should be allowed.
9. Opposing the above submissions, Mrs.N.Mala, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the sales data has been scientifically taken into account and considered by the respondent/L.A.O. And even though the assessed value was only Rs.
41/-, Rs. 60 was given. The Trial Court has already, on a compassionate basis, enhanced it to Rs. 100 which itself is on the higher side. She would submit that the concerned data taken that is Sale Item No. 517 is in respect of the very adjacent land itself, and the other sales data now relied upon by the appellants are far away and are incomparable. The topography of the entire Karuvadikuppam village will change drastically in respect of every survey number and it would be completely unscientific to compare distant Survey Nos. It is her submission that Ex.R-4 sales data is within the acquired land itself and when data is available within the acquired land, there is no need to travel further and she relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors -Vs- State of Maharashtra1 . And therefore, she would pray that the appeal suit be dismissed.
1 1996 (2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SCC 152 7/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 The Points for Consideration :
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, and we have perused the records. The points for consideration that arise in this Appeal Suit are :
(i) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court fixing Rs.100/- per sq.ft. As market value is in order?
(ii) What is the market value to be fixed in respect of the appellants lands?
Question No. 1 :
11. First, the Judgment of the Trail Court does not deserve acceptance as the reasoning given that the sale deeds from the sales data given should not be relied upon is incorrect in law and is without any basis. As submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that being part of the sales data collected by the L.A.O itself adds to credence of Exs.P-1 to P-5. No other reasoning is given by the trial court to arrive at the value of the land.
Without any basis whatsoever, the Trial Court fixed the market value at Rs.100/- and therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the fixation of market value by the Trial Court at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft is not in order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 Question No. 2 :
12. In order to fix the correct market value, it is necessary to advert to the evidence on record and the additional evidence sought to be let in before us. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants restricting their claim to the originally marked documents, we are not inclined to take into account the additional documents produced on behalf of the appellants and, hence, the C.M.P.No. 6666 of 2021 shall stand dismissed.
13. The appellants have produced the following documents:-
(i) Ex.P-1 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 03.08.2005 executed by the second appellant, by which, she sold the land measuring to an extent of 1800 Sq.ft bering R.S.No.52/1 in favour of one J.Anbaracy at the rate of Rs.777.77/- per Sq.ft;
(ii) Ex.P-2 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 27.10.2005 executed by one V.Subbaiah, by which, he old the land measuring to an extent of 1800 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.82/2 at the rate of Rs.375/- per Sq.ft in favour of one M.P.Latha;
(iii) Ex.P-3 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 28.10.2005 executed by one B.K.Govindasamy, by which, he sold the land measuring to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 an extent of 1200 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.83/1A at the rate of Rs.666366/- per Sq.ft in favour of one Savari Jerard;
(iv) Ex.P-4 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 20.02.2006 executed by one K.R.Thiyagarajan, by which, he sold the land measuring to an extent of 1800 Sq.ft. Bearing Survey Nos.121/5/A1, 121/5/A2 at the rate of Rs.611.11/- per Sq.ft in favour of one Pilomina Rajan; and
(v) Ex.P-5 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 31.05.2006 executed by one R.Manickam, by which, he sold the land measuring to an extent of 4712 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.16/6A at the rate of Rs.200.12/- per Sq.ft in favour of one S.Samundiswary.
By producing the aforesaid documents, learned Counsel for the appellants requested us to fix either Rs.777.77/- per Sq.ft as per Ex.P-1 or atleast Rs.375/- per Sq.ft as per Ex.P-2.
14. Let us examine the issue as per the parameters followed by the Land Acquisition Officer in his notes of valuation dated 28.11.2006. The first filter adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is that the sales effected along with superstructure are incomparable and rejected. In that view of the matter, Exs.P-1, P-3 and P-4 will stand excluded from consideration. The second filter adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is to weed out the sale https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 of less than 500 sq. ft. Exs.P-2 and P-5 are more than 500 sq. ft. and therefore can be considered. The third parameter adopted for rejecting 566 sales data is that the sales are far away. However, the notes of inspection do not specifically mention as to the exact distance criteria adopted by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting the sales as far away. However, he has retained 175 sales data even after adopting the distance criteria. The Respondent/ Land Acquisition officer in his cross examination admits that Ex.P-1 is very near to the acquired land but, however, the same is not considered only because there was superstructure. Therefore, we find from the Topo-Sketch produced before us, that the lands in respect of the 175 retained sales data and Exs.P-1 to P-5 are comparable and located in the same vicinity and are similarly situated. Of the five comparable sales data relied on by the appellants, Exs.P-2 and P-5 alone relate to vacant land.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellants submited that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & others -Vs- State of Punjabe & others2, we have to take the value as per Ex.P-1, which is Rs.777/- per Sq.ft. But, however, as stated above, the document in Ex.P-1 is incomparable because the value 2 2012 (3) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CTC 396 11/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 of Rs.777/- also includes the value of the superstructure consisting of ground, first and second floors. As a matter of fact, if the value of the building is excluded the land value may be even marginal lesser than Ex.P-
2. Therefore, as concluded by as above, we hold that Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5 alone are the payable exemplaries As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned judgment in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot case, has held in paragraph No.15 as follows:-
“15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition“ Therefore, since the value under Ex.P-2 is Rs.375/- and the value under Ex.P-5 is Rs.200/- by following the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ex.P-2, being the highest value of Rs.375/-, is taken as the market value of the acquired land.
16. The entire Karuvadikuppam revenue village is a developed urban https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 area, forming the part of the Puducherry city. The value contained in Ex.P-
2, according to us would reflect the fair market value at the relevant point of time. Since the said plot is only of an extent of 1800 Sq.ft, and the large extent if plotted out, towards development, roads, public space etc., space have to be left out for the same. Further considering the low lying nature and the need to fill up the plot and develop it by standing developed authorities etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as in the judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas -Vs- Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another3, as laid down the broad guidelines which are to be considered by this Court, while fixing the market value in paragraph No.4 of the judgment and in paragraph Nos.4.12 to 4.14 held as follows:-
“12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
3 1988 3 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 751
13/18
A.S.No.566 of 2018
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior
at a distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the
area. depressed portion to be
filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special under
acquisition disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.“
7. special value for an owner
of an adjoining property
to whom it may have some
very special advantage.
17. Thereafter, in paragraph No.12 taking into consideration the facts of that case made a reduction of 25% by holding as follows:-
“In the result appellant must be awarded compensation at Rs.7,000 per acre subject to deduction or allowance of 25% to account for land required to be set apart for roads, open spaces etc. In other words appellant will be entitled to be paid compensation for 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 at Rs.5,250 per acre (Rs.7,000 less 25% i.e. Iess 1750=Rs.5,250) in place of the lesser sum awarded by the High Court. Appeal must be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 partly allowed to this extent accordingly.“
18. Considering the extent, being 1800 Sq.ft in Ex.P-2 and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that some parts of the land are even low lying, we adopt the maximum standard deduction i.e., 1/3rd of the value and accordingly, by taking a sum of Rs.125/- or the sum of Rs.375/-, we fix Rs.250/- as the market value of the appellants property.
19. Adopting, the same, the compensation is enhanced and fixed as follows :
Extent of Land of the Appellants in R.S. No. 25/2 , as per Award No.1/2009 dated 21/01/2009 : 02.39.00 Hectares (2,57,257.21 sq.ft)
(i) Market Value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 250 /- per sq.ft. : Rs.6,43,14,302.50p
(ii) 30% Solatium as per Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act : Rs.1,92,94,290.80p
(iii) 12% interest as per Section 23(1) of the Act from the Date of 4(1) notification to Award, that is, from 07/07/2006 to 23/07/2007 (382 days) : Rs. 80,77,171.52p Total Compensation Payable : Rs.9,16,85,764.82p The appellants would be entitled for statutory interest as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation. From the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 amount payable as enhanced compensation, the amount already paid to the petitioner be deducted.
The Result :
20. In the result :
(i) The appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,16,85,764.82 p;
(ii) The amount is payable with statutory interest as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, after deducting the amounts already paid;
(iii) That the second and third appellants are entitled to 1/3rd each and the appellants 4 to 7 being the legal heirs of the first appellant will be entitled to 1/3rd;
(iv) The appellants are entitled to for one costs.
21. The Appeal suit is allowed in part accordingly. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6666 of 2021 is closed.
(T.R., J.) (D.B.C., J.)
10.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/18
A.S.No.566 of 2018
Index : yes
Internet : yes
Speaking order
grs
To
1.The II Additional District Court, Puducherry.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/18 A.S.No.566 of 2018 T.RAJA, J., and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., grs Pre-Delivery Judgment in A.S.No.566 of 2018 10.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/18