Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar(L.A.) vs Murugan Pillai on 12 December, 2007
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12/12/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.Nos.65 of 1996 A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 1996 A.S.No.65 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar(L.A.), Defence Purpose Unit No.III, Nanguneri. ... Appellant Vs 1.Murugan Pillai 2.Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. 3.Defence estates officer, Madras Circle, F.S.G., Madras - 9. (R2 and R3 impleaded as per order dated 26.08.2003 in C.M.P.No.18310 of 1997) ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgement and Decree dated 04.01.1995 passed in LAOP.No.66 of 1985 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Paramasivam Government Advocate ^For R1 ... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For RR2 and R3 ... Mr.C.Krishnan, ACGSC (No appearance) A.S.No.66 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar(L.A.), Defence Purpose Unit No.III, Nanguneri. ... Appellant Vs 1.Murugan Pillai 2.D.Indraammal 3.Jeyakalyani 4.Athikari 5.Deivanayagi 6.Union of India rep. by Defence estates officer, Madras Circle, F.S.G., Madras - 9. 7.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. (R7 is impleaded as per order dated 26.08.2003 in C.M.P.No.18309 of 1997) ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgement and Decree dated 04.01.1995 passed in LAOP.No.123 of 1983 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Paramasivam Government Advocate ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For RR2 to R5 ... Mr.M.I.meenasahib (No appearance) For RR6 and R7 ... Mr.C.Krishnan, ACGSC (No appearance) A.S.No.67 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar(L.A.), Defence Purpose Unit No.III, Nanguneri. ... Appellant Vs 1.Murugan Pillai 2.Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. 3.Defence estates officer, Madras Circle, F.S.G., Madras - 9. (R2 and R3 impleaded as per order dated 28.04.1998 in C.M.P.No.18311 of 1997) ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgement and Decree dated 04.01.1995 passed in LAOP.No.159 of 1986 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Paramasivam Government Advocate ^For R1 ... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For RR2 and R3 ... Mr.C.Krishnan, ACGSC (No appearance) :COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated 04.01.1995 passed in LAOP.Nos.66 of 1985, 123 of 1983 and 159 of 1986 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals as stood exposited from the records would run thus:
The Land Acquisition officer for the defence purposes, published Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act Notifications dated 23.02.1983, 29.12.1982 and 05.09.1982 for acquiring the lands in Kovankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, bearing Survey Numbers:
(i) 2.70 acres in Survey Numbers 300/1 and 300/5 and a well situated in S.No.300/1.
(ii)2.02 acres in Survey Number 293/3A and 1.12 acres in Survey Number 294/2A.
(iii) 43.18 acres in Survey Number 307/1A, 1D, 3A, 1C and 308/1A1, 1A2, 1B.
4. After complying with the procedural formalities as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed awards fixing the compensation per acre at the rate of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only) in respect of all the lands covered by the aforesaid notifications.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such assessment the reference was sought by the land owner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereupon LAOP.Nos.66 of 1985, 123 of 1983 and 159 of 1986 before the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli emerged. Accordingly the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli who was seized of the matter looked into it and ultimately relating to Survey Nos.300/1 to 300/5 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per acre and relating to Survey Nos. 293/3A, 294/2A, 307/1A, 1D, 3A, 1C and 308/1A1, 1A2, 1B awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per acre.
6. Challenging the enhancement awarded by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli the aforesaid three appeals have been filed on the main ground that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli took into account the sample sale deeds, which are having no relevance to the properties acquired. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Sub Court.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Sub Court is excessive?
8. Relating to A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 1996, the Sub Court considered Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 23.10.1980, which comprised of the following two items:
1.271/1 2 .33.13y; br52 1/6 mg[r U.2800.00 2.273/1 .br68y; br4.mg[r U. 200.00 However, there is a discrepancy in Ex.A1 as in sheet No.2, the extent mentioned was 52 1/2 cents, whereas in sheet No.3, it is mentioned as 56 1/6 cents. Be that as it may, there is only slight discrepancy and it could be taken that the sale deed refers to a total area of 56 1/6 cents and that area was valued around Rs.5,475/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred and seventy five only). The Sub Court took the value per acre as Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) without specifying as to how much it deducted towards development charges. I am of the considered opinion that towards developments charges there should be some deduction and it should be at least 20% as the purpose of acquisition is for the defence purposes and accordingly if worked out, 20% comes to Rs.1080/- (Rupees one thousand and eighty only) and accordingly the compensation could be assessed at the rate of 5475 - 1080 = Rs.4395/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred and ninety five only) and it could be rounded to Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only). As such the Judgment passed by the the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli shall stand modified to the effect that the compensation should be at the rate of Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only) per acre and accordingly it has to be worked out for area acquired.
9. Relating to appeal No.65 of 1996, the Sub Court, Tirunelveli erroneously took into account the sample deed Ex.A1 which contemplates the land situated at a distance of 2.6 Kms away from the acquired land. The fact remains that the land contemplated under A.S.No.66 and 67 of 1996, are nearer to the land covered under A.S.No.65 of 1996. Ex.A1 marked relating to A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 1996, dated 23.10.1980 should be taken as the sample deed for this also as there cannot be any two standards when both the lands are in one and the same vicinity and those lands were acquired for one and the same purpose of the Defence Department. One acre therefore has to be assessed at the rate of Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only).
10. However, there is a well and motor for which a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was awarded. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli assessed the value of motor alone at Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) however for the well and that motor together a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) was awarded which is on the lower side. For well a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and for the motor a sum of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) could be awarded
11. A.S.No.65 of 1996:
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the trial Court is reduced from Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per acre to Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only) per acre and for the well the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and for the motor the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only). In other aspects, the trial Court award shall hold good. No costs.
12. A.S.No.66 of 1996:
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the trial Court is reduced from Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per acre to Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only) per acre. In other aspects, the trial Court award shall hold good. No costs.
13. A.S.No.67 of 1996:
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the trial Court is reduced from Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per acre to Rs.4400/- (Rupees four thousand and four hundred only) per acre. In other aspects, the trial Court award shall hold good. No costs.
smn To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.