Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs State Of Haryana on 21 December, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 23.07.2020
Delivered on : 31.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.7591, 7589, 7590, 7592, 7593, 7594, 7595, 7603, 7605,
7606, 7608, 7609, 7610, 7611, 7612, 7614, 7613, 7617, 7618, 7619, 7620,
7621, 7622, 7623, 7624, 7625, 7627, 7626, 7628, 7632, 7630, 7629, 7631,
7633, 7634 and 7638 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.7738, 7741, 7744, 7747, 7757, 7765, 7766, 7770, 7771, 7773,
7774, 7775, 7776, 7777, 7778, 7779, 7780, 7781, 7782, 7783, 7784, 7786,
7787 and 7788 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Officer,
Tirupattur. .. Appellant in all the appeals
v.
Govindan .. Respondent in A.S.No.529 of 2020
Krishnasamy .. Respondent in A.S.No.530 of 2020
Sivaji .. Respondent in A.S.No.531 of 2020
Indirani .. Respondent in A.S.No.532 of 2020
Arjunraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.533 of 2020
Narayanan .. Respondent in A.S.No.534 of 2020
1/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
Sivajiraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.535 of 2020
Narasingaraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.536 of 2020
Raman .. Respondent in A.S.No.537 of 2020
Thorali, S/o.Perumal .. Respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2020
Vasanthabai .. Respondent in A.S.No.539 of 2020
Thorali, S/o.Sivalingam .. Respondent in A.S.No.540 of 2020
Subramani .. Respondent in A.S.No.541 of 2020
Janarthanan .. Respondent in A.S.No.542 of 2020
Annamalai .. Respondent in A.S.No.543 of 2020
Jayapragasam .. Respondent in A.S.No.544 of 2020
Margandaraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.545 of 2020
Thulasiyammal .. Respondent in A.S.No.546 of 2020
Boopathi, S/o.Munisamy .. Respondent in A.S.No.547 of 2020
Jagannathan .. Respondent in A.S.No.548 of 2020
Gunavanthibai .. Respondent in A.S.No.549 of 2020
Selvi .. Respondent in A.S.No.550 of 2020
Govindasamy .. Respondent in A.S.No.551 of 2020
M.Arumugam .. Respondent in A.S.No.552 of 2020
R.Prabagaran .. Respondent in A.S.No.553 of 2020
2/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
Subramani .. Respondent in A.S.No.554 of 2020
Maya .. Respondent in A.S.No.555 of 2020
Sundarraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.556 of 2020
Narendiraraw .. Respondent in A.S.No.557 of 2020
Selvaraj .. Respondent in A.S.No.558 of 2020
Baburaw .. Respondent in A.S.No.559 of 2020
Boopathi, S/o.Munusamy .. Respondent in A.S.No.560 of 2020
Seemanthibai .. Respondent in A.S.No.561 of 2020
Anusuyabai .. Respondent in A.S.No.562 of 2020
Govindaraj .. Respondent in A.S.No.563 of 2020
Dhanavanthibai .. Respondent in A.S.No.564 of 2020
Krishnan .. Respondent in A.S.No.565 of 2020
Murugan .. Respondent in A.S.No.566 of 2020
Pushpammal .. Respondent in A.S.No.567 of 2020
Karthikeyan .. Respondent in A.S.No.568 of 2020
Mallan .. Respondent in A.S.No.569 of 2020
Mahindren .. Respondent in A.S.No.570 of 2020
Thanjammal .. Respondent in A.S.No.571 of 2020
Panchalaiyammal .. Respondent in A.S.No.572 of 2020
3/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
Dhanapal .. Respondent in A.S.No.573 of 2020
Kasinathan .. Respondent in A.S.No.574 of 2020
Yuvaraj .. Respondent in A.S.No.575 of 2020
Viswanathan .. Respondent in A.S.No.576 of 2020
Harivittal Rao .. Respondent in A.S.No.577 of 2020
Sathyamoorthy .. Respondent in A.S.No.578 of 2020
Rajesh .. Respondent in A.S.No.579 of 2020
Raghuvarasan .. Respondent in A.S.No.580 of 2020
Ashokan .. Respondent in A.S.No.581 of 2020
Anand Rao .. Respondent in A.S.No.582 of 2020
Manujula Bhai .. Respondent in A.S.No.583 of 2020
Ranjini Rao .. Respondent in A.S.No.584 of 2020
Anbazhagan .. Respondent in A.S.No.585 of 2020
Deivanayagi .. Respondent in A.S.No.586 of 2020
Chandra Bhai .. Respondent in A.S.No.587 of 2020
Rajini Rao .. Respondent in A.S.No.588 of 2020
A.S.No.529 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.750 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
4/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.530 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.541 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.531 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.853 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.532 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.663 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.533 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.550 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.534 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.797 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.535 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.558 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
5/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.536 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.804 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.537 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.773 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.538 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.790 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.539 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.783 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.540 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.786 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.541 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.848 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
6/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.542 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.739 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.543 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.993 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.544 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.670 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.545 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.593 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.546 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.748 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.547 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.664 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
7/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.548 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.743 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.549 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.780 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.550 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.568 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.551 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.723 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.552 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.716 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.553 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.661 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
8/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.554 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.542 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.555 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.594 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.556 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.554 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.557 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.893 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.558 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.547 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.559 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.559 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
9/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.560 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.738 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.561 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.561 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.562 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.719 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.563 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.891 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.564 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.782 of 2013 dated 21.12.2015.
A.S.No.565 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.822 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
10/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.566 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.685 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.567 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.567 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.568 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.835 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.569 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.649 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.570 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.675 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.571 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.553 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
11/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.572 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.781 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.573 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.680 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.574 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.681 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.575 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.705 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.576 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.673 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.577 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.767 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
12/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.578 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.677 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.579 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.596 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.580 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.665 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.581 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.676 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.582 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.823 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.583 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.802 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
13/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
A.S.No.584 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.778 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.585 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.684 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.586 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.805 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.587 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.700 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
A.S.No.588 of 2020 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in
LAOP.No.779 of 2013 dated 12.10.2015.
For Petitioner in all appeals : Mr.J.Balagopal, Spl.G.P.(AS)
For Respondent in all appeals : Ms.S.S.Meenakumary for
Mr.D.Balachandran
14/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
Today, these matters are taken up by this Court through Video Conferencing, on account of the pandemic COVID-19.
2.Inasmuch as these two batches of appeal suits emanate from the judgments dated 21.12.2015 and 12.10.2015 passed by the learned Special Sub Judge, Vellore, (hereinafter described as “the Reference Court”), wherein, the issue revolves around the payment of compensation to the respondents / claimants / land owners for having acquired their lands in respect of the Scheme for the formation of reservoir and canals across Andiyappanur Odai in Andiyappanur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.
Brief Facts:-
3.The Government by G.O.Ms.No.622 Public Works Department (T1) Dated 10.09.1996, accorded sanction to the Scheme for the purpose of formation of reservoir and canals across Andiyappanur Odai in Andiyappanur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District for the improvement of agricultural production, etc. Pursuant to the same, after issuance of 4(1) notification and 15/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 invoking urgency clause under Section 17(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter shortly referred to as 'the Act') vide G.O.Ms.No.624, Public Works Department, dated 13.12.1999, a vast extent of lands measuring about 97.86.5 hectares were sought to be acquired. After enquiry, the Special Tahsildar / Land Acquisition Officer passed awards fixing the compensation payable to the respondents / claimants / land owners for having acquired their lands.
4.Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondents/ claimants and others preferred Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court passed the impugned judgments on 21.12.2015 and 12.10.2015, enhancing the compensation payable to Rs.50/- per square feet, without any deduction towards development charges. Questioning the said enhancement, the Special Tahsildar /Land Acquisition Officer has come up with the instant batches of appeal suits. Contentions:-
5.The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation amount for the lands acquired, only after considering the relevant 16/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 data sales statistics collected by him. Without considering the said aspect in a proper perspective, the Reference Court has erred in fixing the market value at Rs.38/- per sq.ft. and further adding 15% increase for the first year of acquisition and thereby, enhancing the compensation exorbitantly to Rs.50/- per sq.ft., in violation of the procedures prescribed under the Act. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) further contended that the Reference Court has failed to note that when a large extent of land was acquired, the market value has to be fixed from the sale of a large extent of land and not from the sale of a smaller extent of land, that too, on a square feet basis. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Namdeo Shankar Govardhane v. State of Maharashtra, [(2019) 8 SCC 56], wherein, it was held that merely because the land in question is agricultural land, the price of small piece of land cannot be taken into consideration for determining the price of large chunk of land.
6.The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) further submitted that the data sale deed taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value is nearer to the acquired land, whereas the Reference Court has considered the documents, which are far away from the acquired land as well as the data land 17/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana, [(2018) 2 SCC 474] and submitted that even for a small extent of land, one-third deduction has to be made towards development charges.
7.Adding further, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant submitted that in a similar batch of appeals in AS.Nos.152 to 157, 424 to 427 of 2007 and 343 to 347 of 2010 made by the appellant herein as against the judgments dated 19.08.2005, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tirupattur, relating to the same acquisition proceedings in LAOP Nos.35 to 44, 47, 48, 51, 52 and 54 of 2001, fixing the compensation at Rs.8/- per sq.feet, the learned Single Judge of this Court has confirmed the same and dismissed the said appeals, by a common judgment dated 23.07.2010. It is also submitted that relating to the similar acquisition proceedings, appeals filed by the State in A.S.Nos.613 to 625 of 2011 came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.08.2015, confirming the compensation of Rs.8/- per sq.feet, by relying upon the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.07.2010. Contending so, he sought to reduce the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court.
18/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants submitted that the data land taken by the Government has no access to road, but the Government acquired the lands, which have got access to road and have got high potential value as house sites; there is a clear finding rendered by the Reference Court that the value was fixed only based on soil quality and hence, no other aspects were taken into consideration; and in some of the cases, the Government acquired the middle portion of the properties and in some cases, one side of the properties were acquired and further, there is no way to connect the adjacent lands, as canal is running between the lands. Therefore, the respondents / claimants are unable to cultivate the lands adjacent to the acquired lands. In view of the same, the purchasers are denying to purchase the properties. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government did not adduce any evidence either in oral or documentary before the Reference Court to deny the claim of the claimants. She also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tenneti Kamesam v. Land Acquisition Officer [Appeal (Civil) No.993 of 2008 dated 04.02.2008] in support of her stand not to deduct any amount towards development charges. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Reference Court has taken note of the market value, potential value and the soil quality of the acquired lands, based on the evidence and materials produced by the 19/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 respondents/ claimants and correctly fixed a sum of Rs.50/- per sq.feet as compensation and hence, the same does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
9.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously. Analysis:-
10.Concededly, the Government acquired the lands in question for the purpose of formation of reservoir and canals across Andiyappanur Odai in Andiyappanur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. After complying with the necessary formalities, the Special Tahsildar / Land Acquisition Officer passed awards fixing compensation payable to the respondents /claimants / land owners, in respect of the acquired lands. Challenging the same, the respondents/claimants preferred Section 18 applications seeking enhancement of compensation. By the impugned judgments, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.50/- per sq.feet, without any deduction towards development charges, along with other statutory benefits. Aggrieved over the same, the present batches of appeal suits by the Special Tahsildar / Land Acquisition Officer.
20/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 Market value:-
11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to have a look at the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2001) 7 SCC 650], it was held as under:
“It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale 21/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.”
12.In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789], the Supreme Court elaborately considered the matter and culled out the following principles:
“One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special 22/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring the developed area depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality 23/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
(vi) level vis-à-vis land (vi) some special disadvantageous factors under acquisition which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.”
13.In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 568], the Supreme Court held thus:
“In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression ‘market value’ has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the 24/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities.[See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 3 SCC 772, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. (1977) 1 SCC 684, Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector (1988) 2 SCC 150 and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195].
For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial 25/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about a town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See: Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur (1979) 1 SCC 236, Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt. AIR 1967 SC 465 and Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector (1988) 2 SCC 150. It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer (1984) 2 SCC 324 and Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust (1989) 2 SCC 329 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.”
14.Now, this Court is inclined to deal with the issue relating to determination of market value in the light of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value for manavari land at Rs.23,000/- per acre i.e., Rs.0.52 paise per sq.ft, based on the sale deed dated 08.12.1999 registered as Document No.4783 of 1999 pertaining to the land in S.No.889/6 measuring to an extent of 0.50 cents sold for Rs.11,500/- and fixed the value for irrigated dry land at Rs.44,120/- per acre i.e., Re.1.02 paise per sq.ft., based on the sale deed registered as Document No.837/99 dated 11.03.1999 in respect of the land in S.No.222/2A measuring to an extent of 0.34 cents sold for Rs.15,000/-, vide Award No.7/2000-2001 dated 26/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 29.01.2001, Award No.8/2000-01 dated 08.02.2001, Award No.14/2001 dated 15.09.2001 and Award No.15/2001. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value at Rs.39,600/- per acre i.e., 0.91 paise per sq.ft. in respect of manavari dry land, based on the data sale deed dated 25.06.1999 registered as Document No.2445/99 pertaining to the land in S.No.48/4 to an extent of 0.25 cents sold for Rs.9,900/-, vide Award No.10/2000-2001 dated 03.08.2001. As per Award No.11/2000-2001 dated 13.08.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value at Rs.25,000/- per acre i.e., 0.57 paise per sq.ft. for manavari dry land, Rs.26,315/- per acre i.e., 0.60 paise per sq.ft. for irrigated dry land and Rs.69,830/- per acre i.e., Rs.1.60 per sq.ft. for wet land. In Award No.12/2000, the value was fixed at Rs.52,632/- per acre i.e., Rs.1.20 per sq.ft. from and out of 142 data sales statistics collected by him. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the land at Rs.52,632/- per acre or Rs.1.20 per sq.ft. for manavari dry land from and out of 138 data sales statistics collected by him, in Award No.13/2000-2001. As per Award No.16/2001-02 dated 26.12.2001, the value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre or 0.92 paise per sq.ft. for manavari dry land and Rs.60,000/- per acre or Rs.1.37 per sq.ft. for irrigated dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value at Rs.79,000/- per acre i.e, Rs.1.81 per sq.ft. for wet land and Rs.30,000/- per acre i.e., 0.69 paise per sq.ft. for 27/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 manavari dry land vide Award No.17/2001-02 dated 22.01.2002. From and out of 148 data sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition officer, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.25,000/- per acre or 0.57 paise per sq.ft., vide Award No.18/2001-2002 dated 15.02.2002. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the respondents/ claimants for their acquired lands. But, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence before the Reference Court, to substantiate the same.
15.On the side of the respondents / claimants, C.W.1 to C.W.36 witnesses were examined and Exs.C1 to C5 documents viz., Ex.C1 – Doc.No.1927, dated 28.05.1997 pertaining to the land measuring 1517 sq.ft. which was sold for Rs.50,000/- (Rs.36/- per sq.ft.), Ex.C2 – Doc.No. 2896, dated 20.07.1999 relating to the land admeasuring 1562 sq.ft. sold for Rs.59,000/- (Rs.38/- per sq.ft.), Ex.C3 – Doc.No.553, dated 21.02.1997 relating to the land to an extent of 478.5 sq.ft. sold for Rs.15,000/- (Rs.31 per sq.ft.), Ex.C4 – Doc.No.3387, dated 30.09.1997 pertaining to 1138.5 sq.ft. land sold for Rs.39,000/- (Rs.34 per sq.ft.) and Ex.C5 – Doc.No.3648, dated 12.10.1998 in respect of the land admeasuring 552 sq.ft. sold for Rs.20,000/- (Rs.36 per sq.ft.) were marked, before the Reference Court, with respect to the LAOPs covered in the impugned judgment 28/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 dated 21.12.2015. Similarly, CW1 to CW49 witnesses were examined and Exs.C1 to C4 documents, as referred to in the judgment dated 21.12.2015, were marked, with respect to the LAOPs covered in the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2015.
16.The Reference Court, taking note of the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the aforesaid awards and also considering the evidence and materials adduced on the side of the respondents/ claimants, has taken Ex.C2 as exemplar and determined the market value for the lands acquired at Rs.38/- per sq.ft., and also calculated the average increase of price per year at 15% and ultimately, enhanced the compensation payable to the respondents / claimants at Rs.50/- per sq.ft.
17.It is vehemently contended by the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing for the appellant that only after considering the relevant data sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer, the value was fixed for the lands acquired, whereas the Reference Court has enhanced the same exorbitantly, relying on the sale deed pertaining to small extent of land, that too, house site. It is also contended that the land covered in Ex.C2 sale deed relied on 29/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 by the Reference Court is far away from the acquired lands as well as the data sale deed taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, an argument was made by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) that in similar sets of appeals arising out of the very same acquisition proceedings, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the compensation payable to the respondents / claimants therein at Rs.8/- per square feet. Thus, he prayed to reduce the compensation determined by the Reference Court.
18.The contentions so made on the side of the appellant was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants, stating that the data sale deed taken by the Government has no access to road, but the acquired lands have got access to road and have high potential value as house sites and abutting the road leading from Tirupattur to Alangayam Highways Road and to Jawadhu Hills; and the Andiyappanur Village is the main village located between Tirupattur to Alangayam Main Road and it has a Higher Secondary School, Government Hospitals, Nationalised Banks, Co-operative Bank and Societies, Telephone Exchange, Veterinary Hospital and having frequent transport facilities for every ten minutes. Pointing out the findings rendered by the Reference Court, she submitted that the compensation of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. was 30/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 fixed, based on the above factors as well as the soil quality and hence, the same requires no interference by this Court.
19.It appears from the impugned judgments passed by the Reference Court that the respondents / claimants have produced the oral and documentary evidence to support their claim to some extent, whereas no concrete evidence was adduced on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the compensation at the lower rate. However, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.50/- per square feet, despite the fact that the test documents placed before the same had been ranging from Rs.31/- to Rs.38/- per sq.ft. Further, the arguments made by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant, more particularly, referring to the judgments passed by this Court in similar sets of appeal suits relating to the very same acquisition proceedings, with regard to determination of Rs.8/- per sq.ft. towards compensation payable to the respondents/ claimants therein, do not inspire the confidence of this Court, as there was dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site and nature of the lands acquired with that of the land covered by the test documents, apart from quality, measurements and potentiality of the lands and soil. That apart, the said judgments were passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this 31/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 Court in the years 2010 and 2015 respectively. The same contentions were raised before the Reference Court, which has not considered the same and has enhanced the compensation to Rs.50/- per sq.ft., which in the opinion of this Court, is definitely on the higher side.
20.At this juncture, it is noteworthy to recollect the observation of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai [(2005) 7 SCC 627], which reads as follows:
“ 6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.”
21.After having analysed the materials produced in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, that the lands in question were acquired in the year 2000 and the matter has been dragged on, one way or the other and till now, the respondents / claimants have not received any compensation and that, as per the test documents marked on the side of the 32/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 respondents/claimants, the lands therein were sold in the range of Rs.31/- to Rs.38/-, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be subserved, if compensation payable to the respondents / claimants is determined at the rate of Rs.32/- per square feet. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are liable to be modified.
Development charges:-
22.As regards the development charges, the Reference Court has not made any deduction, placing reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.Nagaraja Shetty v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer [2009-5 LW 64], as there was no material available with respect to developmental activities carried on.
23.While determining the market value of the acquired lands, normally one third deduction i.e., 33 1/3% towards development charges is allowed. After referring to various judgments, the Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another [(2015) 2 SCC 262], held as under:-
33/40
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 “36. While determining the market value of the acquired land, normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges is allowed. One-third deduction towards development was allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. A. Mangala Gowri (1991) 4 SCC 218, Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 SCC 245, Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 631, Revenue Divl. Officer and LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb (2009) 4 SCC 395, A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707, Ashrafi v. State of Haryana (2013) 5 SCC 527 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 165.
37. Depending on the nature and location of the acquired land, extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved for development, 30% to 50% deduction towards development was allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297, Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaid (2006) 12 SCC 87, Mummidi Apparao v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 4 SCC 402 and Lal Chand v.
Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.”
24.Depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of the well planned lay outs, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing so, in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another [(2009) 15 SCC 769], the Supreme Court held as under:-
34/40
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 “19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) …….
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the “deduction for development” factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.”
25.However, in Tenneti Kamesam v. Land Acquisition Officer [Appeal (Civil) No.993 of 2008 dated 04.02.2008], cited on the side of the respondents / claimants, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:
“In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the land in question was situated in a well-development town surrounded by several structures, residential buildings and other commercial establishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other facilities. It is, therefore, evident that the land was already 35/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 situated in a developed area and the question of deduction of development charges did not, therefore arise.” From the aforesaid extract, it is crystal clear that the deduction of development cost is depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose for which the land is acquired, must also be taken into consideration for the same.
26.In the case on hand, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of formation of reservoir and canals across Andiyappanur Odai in Andiyappanur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. The appellant has not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court regarding the proposed development. Even though the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant submitted that some amount has to be deducted towards development charges, he is unable to produce any material to show that the development activities are carried on in those lands. Therefore, in the absence of any material as regards the development work and taking note of the fact that the lands in question were acquired only for formation of reservoir and canals and also in the light of the aforesaid legal position, the question of deduction towards development charges would not arise herein. In this aspect, the impugned judgments passed by the 36/40 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020 Reference Court warrant no interference by this Court.
27.There is no grievance raised by the appellant, with reference to other benefits, such as solatium at 30%, Rs.2,000/- per coconut tree, additional amount at 12% p.a. from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of possession, etc., granted to the respondents / claimants by the Reference Court and hence, the same are confirmed as such.
To sum up:-
28.The compensation payable to the respondents / claimants is reduced from Rs.50/- to Rs.32/- per square feet, without any deduction towards development charges. The impugned judgments dated 21.12.2015 and 12.10.2015 are modified to that extent. All other benefits granted by the Reference Court, will remain unaltered. Since a period of 20 years have already been elapsed, the appellant is directed to pay the amounts of compensation now refixed by this Court, to the respondents/ claimants, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Result:-
37/40
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
29.All the Appeal Suits are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Though this Court passed the common judgment, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant is entitled to separate fee for each case.
Index : Yes/No 31.07.2020
Internet : Yes/No
KM/rk
To
The Special Sub Court, Vellore.
38/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM/rk
A.S.Nos.529 to 564 of 2020 and 565 to 588 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.7591, 7589, 7590, 7592, 7593, 7594, 7595, 7603, 7605,7606, 7608, 7609, 7610, 7611, 7612, 7614, 7613, 7617, 7618, 7619, 7620, 7621, 7622, 7623, 7624, 7625, 7627, 7626, 7628, 7632, 7630, 7629, 7631, 7633, 7634 and 7638 of 2020 and C.M.P.Nos.7738, 7741, 7744, 7747, 7757, 7765, 7766, 7770, 7771, 7773, 7774, 7775, 7776, 7777, 7778, 7779, 7780, 7781, 7782, 7783, 7784, 7786, 7787 and 7788 of 2020 39/40 http://www.judis.nic.in