Madras High Court
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs K.N. Singaram on 16 July, 2010
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: Prabha Sridevan, B. Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/07/2010 Coram THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Appeal Suit No. 220 of 2007 Appeal Suit No.105 and 111 of 2008, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 57, 58, 71, 75, 79, 91, 111, 119, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 171, 172, 173, 174 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 215 and 216 of 2009 and 13 and 14 of 2010 and Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009 The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Madurai ..Appellant in all the appeals and Respondent in Cross Objection No.8/2010 /Referring Officer Versus K.N. Singaram .. Respondent in AS 220/2007 S.Meenakshiammal .. Respondent in AS 105/2008 1.R.Radha 2.R.Rajasekhar .. Respondents 1 & 2 in AS 111/2008 1.Kodichiamma(Died) 2.Rohini 3.Selvan 4.Amudha 5.Chandrakala 6.Dhanaraj 7.Bhoopathi ...Respondents in As 21/2009 (Respondents 2 to 7 are recognized as Lrs of the deceased 1st Respondent vide order dated 3/02/2010 and made in AS.21/2009) R.Jeyaraman .. Respondent in AS 23/2009 1.S.P.Natarajan(Died) 2.N.Rajamani 3.Sivarajan .. Respondents in AS 29/2009 (R2 and R3 are impleaded as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order dated 11.12.2010 MP(MD)No.1/2009 in AS.No.29/2009) J.Janakiammal .. Respondent in AS 30/2009 J.Janakiammal .. Respondent in AS 31/2009 N.Narayanan .. Respondent in AS 32/2009 N.Jeenath Bai .. Respondent in AS 33/2009 S.Pandiammal .. Respondent in AS 34/2009 M.S.Sait .. Respondent in AS 35/2009 Dhinamani Bai .. Respondent in AS 36/2009 S.R.Sadasivam .. Respondent in AS 37/2009 S.K.Surendran .. Respondent in AS 38/2009 S.K.Surendran .. Respondent in AS 39/2009 1. S.S.Girija 2. Minor.S.S.Vasanthirani .. Respondents in AS 40/2009 (R2 declared as major R1 discharged from Guardianship vide order dated 19.02.2010 made in MP.No.1/10 in AS.No.40/2009) Annamalai Servai .. Respondent in AS 41/2009 Muthurakammal .. Respondent in AS 42/2009 P.Kamala Bai .. Respondent in AS 43/2009 M.Srinivasan .. Respondent in AS 44/2009 1.M.Senthil 2.M.Saravanan 3.M.Anitha ...Respondents in AS 45/2009 1.Kodichiamma(Died) 2.Rohini 3.Selvan 4.Amudha 5.Chandrakala 6.Dhanaraj 7.Bhoopathi ...Respondents 1 to 7 in As 54/2009 (Respondents 2 to 7 are recognized as Lrs of the deceased1st Respondent vide order dated 3/02/2010 and made in AS.54/2009) P.K.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 57/2009 S.Meenakshi .. Respondent in AS 58/2009 S.R.Sadasivam .. Respondent in AS 71/2009 Dhanalakshmi @ Latha .. Respondent in AS 75/2009 through her Power Agent S.P.Rajendran 1.S.Meenakshiammal 2.Meenakshi 3.Somanathan 4.Narayanan 5.Venkatraman 6.Sivaramakrishnan 7.Ananthalakshmi 8.Mahadevan 9.Akila 10.Krishnan 11.Revathi .. Respondents 1 to 11 in AS 79/2009/ Cross Objectors in Cross objection Dhanalakshmi @ Latha .. Respondent in AS 91/2009 through her Power Agent S.P.Rajendran S.K.Sundaram .. Respondent in AS 111/2009 1.G.Meenakshi 2.A.Kamalam 3.R.Ammani 4.B.Ayothi 5.S.Muthurakku 6.A.Jayanthi 7.A.Akash .. Respondents 1 to 7 in AS 119/2009 1. K.P.Pandi 2. K.P.Dhanaraj 3. K.P.Manoharan 4. M.Dhanalakshmi 5. M.Kalpana 6. M.Indhumathi 7. R.Shanthadevi 8. R.Pandidurai 9. R.Pandeeswari 10.R.Nivas .. Respondents 1 to 10 in AS 140/2009 M.S.Sait .. Respondent in AS 141/2009 through him power agent of T.M.Krishna Rao V.Muniammal .. Respondent in AS 142/2009 S.K.Ravindran .. Respondent in AS 143/2009 S.S.Rama Sundar .. Respondent in AS 144/2009 G.Subramani .. Respondent in AS 145/2009 Dinamani Bai .. Respondent in AS 146/2009 S.S.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 147/2009 S.S.Rama Sundar .. Respondent in AS 148/2009 Namagin .. Respondent in AS 149/2009 G.Krishnaswamy Thevar .. Respondent in AS 150/2009 S.S.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 151/2009 S.K.Ravindran .. Respondent in AS 152/2009 S.S.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 153/2009 Dhinamani Bai .. Respondent in AS 154/2009 Pattu @ Alamelu .. Respondent in AS 155/2009 H.Pudu Usman .. Respondent in AS 156/2009 S.K.Ravindran .. Respondent in AS 157/2009 S.S.Rama Sundaram .. Respondent in AS 158/2009 1. S.S.Mohan Ram(Died) 2. M.Sahunthala 3. Jeyashree .. Respondents in AS 159/2009 (Respondents 2 and 3 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R1 vide order dt.26.02.2010 and made in MP(MD)No.1& 2/2010 in AS.No.159/2009) S.K.Surendran .. Respondent in AS 160/2009 N.Srinivasan .. Respondent in AS 161/2009 H.Pudu Usman .. Respondent in AS 162/2009 through power agent N.Jeenath Beevi K.Namagiri .. Respondent in AS 163/2009 A.Samsu Aliar .. Respondent in AS 164/2009 Muthurakamal .. Respondent in AS 171/2009 1.Vairamani 2.Saravana Vaiyapuri 3.Ramkumar 4.Karthik .. Respondents 1 to 4 in AS 172/2009 and 173 / 2009 1. S.S.Girija 2. S.S.Vasanthirani .. Respondents in AS 175/2009 (R2 declared as major R1 discharged from Guardianship vide order dated 19.02.2010 made in MP.No.1/10 in AS.No.175/2009) Pattu @ Alamelu .. Respondent in AS 176/2009 A.Samsu Aliar .. Respondent in AS 177/2009 1. S.S.Girija 2. S.S.Vasanthirani .. Respondents in AS 178/2009 (R2 declared as major R1 discharged from Guardianship vide order dated 19.02.2010 made in MP.No.1/10 in AS.No.178/2009) 1.R.Venkataraman 2.R.Subramaniyan 3.R.Lakshmanan .. Respondents in AS 179/2009 and the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection 8/2010 P.K.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 180/2009 1.M.Gopalakrishnan 2.M.Balachandran 3.S.Sundaravalli .. Respondents in AS 181/2009 S.R.Sadasivam .. Respondent in AS 182/2009 1.M.Gopalakrishnan 2.M.Balachandran 3.S.Sundaravalli .. Respondents in AS 183/2009 V.Srinivasan .. Respondent in AS 184/2009 V.Srinivasan .. Respondent in AS 185/2009 S.K.Surendran .. Respondent in AS 186/2009 S.P.Natarajan .. Respondent in AS 187/2009 A.Krishnasamy Thevar .. Respondent in AS 188/2009 1.S.Meenakshiammal 2.Meenakshi 3.Somanathan 4.Narayanan 5.Venkatraman 6.Sivaramakrishnan 7.Ananthalakshmi 8.Mahadevan 9.Akila 10.Krishnan 11.Revathi .. Respondents 1 to 11 in AS 215/2009 1.G.Meenakshi 2.A.Kamalam 3.R.Ammani 4.B.Ayothi 5.S.Muthurakku 6.A.Jayanthi 7.A.Akash .. Respondents in AS 216/2009 1. S.S.Mohan Ram(Died) 2. M.Sahunthala 3. Jeyashree .. Respondents in AS 13/2010 (Respondents 2 and 3 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R1 vide order dt.26.02.2010 and made in MP(MD)No.1& 2/2010 in AS.No.13/2010) S.S.Amarnath .. Respondent in AS 14/2010 These Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and decree made in LAOP.Nos.149/99 dt.10/10/05, 1/05 dt.26/7/05, 58/01, 78/00, 51/00, 173/99, 52/99, 172/99, 150/09, 55/99 respectively dt.30/6/04 and LAOPs 99/99 dt.27/1/05, 66/99 dt.23/12/04 and LAOPs.6/05, 179/99, 49/05, 181/99 dt.30/1/06, LAOP.nO.16/00 DT.10/10/05 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai in LAOP.Nos.171/99 dt.23/12/04, 45/99 dt.22/12/04, 94/99 dt.21/3/05, 46/99 dt.22/12/04, 47/99 dt.22/12/04, 49/99 dt.22/12/01, 60/99 dt.23/11/04, 61/99 dt.23/11/04, 67/99 dt.23/12/04, 80/99 dt.22/12/04, 82/99 dt.27/01/05, 91/99 dt.27/1/05, 93/99 dt.27/01/05, 98/99 dt.27/01/05, 106/99 dt.12/01/05, 107/99 dt.12/01/05, 144/99 dt.12/01/05, 146/99 dt.23/12/04, 180/99 dt.29/12/05, 95/99 dt.21/03/05, 100/99 dt.27/01/05, 148/99 dt.22/06/06, 135/00 dt. 29/02/05, 92/99 dt.27/1/05, 3/01 dt.12/01/05, 152/99 dt.23/12/04, 79/99 dt.22/12/04, 9/01 dt.12/01/05, 8/01 dt.12/01/05, 51/99 dt.23/12/04, 17/00 dt.22/12/04, 2/01 dt.12/01/05, 6/01 dt.12/01/05, 89/99 dt.21/03/05, 78/09 dt.22/12/04, 50/99 dt.23/12/04, 58/99 dt.23/11/04, 4/01 dt.12/01/05, 81/99 dt.27/01/05, 84/99 dt.27/01/05, 5/01 dt.12/01/05, 170/99 dt.23/12/04, 59/99 dt.23/11/04, 54/99 dt.23/12/04, 65/99 dt.23/12/04, 20/02 dt.12/01/05, 19/01 dt.22/12/04, 83/99 dt.27/01/05, 53/99 dt.23/12/04, 64/99 dt.23/12/04, 86/99 dt.27/01/05, 57/99 dt.23/11/04, 59/100 dt.12/01/05, 85/99 dt.27/01/05, 58/00 dt.12/01/05, 50/00 dt.27/01/05, 87/99 dt.27/01/05, 48/99 dt.22/12/04, 18/00 dt.22/12/04, 102/99 dt.27/01/05 and 139/99 dt.15/03/05 respectively on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai. Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009:- Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the Decree and Judgment dated 14.10.2009 made in LAOP No. 52 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. !For Appellants ... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate for Addl. Govt. Pleader (AS) in all the appeal suits ^For Respondents ... Mr.M. Thirunavukkarasu in AS No.220/2007 Mr. P.T.S. Narendravasan in AS No. 23 and 43 of 2009 Mrs. N. Krishnaveni in A.S. Nos. 111/2008 AS Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 44, 58, 79, 105, 141, 145, 149, 150, 155, 156, 161,162,163, 164, 176, 177, 179, 187, 188 and 215 of 2009(1 to 8 , 10 & 11, R9-NA) Mr. J.Bharathan for T.R. Jeyapalaym in A.S. No. 36, 140, 142 and 146 of 2009, 154 of 2009 M/s. S. Vijayashanthi for Veerakathiravan in A.S. Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 71, 111, 143, 158, 159, 175, 178 and 182 of 2009 & A.S. No. 13 of 2010 Ms.Vijayashanthi for Veerakathiravan in A.S. No.186 of 2009 Mr. N. Murugesan in A.S. Nos. 41, 42 and 171 of 2009 Mr. R. Govindarajan in A.S. Nos. 45, 144, 148, 152, 157, 160, 172, 173, 181, 183, 184 and 185 of 2009 A.S. No. 14 of 2010 Mr. D. Malaichamy in A.S. No. 21 and 54 of 2009 Mr. D. Saravanan in A.S. No. 57 and 180 of 2009 Mr. K. Periasamy in A.S. No. 75 and 91 of 2009 Mr.P. Senthur Pandian in A.S. No. 119 and 216 of 2009(1 to 6 R7-NA) Mr. G. Pandiarajan in A.S. No. 147, 151 and 153 of 2009 Mr. M. Baskaran in A.S. No. 174 of 2009 Cross-Objection No. 69 of 2009 For Petitioners ... Mrs. N. Krishnaveni For Respondents ... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate for Addl. Govt. Pleader (AS) :COMMON JUDGMENT
B. RAJENDRAN, J These batch of First Appeals arise out of the Land Acquisition proceedings award granted by the Court below in respect of the lands acquired for the purpose of setting up of High Court Complex in Madurai. The land owners, who were aggrieved against the grant of very meagre amount of compensation, filed individual LAOPs before the Court below, which was granted by the Reference Court. Aggrieved against the enhancement of compensation, the Government has come forward with the present batch of appeals. As all the matters relates to the same acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of lands for setting up High Court, Madurai Bench, by consent of all the parties, the appeals have been clubbed together, jointly heard and common Judgment is being pronounced.
2. We may classify these appeals into three sets. In the first set of cases, the court below by an order dated 30.06.2004 enhanced the value of the compensation from Rs.201/- to Rs.4,400/- per cent. In the second set of cases, the court below by an order dated 30.06.2004 has enhanced the compensation from Rs.550/- to Rs.5,500/- per cent and for the third batch of cases, by an order dated 22.12.2004, the Court below has enhanced the compensation from Rs.550/- to Rs.7,200/- per cent. In all these claims, all the claimants before the Court below have relied upon only two documents which are Exs.C1 and C2, namely sale deed dated 27.02.1996 under document Nos. 406 of 1996 and 407 of 1996 of even date wherein 2 cents of lands were sold for Rs.60,000/-.
3. Since all the matters are pertaining to one and the same claim, we are now taking up the three set of cases where three different amounts have been enhanced by the Court below. Therefore, we have extracted sample of three cases hereunder, each one denoting the value fixed by the court below at Rs.4,400/-, Rs.4,950/- Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/-.
[a] In so far as the claim in LAOP No.51 of 2000, the land of the claimant situated in Survey No.24/3 to an extent of 0.050 hectares have been acquired where the petitioner would contend that the land is situated in fertile area and now it has been converted as a housing site. He would also contend that very near to the property, K.K. Nagar, Anna Nagar and Palpannai and Colleges are all situated and further on the South, Gomathipuram, Thasildar Nagar, Yagappa Nagar, Sadasiva Nagar, Vandiyur, Theppakulam and Viraganur Dam are all situated and the property in question in that area could easily be sold @ Rs.70,000/- per cent and they claim that atleast Rs.50,000/- per cent could be granted. Even at the time of 4 (1) Notification, the market value is nearly around Rs.30,000/- per cent and they pleaded for fixation of Rs.50,000/- per cent. In this case, the Court below has fixed the value at Rs.4,400/- per cent.
(b) In so far as LAOP No. 52 of 1999 is concerned, the claimants have separately filed Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009 seeking enhancement of compensation amount from Rs.4,400/- to Rs.7,200/- per cent, as, in many cases, the court below has fixed the compensation at Rs.7,200/- per cent. Therefore, the Petitioners in Cross Objection, relying upon the judgment and decree passed by the court below in other cases, have sought for enhancement of compensation at Rs.7,200/- per cent. Even though the petitioners have claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation per cent before the court below, they have restricted it to Rs.7,200/- per cent in the appeal.
[c] In LAOP No.172 of 1999, the land has been acquired in Survey No.3/2A1 to an extent of 0.03.5 hectares. The claimant would contend that the land was originally agricultural land and now it is converted as housing site. There are various vital properties situated in and around that area and it would easily fetch an amount of Rs.60,000/- per cent, however, restricted the claim to Rs.50,000/- per cent, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value @ Rs.550/- per cent which is very very low. Aggrieved against the same, the claimant has come forward with the claim petition before the Court below. The Court below has fixed the compensation in this case @ Rs.5,500/- per cent.
[d] In the claim statement in LAOP No. 78 of 1999, the owner of the land from whom 0.35 hectares of land has been acquired in Survey No.20/4 in Ulaganeri Village, North Taluk, Madurai. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry, acquired the said land and fixed the market value of the property @ Rs.201/- per cent. The grievance of the land owner is that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the potential value of the land. Further, he would also contend that it is a crop land irrigated by the Periyar Water and it is situated very near to the Madurai city and that it is connecting Madurai to Madras High Road via Melur and would contend that the adjacent land was sold for Rs.20,000/- per cent even as early as in 1987 and this has not been considered by the acquisition officer. Further there are number of factories, workshops, colleges namely Agricultural college which are situated very nearer to the acquired land and therefore the land can easily fetch Rs.20,000/- per cent and prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- per cent. But the Court below has fixed the compensation at Rs.7,200/- per cent.
4. In all the above cases, the Government has taken a specific stand that the lands are situated in low lying area and it was not having any value at all. Only after the 4 (1) Notification was published stating that High Court is going to be established there, the value has increased and further more, the area mostly comprises of only manavari lands and it was not converted into house sites as alleged and there were no building at all. The nearest place namely Mattuthavanai Bus stop was subsequently established after the notification of this land. Therefore the claim made by the claimants is excessive. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration more than 71 sale deeds and fixed the value correctly @ Rs.550/- per cent and in case of very low lying area, manavari lands, he has fixed the value @ Rs.201/- per cent. In fact, in the award itself, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated that 4 (1) Notification was published on 08.05.97 and Gazette publication was made on the same day. Publications in local papers were made on 28.03.1998 and substance of the same were published in the locality on 30.05.97.
5. After enquiry under 5A and after getting the remarks from the acquisition body, Section 6 declaration was passed in G.O.Ms.No.250 dated 02.03.1998. Over ruling the objections of the land owners, the 6A declaration was published in extraordinary Gazette No.115 dated 11.03.98; paper publication in two dailies on 28.03.98; locality substance on 01.04.98 and draft declaration under Section 7 was passed on 10.04.98. The area was classified in that notification as dry lands. The notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 were served on the land owners and ultimately lands have been acquired. In the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the value was fixed @ Rs.201/- per cent. Taking into consideration the sale deeds dated 27.11.1996 under document No.2715 of 1996 wherein an extent of 88 cents of dry land was sold for Rs.17,700/-, the compensation at the rate of Rs.201/- per cent works out to Rs.20,100/- per acre or Rs.201/- per cent.
6. Similarly, in another 4 (1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.668 dated 08.05.1997, the declaration under Section 6 was made in G.O.Ms.No.252 dated 09.03.1998 and taking into consideration the sale deed made on 24.03.1997 under document No.825 of 1997, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value @ Rs.550/- per cent. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer in all these cases have fixed the value according to the nature of the land either @ Rs.550/- per cent or Rs.201/- per cent. According to the Government, the land value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct and in fact none of the land owners objected to taking over of the land but they have claimed for enhanced compensation ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per cent. In fact, the Government has taken the data land value and as per the data sale statistics, the valuation was fixed and it is correct.
7. In all these cases, the claimants have examined themselves and only produced the identical document namely Exs.C1 and C2, two sale deeds dated 27.02.1996 under document Nos.406 of 1996 and 407 of 1996 of even date to show that the property has been sold @ Rs.30,000/- per cent and the extent in these two sale deeds are only 2 cents and no other document is produced by any one of the claimant in any of the cases nor any independent witness has been examined by the claimants nor any document has been produced by the Government excepting the sale statistics which was relied on for fixing the value.
8. The Court below after taking into consideration the evidence of the various parties and the sale deeds produced by the claimants has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,400/-, Rs.4,950/- Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/- respectively. Aggrieved against the said enhancement, the present appeals are filed by the Government and the claimant in LAOP No. 52 of 2009 have filed Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009.
9. We have heard Mr. Gandhi Raj, learned Government Advocate for the appellants as well as Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, Mr.A.Sivaji, Mr. Veerakathiravan, Ms. S. Vijayashanthi, Mr. PTS. Narendravasan, Mr. R. Govindaraj, Mr. D. Malaichamy, Mr. J.Bharathan, Mr. D. Saravanan, Mr. K. Periasamy, Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, Mr. G. Pandiarajan, Mr.N. Murugesan and Mr. M. Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants
10. The points for consideration in these appeals are -
[1] Whether the enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.201/- and Rs.550/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.4400/-, Rs.4,950/-, Rs.5500/- and Rs.7200/- per cent is valid and correct ? [2] Whether the documents produced by the claimants namely Exs.C1 & C2 can be relied upon to fix the value of the property ?
[3] Whether the lower court is correct in not giving the deductions as contemplated under law ?
[4] Whether the Court below is correct in fixing the value basis on the sale deed of the small extent of lands for determination of compensation for larger extent of lands ?
11. For the purpose of convenience, as the lands have been acquired under various awards comprising from 2/98 to 8/98 and also the lands acquired are wet lands and dry lands, the chart given below will indicate the details of the cases covered by this judgment.
S.No. AS No. LAOP Award No. Name of Survey Extent Comp Comp.
No. & Date Claimant No. awarded awarded
by LAO by Court
Per Cent Per Cent
Rs. Rs.
1. 220/07 148/99 2/98 dt. K.N.Singaram 7/2 0.11.5 5709/- 2,04,480
22.6.98 (201) (7200)
2. 21/09 94/99 5/98 dt. Kodichiamma 25/2 0.40.0 10,24,358
31.07.98 & 6 othersl (550) (7200)
3. 23/09 1/05 5/98 dt. R. Jeyaraman 26/3 0.12.0 (550) 3,08,862/
31.07.98 (7200)
4. 29/09 46/99 8/98 dt. S.P.Natarajan 38/3 0.11.5 5709/- 2,04,480
15.09.98 (201) (7200)
5. 30/09 47/99 8/98 dt. J.Janakiammal 38/8 0.05.5 2730 97200
15.09.98 (201) (7200)
6. 31/09 49/99 7/98 dt. J.Janakiammal 39/1B1 0.45.5 22589 808560
31.07.98 (201) (7200)
7. 32/09 58/01 4/98 dt. Meenakshi 27/3 0.02.0 2717 21736
31.07.98 (550) (4400)
8. 33/09 60/99 8/98 dt. Jeenath Bai 38/10C2 21348 764640
15.09.98 0.43.0 (201) (7200)
9. 34/09 61/99 8/98 dt. S. Pandiammal 38/10B 0.19.5 9681 346320
15.09.98 (201) (7200)
10. 35/09 67/99 8/98 dt. M.S. Sait 38/10D 0.51.5 30532 1093680
15.09.98 (201) (7200)
11. 36/09 80/99 5/98 dt. Dhinamani Bai 25/3 0.20.0 5434 70560
31.7.98 27/1B1 (201) (7200)
12. 37/09 82/99 3/98 dt. S.R.Sadasivam 20/2 0.40.5 27509 360000
31.7.98 . hare (550) (7200)
13. 38/09 91/99 3/98 dt. S.K.Surendran 22/3 0.70.39 38717 506808
31.7.98 cents (550) (7200)
14. 39/09 93/99 3/98 dt. S.K.Surendran 23/1 0.47.5 64528 844704
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
15. 40/09 98/99 5/98 dt. S.S. Girija 25/3 0.20.0 2717 35568
31.7.98 27/1B1 (505) (7200)
16. 41/09 106/99 6/98 dt. Annamalai 28/2A 0.13.0 17660 230400
31.7.98 -Servai (550) (7200)
17. 42/09 107/99 8/98 dt. Muthurak 38/10A 0.22.5 11170 393600
15.9.98 -ammal (7200)
18. 43/09 144/99 2/98 dt. P.Kamala Bai 3/7A 0.02.5 (550) 63244
22.6.98 3/7A 0.59.5 (7200)
19. 44/09 146/99 8/98 M. Srinivasan 38/9 0.41.5 20603 738000
15.9.98 (7200)
20. 45/09 180/99 8/98 M. Senthil 38/13 0.10.0 7294 177840
15.9.98 M. Saravanan (201) (7200)
21. 54/09 95/99 6/98 Kodichiammal 28/1 0.52.5 199650 2613600
31.7.98 & six others 28/4 0.40.5 (550) (7200)
28/10 0.21.5
28/12 0.33.0
---------
1.47.5
or 363
cents
22. 57/09 78/00 6/98 P.K. Amarnath 29/1&3 0.78.5 106642 959780
31.7.98 (550) (4950)
23. 58/09 51/00 4/98 S. Meenakshi 24/3 0.50.0 (550) 54340
31.7.98 (4400)
24. 105/08 171/99 8/98 Meenakshi 38/1 0.60.5 (550) 2585779
15.9.98 -Ammal 38/5 0.40.5 (7200)
25 119/09 148/99 4/98 G. Meenakshi 23/2 0.03.5 4754 62280
31.7.98 & six others (550) (7200)
26. 71/09 99/99 5/98 S.R.Sadasivam 25/3 0.18.0 2717 35568
31.7.98 27/1B 0.02.0 (550) (7200)
27. 75/09 173/99 2/98 Dhanalakshmi 3/7B 0.10.5 5212 142670
22.6.98 @ Latha (201) (5500)
28. 79/09 52/99 4/98 S. MeenakshI 24/3 0.01.5 2037 16324
31.7.98 -ammal& 7 otrs (550) (4400)
29. 91/09 172/99 2/98 Dhanalakshmi 3/2A1 0.03.5 1737 47575
22.6.98 @ Latha (201) (5500)
30. 140/09 135/00 3/98 K.P. Pandi & 21/1B 0.22.5 30566 400104
31.7.98 7 others 21/2 (550) (7200)
31. 111/09 100/99 3/98 S.K. Sundaram 25/3 0.20.0 2717 35568
31.7.98 27/1B1 (550) (7200)
32. 141/09 66/99 5/98 M.S. Sait 26/5C 0.24.0 32604 426240
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
33. 142/09 6/05 6/98 V. Muniammal 28/16 0.38 20900 273600
31.7.98 29/5 cent (550) (7200)
34. 143/09 92/99 3/98 S.K. Ravindran 23/1 0.47.5 64528 844704
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
35. 144/09 3/01 3/98 S.S. Rama 17 0.07.0 9509 123840
31.7.98 -sundar (50) (7200)
36. 145/09 152/99 3/98 G.Subramani 20/5 0.50.5 82189 1075680
31.7.98 -an (550) (7200)
37. 146/09 79/99 4/98 Dinamani Bai 22/4 0.29.0 39396 515520
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
38. 147/09 9/2001 3/98 S.S. Amarnath 20/3 0.26.5 36000 470880
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
39. 148/09 8/01 3/98 S.S. Rama 17 0.34.5 46868 613440
31.7.98 -sundar 20/3 (550) (7200)
40. 149/09 51/99 4/98 Namagiri 24/3 0.03.0 1650 21600
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
41. 150/09 17/00 3/98 G.Krishnasamy 20/5 0.37.0 50264 657360
31.7.98 Thevar (550) (7200)
42. 151/09 2/2001 3/98 S.S. Amarnath 17 0.24.0 32604 426240
25.6.98 20/3 (550) (7200)
43. 152/09 6/2001 3/98 S.K. Ravindran 20/4 0.03.5 2377 30960
31.7.98 1/2shar (550) (7200)
44. 153/09 89/99 3/98 S.S.Mohanram 17 0.13.0 9373 122688
31.7.98 20/3 0.51.0 (550) (7200)
45. 154/09 78/99 3/98 Dhinamani bai 20/4 0.34.5 9373 122400
31.7.98 1/5shar (550) (7200)
46. 155/09 50/99 4/98 Pattu @ 24/3 0.03.0 1650 21600
31.7.98 Alamelu Cents (550) (7200)
47. 156/09 58/99 5/98 H.Pudu Usman 26/5B 0.17.5 23773 311040
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
48. 157/09 4/2001 3/98 S.K.Ravindran 19/1 0.02.5 1698 21600
31.7.98 .share (550) (7200)
49. 158/09 81/99 3/98 S.S.Rama 18/2 0.12.5 16981 221760
31.7.98 -sundar (550) (7200)
50. 159/09 89/99 3/98 S.S. Amarnath 20/4 0.34.5 4686 61344
31.7.98 1/10shr (550) (7200)
51. 160/09 5/2001 3/98 S.K.Surendran 19/1 0.02.5 1698 21600
31.7.98 .shar (550) (7200)
52. 161/09 170/99 4/98 N. Srinivasan 23/4 0.01.72 2336 30600
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
53. 162/09 59/99 8/98 H. Pudhusman 38/10 0.25.5 12659 452880
15.9.98 (201) (7200)
54. 163/09 54/99 8/98 K. Namagiri 38/8 0.27.5 13652 452880
15.9.98 (201) (7200)
55. 164/09 65/99 4/98 A. Samsu Aliar 24/2 0.14.0 19091 248400
31.7.98 24/4 (550) (7200)
56. 171/09 20/2 5/98 Muthurakamal 26/5A 0.18.0 24453 460960
31.7.98 (50) (7200)
57. 172/09 179/99 8/98 Tmt. Vairamani 38/13 0.02.0 992 35568
15.9.98 (201) (7200)
58. 173/09 49/05 5/98 Vairamani & 3 26/6 0.20.0 11000 144000
31.7.98 Others Cent (550) (7200)
59. 174/09 19/01 6/98 G.Subbulaksh 28/13 0.34.5 46868 613440
31.7.98 -manan (550) (7200)
60. 175/09 83/99 3/98 S.S. Girija 20/2 0.40.5 27509 360000
31.7.98 .shar (550) (7200)
61. 176/09 53/99 8/98 Pattu @ 38/8 0.27.5 27509 488880
15.9.98 Alamelu (550) (7200)
62. 177/09 64/99 3/98 A. Samsu Aliar 20/6 197.6 13652 1722720
31.7.98 Cents (201) (7200)
63. 178/09 86/99 3/98 S.S. Girija & 20/4 0.34.5 4686 61344
31.7.98 S.S.Vasanthirani (550) (7200)
64. 179/09 57/99 7/98 R. Venkata 39/1C2 2.04.0 101279 3627360
31.7.98 -raman 39/1F1 (201) (7200)
& 2 others
65. 180/09 150/99 6/98 P.K. Amarnath 29/6 0.14 7700 69300
31.7.98 cent (550) (4950)
66. 181/09 59/00 5/98 M. Gopalakrish 25/1 0.56 76076 995760
31.7.98 -nan & 2 ors 26/4 cent (550) (7200)
67. 182/09 85/99 3/98 S.R.Sadasivam 20/4 0.34.5 4686 61344
31.7.98 1/10 pt (550) (7200)
8.52 ct
68. 183/09 58/00 6/98 M. Gopalakri 28/5 0.77.0 104604 1368720
31.7.98 -shnan & 2 ors 28/11 (5580) (7200)
29/2
69. 184/09 181/99 8/98 Srinivasan 38/9 0.31.89 15832 568800
31.7.98 (201) (7200)
70. 185/09 50/00 5/98 V. Srinivasan 26/6 0.25.0 13750 180000
31.7.98 (550) (7200)
71. 186/09 87/99 3/98 S.K. Surendren 19/1 0.8.52 4686 61344
31.7.98 Cent (550) (7200)
72. 187/09 48/99 7/98 S.P. Natarajan 39/1A 2.27.0 112698 4036320
31.7.98 (201) (7200)
73. 188/09 18/2000 6/98 A.Krishnasamy 28/9 0.24.0 32604 426240
31.7.98 Thevar (550) (7200)
74. 111/08 45/99 7/98 R. Radha 39/1C1 1.86.0 92343 3307680
31.7.98 R. Rajasekhar (201) (7200)
75. 215/09 55/99 8/98 Meenakshi 38/6B 0.65.0 (550) 1005312
15.9.98 -Ammal & ors 38/8 0.27.5 (4400)
76. 216/09 16/00 3/98 Meenakshi 19/2 0.04.0 (550) 101959
31.7.98 -Ammal & ors (7200)
77. 13/2010 102/99 5/98 S.S.Mohanram 25/3 0.18.0 (550) 102435
31.7.98 27/1B1 0.02.0 (7200)
78. 14/2010 139/99 5/98 S.S.Amarnath 25/3 0.10.0 (550) 51217
31.7.98 27/1B1 0.02.0 (7200)
12. In this batch of appeals, the wet lands are covered under Award No.3,4,5 & 6 of 98 and dry lands are covered under Award No.2, 7 and 8 of 98 under the following Survey Numbers.
Wet lands:-
Survey Nos.17, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1, 19/2, 20/1, 2, 6, 21/1A, 21/1B, 21/2, 21/1 to 4, 23/1, 23/2, 24/1 to 4, 25/1, 25/2, 25/3, 26/4, 26/6, 27/1A, 27/1B, 26/3A, 26/5A, 26/5B, 26/5C, 27/1A, 28/1, 28/2A, 28/2B, 28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 28/9 to 13, 28/16 and 29/1 to 6 Dry lands:-
Survey Nos.3/2A1, 3/7A, 3/7B, 3/8, 3/9, 7/1, 7/2, 7/4, 39/1B1, 39/1C1, 39/1C2, 39/1F1, 38/1, 38/3, 38/4, 38/5, 38/6B, 38/8, 38/9, 39/10A, 38/10B, 38/10C1, 38/10C2, 38/10D, 38/11 & 38/13.
13. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.201/- per cent for dry lands and Rs.550/- per cent for wet lands. The purpose of the acquisition is for formation of High Court Bench in Madurai in Ulaganeri. The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in all these cases were issued on 08.05.1997 pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.398 Home Courts III Department dated 10.03.1997. These appeals relate to the land acquisition proceedings that commenced as per the 4 (1) Notification dated 08.05.1997 and published in the Gazette on the same day. At the instance of the requisitioning body namely High Court of Madras, the Government has acquired the lands from the claimants under 4 (1) Notification dated 08.05.1997.
14. The Land Acquisition Officer upon consideration and on analysis of more than 71 documents as per sale deeds in and around the area which were registered three years prior to the 4 (1) Notification has arrived at the valuation at Rs.201/- per cent for dry lands and Rs.550/- per cent for wet lands. In that process, the Land Acquisition Officer, out of the 71 sale deeds taken into consideration 17 sales from Ulaganeri Village, 15 sales from Uthangudi Village, 11 sales from Elanthaikulam Village, 4 sales in Kalikappan Village, 7 sales from Rajakambeeram Village and 17 sales from Narasingam 1st bit Village. Out of the above 71 sales, the data land has been taken from Survey No.15/3 in Ulaganeri Village in Madurai North Taluk, which according to the Land Acquisition Officer is very nearer to the lands under acquisition. The sale deed in respect of these lands has been effected on 27.11.1996 under document No. 2715 of 1996 for a consideration of Rs.17,700/- for an extent of 0.88 cents.
15. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the data land sale deed statistics for Survey No.13/3 in Ulaganeri Village under Document No.2715 of 1996 for 0.88 cents was Rs.17,700/- and the price quoted in the sale deed is reasonable and as per the sale deed it works out to Rs.20,100/- per acre or Rs.201/- per cent. He has rejected all the other sale deeds on the ground that the same are not of the same tharam or nearer to the road or not in the same village. Similarly, in so far as the wet land is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration S.No.29/3 of Ulaganeri Village which is nearer to the acquisition land in sale pertaining to 41 cents of wet lands under document No.825/97 dated 24.03.1997. As per this sale, an extent of 41 cents has been sold for Rs.22,550/-. As per this document, the sale per acre works out to Rs.55,000/- or Rs.550/- per cent. Therefore, the officer has fixed the valuation at Rs.550/- per cent in so far as agricultural lands are concerned in that area discarding other sale deeds as it is not in accordance with the same tharam and are in proximity to the acquired land. Since the valuation has been fixed @ Rs.201/- per cent in so far as the dry land is concerned and Rs.550/- per cent as far as the wet lands is concerned, the claimant/land owners aggrieved and agitated about the payment have referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
16. Before the Reference Court namely Land Acquisition tribunal, the claimants contended that the lands are situated in a very proximity locality in Madurai near K.K. Nagar, Anna Nagar and Palpannai and Colleges are all situated and further on the South, Gomathipuram, Thasildar Nagar, Yagappa Nagar, Sadasiva Nagar, Vandiyur Theppakulam and Viraganur Dam are all situated. The claimants would also contend before the tribunal that the land value will easily fetch not less than Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per cent and all of them have claimed uniformly @ Rs.50,000/- per cent.
17. It is pertinent to point out here that in all the cases, the claimants have only relied upon the two documents namely sale deeds marked as Exs.C1 and C2 dated 27.02.96 to establish the fact that 2 cents of land were sold for Rs.60,000/- in that area just one year and three months prior to the 4 (1) Notification and therefore it is a reasonable one and once the property is worth @ Rs.30,000/- per cent, they are liable to be paid on that basis. Ultimately, on the basis of the evidences let in and the documents produced by the parties concerned, the tribunal on the three different batch of cases has enhanced the valuation from Rs.201/- to Rs.4,400/- or Rs.4,950/- in some cases, Rs.5,500/- in some cases and from Rs.550/- it has been enhanced to Rs.7,200/ per cent-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant have come forward with the above appeals.
18. When we analyse the claims of all the appellants/land owners, it is very clear that all of them have identically pleaded on the basis of only two documents namely Exs.C1 and C2, which are two sale deeds dt.27.02.96 which has been sold by one Dhanalakshmi @ Latha w/o. Raama Sivaraman in favour of Aravali and another sale deed sold by the very same Dhanalakshmi @ Latha in favour of one Karunanidhi, both are dated 27.02.1996. In the sale deed registered as Document Nos.406 & 407, 2 cents of Nanja lands were sold for Rs.60,000/- pertaining to lands situated in Survey No.3/6 & 3/7 in Ulaganeri Village. The two attestors in both the documents are the former Karnam of the Village and Panchayat President of the Village. In all the cases, neither the purchaser nor seller has been examined in this case but only the copy of the documents has been marked. It is also pertinent to point out that the document is dated 27.02.1996 and the 4 (1) Notification in this case is dated 08.05.1997. Though it is one year prior to the 4 (1) Notification, the area was inspected by the authorities of the revenue as well from High Court earlier to the actual notification. Therefore, production of these documents only by all claimants and not producing any other document would categorically indicate that this document has been prepared only for the purpose of enhancing the valuation whereas if we see the sales statistics produced by the Government, the documents at the relevant point of time has not fetched this valuation at all. But, it is also unfortunate that the Government has not chosen to produce any document including the documents of the data land. Mere sales statistics of the Land Acquisition Officer would not be sufficient for coming to the conclusion. In this case, admittedly, excepting these two documents, there are no other documents at all filed.
19. In so far as the evidence is concerned, in respect of all these cases, in the later part of the cases, they have produced the judgements of the earlier year which has fixed Rs.4,400/-, Rs.5,500/- or Rs.7,200/- and based on that, the value has been fixed. In the earlier case, in LAOP No.55/1999, the appellant's land situated in Survey No. 38/10C/1 to an extent of 0.25.10 hectares which is equivalent to 65 cents of land, which was acquired by issuing 4 (1) Notification dated 30.05.1997. The appellant therein would contend that at the time of acquisition, the property in question was converted as a house site and even before the Notification, in that area, the property was sold @ Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per cent whereas in this case, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value @ Rs.201/- per cent. He would contend that Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Agricultural College, Thirumogur Temple and newly formed four lane road are very near to the acquisition land. But he would only rely upon the document dated 27.02.1996. He would also admit that he had participated in the 5A enquiry, but before the 5A enquiry, he has neither stated that the value of the land would fetch Rs.50,000/- nor produced these documents which has been sold for Rs.30,000/- per cent. He also would contend that he never knew about the purchaser or seller of the documents Exs.C1 & C2, but he would admit that the property in question has been situated more than 8 kms. away from the Madurai city and even the Mattuthavanai Bus stand has been situated more than 5 kms away. He would further admit that he has not produced any document to show that even this land is an agricultural land.
20. When we take up the evidence of R.W1, who is an officer from Revenue Divisional Office, he would categorically state that the value fixed @ Rs.550/- was reasonable, the data land situated in Survey No.29/3 was rightly fixed as it is of the same tharam and the data land was also situate in the very same village namely Ulaganeri Village. He has also explained the topo sketch which is marked as Ex.R4 in the LAOP. It is also stated that the acquired lands at the relevant point of time of acquisition were situated more than 10 feet down from the main road and at the time of acquisition, there was no building, there were no factories and there were no other development in that area. He also denied that at the relevant point of time, there were no house sites. He has also stated that during the sales statistics, he has considered more than 67 documents and the data land is in Survey No.29/3.
21. From the evidence of both the parties, it is very clear that so far as the fixation of valuation of land is concerned, more than 71 documents has been taken into consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings. The data land was fixed taking into consideration the tharam and value of the property. As far as the valuation is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the valuation of Rs.550/- in respect of agricultural land and Rs.201/- for manavari land on the basis of Document No.825/97 dt.24.03.97 and Document No.2715/96 dt.27.11.96 whereas the claimants have relied upon only two documents both dated 27.02.96. As far as evidence is concerned, the claimants have stated the proximity of the acquired lands like Mattuthavanai Bus stand and other places. But, it is very clear that at the time of acquisition, the area was not at all developed and whatever development has taken place, it took place only after the notification and establishment of the High Court. Even the Mattuthavanai Bus stand was situated atleast 4. kms away from the Court. As per the document relied upon by the claimants from the topo sketch, we were able to see that the lands under the two documents namely Exs.C1 & C2 are situated just opposite to the Madurai Melur main road on the road facing whereas the data land is situated in the centre of the acquired property which according to the officer is of the same tharam. No doubt there can be any comparison between the document produced by them which is situated on the road that too of a small extent of 2 cents of land which cannot be taken into consideration for any useful purpose and at the same time, the valuation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer taking into consideration the larger extent of land and the data land situated near Kanmai and situated almost in the middle which even according to the officer is comprising of both dry and agricultural land may not be a correct valuation. Therefore, we should strike at a balance in between these two extremities.
22. We have carefully perused the topo sketch produced before us. From the topo sketch, it is clear that the portion marked in 'yellow' are dry lands and those portions marked in 'red' are wet lands. The data land is situated in Survey No.29/3 in respect of agricultural lands and in Survey No.15/3 in respect of dry lands. The data lands namely agricultural lands are shown in 'green' colour in the topo sketch and it is situate 1.6 kilometer away from the main road. Even among the agricultural lands marked 'red' in the topo sketch, they are situate in one of the extreme corners. The data land as well as the dry lands are situate far away from the place of acquisition. There is no connection between the data lands and the acquired lands and no reasoning was also given by the Land Acquisition Officer for choosing the said lands as data lands. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the data lands need not be relied on for the purpose of arriving at the valuation of the acquired lands is well founded. As far as Exs. C1 and C2 are concerned, it is seen from the topo sketch that the lands covered under Exs. C1 and C2 are situate just opposite to the main gate of the High Court. Even here, documents in respect of two cents of lands, which lies in bigger plot at the extreme corner, very near to the road, is produced.
23. The Honourable Supreme Court has categorically stated that in cases of valuation, the Court has to necessarily do some guess work also. It has also specifically stated that as far as the valuation is concerned, what a willing buyer is willing to pay and what a willing seller is willing to sell would have to be taken into consideration.
24. The Reference Court, in the first two cases (wherein the value of the land was fixed at Rs.4,400/- and Rs.5,500/-) taking into consideration the documents produced by the claimant, has simply relied upon the same and reduced the rates to a certain extent and fixed the value without actually giving any specific reduction or reasons. The reference Court also has not taken into consideration that in the larger extent of lands, especially in acres, the valuation as claimed in the square feet basis cannot be taken into consideration. The guiding factors for fixing the market rate would be the location of a property which is advantageous as well as potential. As far the documents produced is concerned, it should be not a document of just a sale. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the Court has to sit in the arm chair of a willing purchaser as well as a willing seller to arrive at a market value, after analysing all the negative and positive factors in respect of the area of the document. Furthermore, the presence of roads, electricity, educational institution, hospital facilities and other infrastructural facilities would also be taken note of. In one of the earliest case reported in (Special Deputy Collector and another vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others) (1997) 6 SCC 41, the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the tests to be conducted for the purpose of arriving at the market value in para-6 as follows:-
"6. ......It is, therefore, the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper consideration thereof in correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. It is equally relevant to consider the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. The Court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guesswork is involved, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries the Judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes.
7. Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw- away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The Judge should sit in the armchair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The court is, therefore, enjoined with the bounden duty of public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land and compulsory acquisition.
25. Similarly in the judgment reported in (Atma Singh (dead) through his Lrs vs. State of Haryana and another) 2008 2 SCC 568, the Supreme Court has categorically held that there being no other documentary evidence, the fact that the examplers filed by the appellants were of small pieces of land could not be a ground to discard them when examplers of large pieces of land were not available. The Supreme Court has further held the criterion for fixing the value would be again what a willing buyer and willing vendor would accept. In fact, in a recent judgment [in which one of us - Mrs.Justice Prabha Sridevan is a party] reported in (Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District vs. Jaganathan Gounder and another) 2009 5 MLJ 2, it was held that while fixing the market value from documents of smaller extents, though it can also be taken as the basis, but necessarily a further deduction has to be given for having fixed the value based on smaller extent of lands. The normal rule in fixing the compensation of a larger extent of land with reference to the value shown in the sale document of lesser extent is that there must be suitable deductions. In the said case, the Division Bench has categorically held that not only deductions has to be given for development purpose but also further deductions has to be given in respect of the documents being of smaller extents of land. The above said ruling was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Justice B. Rajendran) is a party which is reported in (The Land Acquisition Officer vs. Radhakrishnan Chetty) (2010) (1) CTC 527 and it was held that a further deduction of 25% shall be given taking into consideration smaller extents of land. In Para No.25 of the decision, it is stated as follows:-
25. The acquired lands are admittedly manavari punja lands. Even as per the evidence of the claimants, no development has taken place in the area where the acquired land are situate. Therefore, taking into consideration the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court mentioned supra, we feel 53% deduction can be given towards development charges in this case. Further, taking into consideration that the valuation has been arrived at on the basis of smaller extent of lands, further deduction of 25% can be given. In all, if 78% of deduction is given, the value fixed by the court below would come down from Rs.47/- per sq.ft., to Rs.11.34 per sq.ft., rounded off to Rs.11/- per sq.ft., which will be the correct reasonable and proper value for the acquired lands."
26. In so far as the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader that very small extent of land cannot be a criterion at all for adopting the valuation is concerned, in Atma Singh case cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically stated that when there is no other document, there is nothing wrong in taking into consideration of smaller extent of land but subject to the deductions. In this case, we are now having the valuation Rs.201 and Rs.550/- per cent as per the Land Acquisition Officer and Rs.4,400/-, Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/- as per the reference Court but of course there is a distinction in respect of manavari land and agricultural land made by the Land Acquisition Officer, but no such distinction was made by the reference court.
The reference Court has stated that since all the area covered are one under the same notification and there is no independent evidence and as there is no document produced by the Government also, uniform valuation has been made. Therefore, it has to be decided whether Exs.C1 and C2, in which the valuation has been shown as Rs.30,000/- per cent, can be taken as it is? First of all the area in question was not a developed area at the relevant point of time namely at the time of issuance of 4 (1) Notification. Even as per the evidence, there is nothing to show that there was lot of development which has already taken place, whereas we were able to see that the lands are situated more than 10 feet down than the main road and even as admitted by certain cases, it was maintained as agricultural lands or manavari lands. Therefore, even if the Government acquired the land, they will have to necessarily do all the developmental activities including providing of roads, drainages, water facilities, electricity facilities and also raise the land to a higher level which would cost the Government to a huge extent. Therefore, as per the Supreme Court decision, for fixing the market value necessary deduction has to be given.
27. In this context, it is necessary to look into the below mentioned decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court.
i) In (ONGC Limited vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others) (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 654, in para No. 14 and 15, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court as follows:-
"14. The Reference Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in passing the judgment solely relying on or on the basis of the testimony of a witness ignoring the deeds of sale which were produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. If the Reference Court intended to differ with the opinion of the Land Acquisition Collector, it was bound to assign sufficient and cogent reasons therefor. From a bare perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Judge, it is evident that he had relied upon the purported award made in LARs Cases Nos. 1349 and 1314 of 1992. It is true that before the Reference Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement that the said judgments have attained finality and no appeal had been preferred thereagainst and as such the same could be taken as good guidance for the purpose of determining the actual value of the acquired lands; but as has been noticed hereinbefore, the said statement had wrongly been made as appeals had been preferred thereagainst. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, did not pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on fact and, thus, misdirected itself in law. In determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Court as also the High Court was bound to take into consideration the well-settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in Section 23 of the Act.
15. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding factors by the Reference Judge as also by the High Court. In the absence of any better evidence, the Reference Judge as also the High Court could have made addition in the sale prices for the land as evidenced by the said deeds of sale.
(ii) In (K.S. Shivadevamma and others vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another) (1996) 2 SCC 62, in Para No.10, it was held as follows:-
"10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33-1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
(iii) In the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (Special Tahsildar,Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District vs. Jaganathan Gounder and another) 2009 5 MLJ 2, it was held as follows:-
"17. There are well accepted norms for the purpose of fixing the market value. While fixing the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to consider the location of the property, its advantages as well as the potential. Neither the documents showing an inflated rate nor the distress sale is relevant for the purpose of fixing the land value. The Reference Court has to sit in the arm-chair of a willing seller and a willing purchaser and the market rate has to be determined by taking into account all the positive and negative factors. The purpose for which the property was acquired, the nature of the property, presence of roads, electricity, educational institutions, hospital facility and other infrastructural facilities available in the area are all relevant for the purpose of arriving at the market value.
38. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that 40% deduction should be made towards development costs and 20% on account of small size of the plot taken as the basis to arrive at the market value. Accordingly, while retaining Ex.C-8 dated 08.02.1991 (Rate Rs.30/- per sq.ft.,) as the basis document for arriving at the market rate, we deduct 40% by way of development charges and 20% by way of small size of the plot and arrive at the market rate of Rs.5,22,720/- per acre."
(iv) In (Land Acquisition Officer, Kamarapally Village, Nizambad District, A.P. vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others) (2003) 12 SCC 334, in Para No.11 and 13, it was held as follows:-
"11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price, the profits on the venture, etc. are to be made. (See Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi7.) In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust the deduction for such development was taken as 53%."
13. On applying the principles of law as set out in various decisions referred to above to the facts of the case, we feel that deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ext. B/4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around Rs.40. The rate is accordingly fixed. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40 per sq yard along with statutory entitlements including interest on solatium. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Costs made easy."
v) In (Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chitoor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt) dead by LRs and others (1998) 2 SCC 385, in Para No.6 and 7, it was held as follows:-
"6. The general trend in the prices of land is on the rise and the judicial notice of the same had been taken by the High Court correctly and therefore, cannot be challenged. Puttur is an urban area and the lands in question are abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Arkonam via Puttur and the acquired land was in the heart of Puttur town. To the north of the land in question there is a famous Venkateswaraswamy Temple and to the immediate south, the famous Tiruthani, one of the abodes of Lord Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore taking into consideration the topography of the land, we may safely proceed on the basis that the High Court had correctly noted the situation of the land in question which has the potentiality of being developed as urban land. Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the reference court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed.
7. The argument advanced by Shri Nageswara Rao that the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer was in order and ought not to have been interfered with by the reference court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason."
28. In this case, even assuming for a moment that if we are taking valuation as per the document produced by the claimants viz. Exs.C1 & C2 which are executed only for 2 cents of land, especially by a Village President and Karnam as attestors, who might have been in the know how things have been prior to the 4(1) Notification, we cannot take the entire valuation as it is. In this connection, in LAOP No. 78 of 1999, the Reference Court, taking into consideration of a smaller extent of land mentioned in the sale deed, has reduced the valuation by 70% from the value shown in the sale deed. The Reference Court has taken into consideration that there is no other document is available. The deduction of 70% for arriving at the valuation is a reasonable one. We feel that the lower Court has rightly relied on 30% of the valuation for the extent of land acquired.
29. As stated supra, if we take into consideration the valuation as per Exs. C1 and C2 at Rs.30,000/- per cent and thereafter deduct 70% of the valuation, for the valuation arrived at by relying on the document in respect of smaller extent of land, the valuation would come down from Rs.30,000/- - Rs.21,000/- = Rs.9,000/- per cent. At the same time, it is to be specifically noted that this deduction is only in respect of the valuation arrived at by relying on the document in respect of smaller extent of land, as there is no other document. But so far as the deduction given for development of the land is concerned, we will have to weigh according to the ground realities as available and as per the evidence.
30. The Honourable Supreme Court has very categorically stated that for development charges, even upto 53% of the costs has to be reduced. In fact, as per Town and Country Planning Act also, when an acre of land is converted after giving road margin and other public area, the actual area available would be only 40% and especially in an area where development has not taken place where huge investments has to be made, the question of deductions has to be more.
31. It is admitted by the parties concerned that development has not at all taken place in that area during the time when the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued. The two Division Bench of this Court reported in (Special Tahsildar,Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District vs. Jaganathan Gounder and another) 2009 5 MLJ 2 as well as the decision reported in (The Land Acquisition Officer vs. Radhakrishnan Chetty) (2010) (1) CTC 527, relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, has categorically held that when there is no development at all, normally, a minimum of 40% deduction has to be granted towards development charges. In fact, inner roads, electricity connection, drainage, especially in this case filling up of pitches, are taken into consideration, the deduction has to be given at large scale. Therefore, we feel it necessary and it would be appropriate and correct that after giving deduction for the valuation arrived at by relying on document in respect of smaller extent of lands, a further deduction of 40% has to be given in so far as development charges are concerned. If 40% is reduced from the valuation arrived at by us namely Rs.9,000/- per cent, the valuation would come down to (Rs.9,000
- Rs.3,600) Rs.5,400/-. In the present case, the Court below has only given 20% towards development charges, which according to us is very meager when admittedly there was no development at all taken place in the area where the lands were acquired. Under those circumstances, we feel it necessary to enhance the percentage of deduction given by the court below from 20% to 40% retaining the percentage of deduction fixed by the court below at 70% for the valuation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer by relying on document in respect of smaller extent of lands. By giving such deductions, as aforesaid, we can safely arrive at the valuation of the acquired lands at Rs.5,400/- per cent.
32. A feeble attempt was made by the learned Government Advocate to draw distinction between Manavari and agricultural lands. When we see the topo sketch as well as the evidence, as rightly pointed out by the court below, there cannot be any distinction between manavari lands and agricultural lands as the acquired lands are spread in large areas and agricultural lands are spread in sporadic places. We could also see from records that most of the agricultural lands were lying as fallow lands. Therefore, we are of the view that the valuation in respect of the entire area can be fixed at a same rate as per the decision of the Supreme Court in (Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chitoor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt) dead by LRs and others (1998) 2 SCC 385 para-7.
33. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we fix the valuation of the acquired lands at Rs.5,400/- by modifying the valuation arrived at by the court below at Rs.4,400/-, Rs.4,950/-, Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/-. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the appellant against the valuation of the Court below at Rs.4,400/- and Rs.4,950/- for some of the acquired lands are dismissed and the valuation is enhanced to Rs.5,400/- per cent. Similarly, the appeals filed by the appellant against the valuation made by the court below at Rs.5,500/- for some of the acquired lands are partly allowed and the valuation is reduced to Rs.5,400/- per cent. Equally, the appeals filed by the appellant against the valuation fixed by the Court below at Rs.7,200/- for some of the acquired lands are also partly allowed and the valuation is reduced to Rs.5,400/- per cent.
34. In view of the fact that we have arrived at the valuation of the acquired lands at Rs.5,400/- per cent, the Cross-Objection filed by the petitioners in Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009 is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,400/- to Rs.5,400/- per cent and the appeal filed by the Government in A.S. No. 79 of 2009 is dismissed.
35. As stated above, in these batch of appeals, four different values have been fixed by the court below namely Rs.4,400/-, Rs.4,950/-, Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/-. In so far as the appeals where valuation has been fixed by the Court below at Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,200/-, filed by the Government, they are partly allowed reducing the value to Rs.5,400/-. The respondents in A.S. No. 79 of 2009 alone filed Cross Objection No. 69 of 2009 and it was allowed. Whereas, the respondents in A.S. Nos. 32 of 2009, 57 of 2009, 58 of 2009, 180 of 2009 and 215 of 2009 have not filed any cross-objection as against the valuation arrived at by the Court below at Rs.4,400/- and Rs.4,950/-. Even though they have not filed any cross-objection for enhancement, we fix the value at Rs.5,400/- per cent for which we make a small comparison. If we take the notifications or the award namely Award No. 2 of 1998 in respect of A.S. No. 220 of 2007 against LAOP No. 148 of 1999, in respect of Survey No.7/2, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.201/- per cent, which was enhanced by the Court below at Rs.7,200/-. Similarly, A.S. No. 32 of 2009 as against LAOP No. 58 of 200` in Award No. 4 of 1998, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.550/- which was enhanced by the Court below at Rs.4400/-. In the very same award No.4 of 1998, in A.S. No. 119 of 2009 as against LAOP No. 148 of 1999, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.550/- which was also enhanced by the Court below at Rs.7,200/- per cent. Therefore, in respect of the very same award, when there are two different valuation fixed by the Court below, merely because the claimants have not filed cross-objection, they should not be deprived of the enhanced value of compensation given by us. Therefore, in the interest of justice and following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chitoor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt) dead by LRs and others (1998) 2 SCC 385 para-7., we hold that in respect of larger extent, which are the subject matter of one and the same acquisition proceedings for same purpose, a uniform rate can be fixed even though the claimants have not filed any cross-objection.
35. In the result, all the appeal suits and Cross Objection are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
After pronouncing the Judgment, when we enquired the counsel for both sides as to whether the compensation amount has been deposited to the credit of the respective LAOPs before the Court below, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants only states that certain amount has been deposited. Under those circumstances, we make it clear that if the Government had already deposited the amount at the respective rate fixed by the Court below, the Government is entitled to withdraw the excess amount, along with accrued interest over and above Rs.5,400/- per cent fixed by us. If the Government has not deposited any amount, we direct the Government to deposit the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.5,400/- per cent in all the above cases along with other statutory payments, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai
2. The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer0 Madurai