Madras High Court
Union Of India Rep. By vs Codhandam Krishnadoss on 5 April, 2016
Bench: R.Sudhakar, S.Vaidyanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 05.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
A.S. NO. 962 OF 2015
1. Union of India rep. By
The Secretary to Govt. (Puducherry) (Rev.)
Puducherry.
2. Sub Collector (Rev.) North-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer (Rev.)
Puducherry. .. Appellants
- Vs -
Codhandam Krishnadoss .. Respondent
Appeal filed against the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Puducherry, made in L.A.O.P. No.41/2010.
For Appellant : Mr. A.Tamilvanan, GA (Pondy)
For Respondents : Mr. Adiyapatham for
M/s.D.Senthilkumar
JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) The Union Territory of Pondicherry has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Pondicherry, in LAOP No.41/2010.
2. Lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up a playground for the school in Selimeedu Village. Notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.10.2007. The lands in R.S. No.7/1/ of an extent of 01.51.95 Hct. equivalent to 163498 sq.ft was sought to be acquired. According to the Reference Court award, which is under challenge, it is stated that an extent of 163555 sq.ft. of land was acquired at the rate of Rs.74/= per sq.ft., whereas as per the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, 163498 sq.ft. of land was acquired at the rate of Rs.70/= per sq.ft.
3. Be that as it may. The land in dispute is 01.51.95 hectares in Selimeedu Village, Bahoor Taluk, Pondicherry. In the award proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer, a total extent of 2-37-51 hectares was acquired and a total compensation of Rs.2,96,96,161/= was awarded. So far as the present case is concerned, for an extent of 163498 sq.ft., taking the guideline value as Rs.70/= per sq.ft., the Land Acquisition Officer determined the total compensation in the following manner :-
(i) guideline Value taken as : Rs.70/sft.
(ii) Extent of Land : 163498 sq.ft.
(iii) Compensation awarded : 163498 X 70 = Rs.1,14,44,874/=
(iv) Solatium @ 30% : 30% on 1,14,44,874 = Rs.34,33,462/=
(v) Addl. Market Value :12% on 1,14,44,874 = Rs41,20,154.64 (1095 days, i.e., from date Of 4 (1) Notification 11.10.06 Date of award 9.1.09) Total Compensation awarded Rs.1,89,98,491/=
4. Aggrieved by the said award, the land owners preferred claim petition before the Reference Court in LAOP No.41/2010. The said petition was resisted by the Union Territory of Pondicherry by filing a reply statement dated 25.7.2013, inter alia, contending that 8 documents were not taken into consideration. It was further submitted that the highest value as reflected in the document at is S. No.8, was taken as the data sale deed, which land was sold at Rs.70/= per sq.ft. and, therefore, the said value was taken as the value of the land for working out the compensation.
5. It was the contention of the land owners before the Reference Court that on the date of Section 4 (1) Notification, i.e., 30.10.07, the market value of the land is Rs.700/= per sq.ft. and, therefore, they claimed compensation at Rs.750/= per sq.ft. The respondents reiterated their stand taken before the Reference Court highlighting that the guideline value of the land, as fixed at Rs.70/= per sq.ft. should be taken for working out the compensation and, therefore, the compensation paid is just and fair and no interference is called for with the said award.
6. The respondent herein, viz., the land owner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked. On the side of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.
7. Ex.R-2 is the data sale deed pertaining to the period 30.10.06 to 29.10.07. The two exhibits, Exs.P-1 and P-2, marked by the respondents herein, viz., the land owners, also refers to the period 6.6.07 and 1.9.08. While Ex.P-1 is a sale prior to Section 4 (1) Notification, Ex.P-2 sale is after the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification.
8. According to the Reference Court, to support the plea that the market value of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 (1) Notification was around Rs.700/= sq.ft., reliance was placed on Ex.P-1 sale deed, which is prior to Section 4 (1) Notification and Ex.P-2 sale deed, which is subsequent to Section 4 (1) Notification. According to Ex.P-1, the land comprised R.S. No.37/2 of an extent of 2320 sq.ft., was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/=. As far as Ex.P-2 is concerned, it is a sale of the year 2008 in relation to the land comprised in R.S. No.21/3A and an extent of 3 Kuzhis and 5 = Veesam was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.1,93,000/=.
9. The Reference Court, based on the rival submissions came to hold that the acquired land is situated on a road leading to Bahoor on the Pondicherry - Cuddalore National Highway and the land abuts the main road and it is a wet land and it was intended for use for playground of a school. Accordingly, on a consideration of the above parameters, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that as per Ex.P-1, the rate of the land per square feet will be Rs.73.24 and as per Ex.P-2, the rate of land per square feet will be Rs.100.20. Based on the above sale deeds as also the data sale deed, relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court fixed the value of the land at Rs.200 per sq.ft. and determined the compensation as under :-
Extent of Land 01.51.95 Hectares (R.S. No.17/01) (01 H 51 Ares 95 Centiares = 163555 sq.ft.) Price of the land as fixed by this Court Rs.200/- per sq.ft.
a) Market value of the acquired land At Rs.200/= per sq.ft. (01.51.95) Rs.3,27,11,000/=
b) 30% solatium as per Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act -Rs. 98,13,300/=
c) 12% of the Addl. Market Value as per Section 23 (1) of The Land Acqn. Act from the - Rs. 1,17,75,960/= Date of 4 (1) Notification to the Date of award, i.e., 1095 days Total Compensation Payable - Rs.5,43,00,260/= Amount already paid - Rs.1,89,98,491/= Balance to be paid - Rs.3,53,01,769/= Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Reference Court, the appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal.
10. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the exhibits filed by the parties. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P-2, sale deed, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is subsequent to Section 4 (1) Notification. It is evident from the record that R.W.1, in cross-examination stated that the acquired land is adjacent to house sites and that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the guideline value in fixing the value of the land, while the Reference Court came to the conclusion that for determining the compensation, reliance should be placed on the market value and not the guideline value. It is further evident from the records that the Reference Court, taking note of the several houses situate near the acquired lands and the purpose for which it is acquired, viz., playground for school, the Court was of the view that the acquired lands would fetch more than Rs.180/= per sq.ft., and accordingly, fixed the value of the land at Rs.200/= per sq.ft.
12. It is not in dispute that the extent of land acquired is 163498 sq.ft., while it has been wrongly mentioned in the award as 136555 sq.ft. The Reference Court has made a mathematical error in calculation in fixing the extent of land. Accordingly, this Court fixes the extent of land at Rs.163498 sq.ft.
13. Insofar as the fixation of market value in lieu of guideline value adopted by the Reference Court is concerned, there is no dispute that market value of the land has to be taken for fixing the compensation. In this context it is relevant to refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s.Sakthi & Co. -Vs- Shree Desigachary (2006 (2) CTC 433), wherein it is held as under :-
13. At the outset, it shall be stated that the guideline value, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is a value determined for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. The Basic Valuation Register ismaintained by the revenue authorities, on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The same is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue and the stamp duty. It is mainly for collection of stamp duty for registration of an instrument. The Notification under Section 47-A, which is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue, cannot form basis for determination of the market value. The Government fixes the value, as indicated above, only for the purpose of stamp duty i.e., for the purpose of its revenue. The value is fixed for the locality and not for a particular survey number. The market value for a particular survey number is the result of a bargain between the parties. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the market value is the value, as described in the sale deed.
14. The methods of valuation for ascertaining the market value, as suggested in the above decisions, are as follows :
(1) Opinion of experts (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. (3) A number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
* * * * * * * *
17. The view expressed by Justice S.S.Subramani, in our view, is correct, as it is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The other view expressed by Justice Srinivasan is not correct, as the methods suggested by the Supreme Court for fixing the market value would not include the consideration of guideline value and valuation register. So, in our opinion, the said view is wrong.
14. In the above context, the only issue that needs to be determined is the fixation of market value of the land for the purpose of determining the compensation.
15. While the Land Acquisition Officer has placed reliance on the data sale deed and fixed the value of the land at Rs.70/= per sq.ft., reliance has been placed by the land owners/respondents on Exs.P-1 and P-2, sale deeds, the former having been executed prior to Section 4 (1) Notification and the latter having been executed after Section 4 (1) Notification, wherein the lands have been sold at Rs.73.27 and Rs.100.20 per sq.ft. respectively. There are no other sale deeds based on which the rate of the lands could be assessed. Taking the above aspect into consideration, this Court finds that the Reference Court, without there being any valid material placed before it, has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.200/= per sq.ft., which is not sustainable. No cogent or convincing reason has been recorded nor documentary evidence worth reference has been relied on by the court below to fix the value at Rs.200/= per sq.ft. Even if Exs.P-1 and P-2 are accepted at face value, though in law, sale deeds entered into subsequent to Section 4 (1) Notification should not be taken into consideration, at best, the Reference Court could have fixed the market value of the land at Rs.100/= per sq.ft. and not beyond the said amount. There is no material before the Reference Court to fix the value of the land at Rs.200/= per sq.ft. The Reference Court, by mere ipsi dixit has increased the value to Rs.200/= per sq.ft. only on the ground that the property is situate adjacent to residential place. Though it is pleaded that the acquired lands have got propensity to fetch higher price based on its proximity to residential area, it is to be remembered that even the subsequent sale relied on by the land owners, the land has been sold only for Rs.100.20 per sq.ft. Though, in law, the value of the land cannot be fixed based on sale subsequent to Section 4 (1) Notification, however, there being no other sale deed on which reliance could be fixed for arriving at the market value, considering the proximity of the lands to residential place as also the highways, the purpose of its acquisition and the suitability of the lands to fetch higher value in future, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation for the lands can be safely fixed at Rs.100/= per sq.ft. keeping in mind the sale value shown in Ex.P-1 and the time gap between its execution and the proceedings to acquire the land.
16. Accordingly, this Court, while modifying the award passed by the Reference Court, fixes the value of the lands acquired at Rs.100/= per sq.ft. with usual solatium, interest, interest on solatium and other amounts, if any, payable as per the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the above modification. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.J.) (S.V.N.J.)
05 .04.2016
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
GLN
To
1. The Secretary to Govt. (Puducherry) (Rev.)
Puducherry.
2. Sub Collector (Rev.) North-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer (Rev.)
Puducherry.
R.SUDHAKAR, J.
AND
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
GLN
A.S. NO. 962 OF 2015
05.04.2016