Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Sayeeda Suraiya Tabassum on 29 April, 2022
A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 12.04.2022
Pronounced on : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
Appeal Suit Nos.361 TO 372 of 2016
&
Cross Objection Nos.36 TO 47 of 2017
A.S.No.361 OF 2016 :
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
SIPCOT, Siruseri Scheme at
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk. .. Appellant
-vs-
1.Sayeeda Suraiya Tabassum
2.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT Limited,
No.19/A, Rukkumani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents
Appeal against the order and decretal order, dated 11.04.2014,
passed in L.A.O.P.No.62 of 2007 on the file of Additional Subordinate
Judge, Chengalpattu.
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
For Appellant in all Appeal Suits &
first Respondent in all Cross Objections :
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,
Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent 1 in all Appeal Suits &
Cross Objectors in all Cross Objections :
Mr.A.S.Vijay Anand
For Respondent 2 in all Appeal Suits &
Cross Objections : Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy
COMMON JUDGMENT
While all the twelve Appeal Suits Nos.361 to 372 of 2016 are preferred by the State, aggrieved over the order passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu, in the L.A.O.Ps., dated 11.04.2014, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,100/- per cent to Rs.41,856/- per cent for the lands acquired under Award No.1 of 2006, dated 27.07.2006, the Cross Objections, 12 in number, bearing Nos.36 to 47 of 2017 have been preferred by the claimants/individuals, aggrieved over the deduction of 20% towards development charges from the market value of R.52,320/- and fixing the value of the land at Rs.41,856/- per cent. 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
2. Since all these First Appeals and Cross Objections subsume a common issue, they are being disposed of in common.
3. According to the respondents/claimants before the trial Court, their lands in Survey Nos.230 to 234, of Siruseri Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were acquired by the appellant for establishment of Information Technology Park and a meagre compensation at the rate of Rs.3,100/- per cent was awarded. The compensation was received by the respondents/claimants under protest and they filed a petition for reference to Court. The sale deed relied upon by the appellant for fixing the value of the lands did not represent the true market value of the land sold under it. The land therein was sold for a higher price, but the document was purposely undervalued for evasion of stamp duty and minimizing the document expenses. The sale deed of a very low value had been selected for the purpose of determination of the value of the acquired lands at a low value. The land selected by the Land Acquisition Officer was at a distance of 1.6 k.ms. from the lands acquired. The acquired land were plots in cyber corridor of old Mahabalipuram Road, admeasuring 2400 sq.ft. in an approved and well 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch developed lay-out and the same were purchased during the year 1980. The acquired lands were without alienation by respondents/claimants solely owing to the high appreciation due to the nearby existence of East Coast Road and Information Technology Park and various units like Wipro, Infosys, TCS, Tata Consultancy etc. The SIPCOT sold the respondents/claimants land in an open market at the rate of Rs.30.00 lakhs per cent but the entire promising prospectives of the respondents/claimants were shattered by the acquisition of the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquired lands and their vicinity even before acquisition had been perceiving high escalation and vertical upward surge in terms of market value. The Land Acquisition Officer had absolutely erred in fixing the preliminary compensation by relying upon the document, dated 20.10.2003, based upon S.No.235/6B1 pertaining to 1.00 acre at the rate of Rs.3,100/- per cent, which land was far away from the acquired land. The acquired lands were near to Velachery Railway Station and abet Highway and possesses high advantageous location and high appreciable scope for development. The Land Acquisition Officer had relied upon an unequal and irrelevant sale instance and he should have at least conduced an independent inquiry and obtained the expert 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch opinion before fixing the justifiable compensation to the respondents/claimants. Accordingly, they prayed to enhance the compensation and fix Rs.10.00 lakhs per cent, besides adducing the appreciation of market value along with statutory benefits and interest on solatium provided under the relevant Act. Hence, a Reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for award of enhanced compensation for the lands acquired.
4. Appellant/respondent filed a counter, stating that before commencement of the acquisition process, the acquiring authority invited the land owners for a private negotiation to fix the market value of the acquired lands and since there was no co-operation on the side of the land owners, a proposal for acquisition of lands in question under Section 3 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,1997, (Act 10 of 1999), hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', was sent to Government through Collector of Kancheepuram. Individual notices in Form-A were sent to land owners on 26.03.2004 and 27.03.2004. After complying with all the formalities as contemplated under the Act and after following the rules and regulations therein, sale statistics for a period of 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch one year prior to publication of Section 3 (2) Notification from 26.03.2003 to 26.03.2004 were collected from Sub-Registrar's Office, Thiruporur. During the said period, 96 sales had taken place. Out of the said sale statistics, after excluding various transactions for various reasons, the sale transaction in Sl.No.16 was taken as data land for determining the land value of the acquired lands. The sale therein was taken to an extent of 99 cents dry land in S.No.235/6B1 and 235/6, which was sold for Rs.3,06,900/- in Document No.2924, dated 20.10.2003, at Sub-Registrar's Office, Thiruporur, which worked out to Rs.3,100/- per cent, as it reflected the real market value for the lands acquired in Siruseri Village, which could not be said to be unreasonable.
5. The point that stood for consideration before the trial Court was, whether the respondents/claimants were entitled to get any enhanced compensation for the lands ?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, the claimants were examined as C.Ws.1 to 11 and documents Exs.C-1 to C-7 were marked. On the side of 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch appellant/respondent, one witness, by name, Saraswathy, Special Tahsildar (LA) SIPCOT, was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.
7. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,100/- per cent to Rs.41,856/- per cent for the acquired lands in question, with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount from the date of 3 (2) Notification till the date of passing of the award, and with interest at 9% per annum on the excess amount for one year from the date of taking possession and, thereafter, at 15% per annum till the date of deposit of the amount and the enhanced amount was ordered to be deposited within three months. Aggrieved over the same, these Appeal Suits have been filed by the State, as stated above.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant, would contend that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective, which led to the Reference being allowed and, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. According to him, the trial Court grossly erred in allowing the claim of the 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch respondents/claimants on misinterpretation of facts and evidence and, therefore, the claim is liable to be rejected.
9. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Court below considered all the aspects while fixing the market value for the lands in question and, therefore, the order impugned in these appeals does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, his contention in the Cross Objections is that the acquired lands were already developed and they did not require any further development for implementation of the public purpose, for which land was acquired, and, therefore, the deduction of 20% from the market value fixed by the trial Court towards development charges was unwarranted and it requires interference by this Court.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the voluminous records.
11. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the respondents/claimants are entitled to the decree, as granted by the trial Court ?
8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
12. At the outset, it is to be stated that the acquisition of lands belonging to the respondents/claimants is not in dispute. It is also not disputed about the ownership of the lands of the respondents/claimants, so also the procedure followed in acquiring the lands. The only dispute is with regard to the fixation of value for the lands. While it is the contention of the appellant/State that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.3,100/- per cent was reasonable, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is that the rate fixed by the trial Court at Rs.41,856/- per cent was justifiable.
13. To examine the above issue between the parties, if we see the records, what comes to be known is that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of establishment of an Information Technology Park at Siruseri. It is well settled that in matters of acquisition of land, while fixing the compensation, the market value of the land as on the date of Section 4 (1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, which is Section 3 (2) Notification of the Act herein, has to be taken into account. In this case, Section 3 (2) Notification was dated 26.03.2004. The 9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch acquired lands were dry lands converted into house sites, as could be assessed from Exs.C-5 to Ex.C-7, which contained the approved lay-outs, nearer to the acquired lands. Therefore, the value of the said lands could be high. It was also difficult to get a property similar to the acquired lands in the outskirts of Chennai City, particularly, Siruseri Village, which was suitable for formation of Information Technology Park. In Siruseri Village, acquisition was done in S.Nos.230 to 234 for a total extent of 15.96.5 hectares and the entire acquired lands were classified as Patta Punjai.
14. It is axiomatic that comparative sale method is the best method of fixing market value of any acquired land, in which regard, the data land should be proximate in time and distance, of the same nature and classification, as that of the acquired land. Further, the data land transaction should be genuine and bonafide in order to be comparable with the acquired land.
15. Going by the above factors and characteristics, coupled with the fact that Section 3 (2) Notification was dated 26.03.2004, the germane documents for determination of compensation in this case would 10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch be Exs.C-5 to C-7, Sale Deeds, which were dated 24.03.2004, just two days prior to the Notification. Therefore, the said documents are more appropriate to be relied upon to decide the market value of the lands in question. Ex.C-5 is the Sale Deed in Document No.951/2004, dated 24.03.2004, for the land in Neethipathi Venugopal Nagar, Egattur Village, wherein, a land of 7700 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.9,24,000/- at the rate of Rs.52,320/- per cent. Similarly, Ex.C-6, is the Sale Deed in Document No.950/2004, dated 24.03.2004, for the land in Neethipathi Venugopal Nagar, Egattur Village, wherein, a land of 8500 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10,08,000/- at the rate of Rs.52,320/- per cent. Also, Ex.C-7, is the Sale Deed in Document No.952/2004, dated 24.03.2004, for the land in Neethipathi Venugopal Nagar, Egattur Village, wherein, a land of 8800 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10,56,000/- at the rate of Rs.52,320/- per cent. It is also significant to note that the lands in the abovesaid three sale deeds were adjacent to the lands acquired in the present case. Therefore, adoption of the said rate of Rs.52,320/- per cent to the lands in issue by the trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be unjust or irrational. However, after adopting the rate as above for the lands, since the lands acquired were dry lands converted into house sites, 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch situated in the outskirts of Chennai City, and, for formation of Information Technology Park, they required road, electricity, drainage and all other amenities to make the lands worth enough, the trial Court felt it just and reasonable to deduct 20% of the market value towards development charges. Thus, deducting 20% from the market value of Rs.52,320/-, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.41,856/- per cent by the trial Court.
16. In this context, it is worth-mentioning to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another, (2009) 15 SCC 769, observing that the development charges for development of particular plot of land could range from 20% to 75%, held as under :
“13. The percentage of ‘deduction for development’ to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
14. The ‘deduction for development’ consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works.
.….....
20. Therefore, the deduction for the ‘development factor’ to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure."
The same principle was reiterated in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 707.
17. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a view to apply one-third deduction towards development charges. On the question of deduction for development, the Supreme Court, in Major 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch General Kapil Mehra and Otherrs. v. Union of India and Another., (2015) 2 SCC 262, held as under :
"35. Reiterating the rule of one-third deduction towards development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, this Court, in para 19, held as under :
“19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, the Court held :
‘7. … It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. ...
There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.’ The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745.” (emphasis in original) 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
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 Atchinaidu (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. 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
38. In few other cases, deduction of more than 50% was upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the case in Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld the deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 201, deduction of 60% towards development charges was held to be legal. This Court, in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444, held that deduction of 67% amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer (2012) 1 SCC 390, deduction of 70% was upheld."
Further, after referring to various case laws on the question of deduction for development as above, the Apex Court, in Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2018) 2 SCC 474, applied deduction of one-third and awarded compensation accordingly.
18. Considering the above percentage of deductions for development of the lands acquired, if we look at the present case, the deduction of 20% applied by the trial Court is at the lowest of the range from 20% to 75%, as laid down by the Apex Court in Lal Chand's case, cited supra, and the same shall not be interfered with by this Court. 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch
19. True it is, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, where the land acquired is in the midst of already developed area with amenities of roads, electricity etc., the deduction in the value of the comparable land is not warranted, as held by the Supreme Court in Bhagawathulla Samanna and Others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506. However, as stated above, the lands acquired herein were not in the midst of already developed area with amenities stated above, at the time when they were acquired in the year 2004. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case and the contention in this regard is negatived in the absence of any proof thereof. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants are not relevant and, hence, they are not considered.
20. For the above reasons, all these Appeal Suits and Cross- Objections are dismissed and the order impugned is confirmed. Time for payment of enhanced amount as per the order of the trial Court is three months. The learned Special Government Pleader is entitled to the fee as per rules. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.8108 to 8119 and 19704 to 19715 of 2016 are closed.
18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch 29-04-2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking Order dixit To
1. Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch S.KANNAMMAL, J.
dixit A.S.Nos.361 TO 372 OF 2016 & CROSS OBJ.NOs.36 TO 47 OF 2017 20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.361 of 2016 & Batch 29.04.2022 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis