Madras High Court
The District Collector Cum Land ... vs Dr.Narayani Narasa on 1 October, 2020
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01 / 10 / 2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422,
1423, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440,
1441, 901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 912, 915, 918, 924,
925, 926, 928, 1592, 1593, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601,
1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1685, 1687, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720,
1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1735, 1739, 1756,
1757, 1758, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 ,
1775 AND 1802 OF 2020
AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
CRP (NPD) NO.1413/2020
1. The District Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer
Southern Sector of Inner Road Scheme
Phase-II, Collector Office, Singaravellar Malligai
Chennai-600 001.
2.The Special Thasildar (Land Acquisition)
Southern Sector of Inner Road Scheme
Phase-II, Collector Office, Singaravellar Malligai
Chennai-600 001. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Dr.Narayani Narasa ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/61
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP No.
64/2014 dated 21/10/2016 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Venugopal
(in CRP (NPD)Nos.1413, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421,
1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439,
1440, 1441 and 1732 of 2020)
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Vasudevan
for Mr.A.C.Kumaragurubaran
(in CRP (NPD) Nos.901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 912,
915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 928, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722,
1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1735 and 1739 of 2020)
For Petitioner : Mr.Vasudevan
for Mr.A.C.Kumaragurubaran
For Respondent : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader
(in CRP (NPD)Nos.1592, 1593, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600,
1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1685, 1687, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1762,
1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1775 and 1802 of
2020)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/61
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
COMMONORDER
The above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against common orders upon reference under Sec 20(1) of Highways Act (T.N.Act 34 of 2002) passed on different dates fixing variable compensation against acquisition of lands within the same locality under two notifications for acquisition within a short span. Considering the acquisition of larger extent of lands for the same project by the same authorities in the same locality, and against the common order, I would prefer to consider all the cases together and pass the common order.
2.Challenging the common order dated 24.11.2015 passed in LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch CRP (NPD) Nos.901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 912, 915, 909, 910, 918, 924, 925, 926 and 928 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
3.Whereas, not satisfying with the quantum of compensation awarded on 24.11.2015 in LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the claimants have preferred the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1592, 1604, 1605, 1593, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1597, 1606, 1595, 1596, 1598, 1603 and 1599 of 2020 respectively.
4.Challenging the order dated 19.04.2017 passed in LAOP Nos. 66/2014, 18/2014, 33/2014, 14/2014, 35/2014, 53/2014, 5/2014, 12/2014, 32/2014, 28/2014, 63/2014, 44/2014, 20/2014, 26/2014, 31/2014 and order dated 21.04.2017 passed in LAOP No.21/2014, respectively, by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1735 and 1739 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
5.Whereas, not satisfying with the quantum of compensation awarded on 19.04.2017 in LAOP Nos.66/2014, 18/2014, 33/2014, 14/2014, 35/2014, 53/2014, 5/2014, 12/2014, 32/2014, 28/2014, 63/2014, 44/2014, 20/2014, 26/2014 and 31/2014 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the claimants have preferred the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1756, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 , 1775 and 1802 of 2020 respectively.
6.Likewise, challenging the order dated 14.03.2018 passed in LAOP.Nos.64/2014, 71/2012, 40/2014, 36/2014, 64/2012, 57/2014, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch 42/2014, 25/2014, 17/2014, 29/2014, 34/2014, 6/2014, 10/2014, 74/2012, 11/2014, 49/2014, 43/2014, 60/2014, 38/2014, 88/2012, 16/2014 and 4/2014 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1413, 1415, 1416, 1419, 1421, 1423, 1437, 1438, 1441, 1417, 1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1439 and 1440 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
7.Heard Mr.J.Balagopal, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the State in all the Revisions and Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in CRP (NPD) Nos.1413, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441 and 1732 of 2020 respectively, and Mr.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.C.Kumarakurubaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in CRP (NPD) Nos.901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch 908, 909, 910, 912, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 928, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1735 and 1739 of 2020 and petitioners/claimants in CRP (NPD)Nos.1592, 1593, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1685 and 1687, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 , 1775 and 1802 of 2020 respectively.
8.The Government of Tamil Nadu has approved proposals for formation of Southern Sector Inner Ring Road between Velacherry and St.Thomas Mount, pursuant to which, the State has acquired 18 Acres and 85 Cents of land. Notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 were issued on 18.12.2003 and 10.06.2004 respectively. Award Nos.1 and 2 came to be passed on 02.01.2009 and 21.10.2009 respectively.
9.The Land Acquisition Officer has taken a Sale Deed vide Document No.783/2002 dated 26.02.2002, wherein a housing plot at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch Kuberan Nagar, measuring an extent of 4 grounds 192 sq.ft, which was sold for Rs.10,00,000/- as data document and fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.102/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved over the same, the claimants raised their objections and the matter was referred to Land Acquisition Tribunal, namely, the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
10.The Tribunal after considering the sale deeds marked as Exs.C1, C2, C3 and C4, relied on Exs.C1 and C2 and arrived at the market value at Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,800/- and Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. respectively.
11.Ex.C1 is the Award dated 12.09.2015 passed in LAOP No.45/2014 fixing the market value at Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft.
12.Ex.C2 is the certified copy of Sale Deed No.2502/2003 dated 05.06.2003 and Ex.C3 is the certified copy of Sale Deed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch No.2025/2005 dated 06.05.2005 in LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively.
13.Ex.C3 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002 and Ex.C4 is the certified copy of Sale Deed No.2502/2003 dated 05.06.2003 vice versa in LAOP.Nos.64/2014, 71/2012, 40/2014, 36/2014, 64/2012, 57/2014, 42/2014, 25/2014, 17/2014, 29/2014, 34/2014, 6/2014, 10/2014, 74/2012, 11/2014, 49/2014, 43/2014, 60/2014, 38/2014, 88/2012, 16/2014 and 4/2014 respectively.
14.In LAOP No.64/2014, 71/2012, 40/2014, 36/2014, 64/2012, 57/2014, 42/2014, 25/2014, 17/2014, 29/2014, 34/2014, 6/2014, 10/2014, 74/2012, 11/2014, 49/2014, 43/2014, 60/2014, 38/2014, 88/2012, 16/2014, 4/2014, the Tribunal has considered Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 vice versa, which pertains to the sale of land to an extent of 310 sq.ft., which was sold https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch for Rs.3,00,000/- under registered Document No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002. The market value as per the said deed works out to Rs.968/- per sq.ft. However relying on the market value of the property mentioned in the sale documents, fixed at Rs.3,36,660/- and 4,08,036/- respectively arrived at the land value at Rs.1,086/- per sq.ft. and Rs.1,217/- per sq.ft. enhanced the compensation at Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft.
15.In LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively, the Tribunal relied on Ex.C2 - Sale Deed No.2502/2003 dated 05.06.2003 and Ex.C3 - Sale Deed No.2025/2005 dated 06.05.2005. Ex.C2 relates to sale of land to an extent of 335 sq.ft., for a sale consideration of Rs.2,33,550/-. As per the above document the value of the land works out to Rs. 697/- per Sq.Ft. As against value fixed by The Referring Authority at Rs.102/- per sq.ft., the Tribunal fixed the market value of the property at Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
16.However, in the latter batch of cases enhanced the compensation at Rs.1800/- and Rs.2000/- respectively.
17.In LAOP Nos.66/2014, 18/2014, 33/2014, 14/2014, 35/2014, 53/2014, 5/2014, 12/2014, 32/2014, 28/2014, 63/2014, 44/2014, 20/2014, 26/2014, 31/2014 and 21/2014 respectively, the Tribunal relied on Ex.C1 – Award dated 12.09.2015 passed in LAOP No.45/2014 and arrived at the market value at Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft.
18. According to learned Special Government Pleader, when larger extent of lands are acquired the value shall be assessed on the basis of sale transactions made in larger extent of lands. When there is difference in market value comparative sale value method shall be adopted. Even though a document was produced for a larger extent of 4 grounds 192 sq.ft, the tribunal has adopted the market value in respect of a smaller area of 335 sq,ft and 310 sq,ft. The fixation of market value on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch basis of smaller transactions are not correct. The highest value relied on by the claimants on batch is as per Ex.C2 relating to a sale of land to an extent of 335 sq.ft., for a sale consideration of Rs.2,33,550/-. As per the above document the value of the land works out to Rs. 697/- per Sq.Ft. But the Tribunal below enhanced the value to Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. Latter as per the registered Document No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002 the sale consideration was Rs.3,00,000/- relating to a land measuring an extent of 310 Sq.ft. According to the sale value mentioned in the Sale Deed, the square foot rate works out to Rs.968/- per sq.ft. But the Tribunal fixed Rs.1800/- in some cases and Rs.2000/- in some cases. The Tribunal has neither followed any rationale for enhancing the compensation nor deducted any amount towards development charges as mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, but fixed variable compensation at random for the land involved in the same acquisition for the same project from the area at Rs.1500/-; Rs.1800/-; and Rs.2000/- on various dates in all the above batch of cases. Had the Tribunal followed a scientific formula in arriving at a fair https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch and reasonable compensation, the disparity would not have arisen. The registered value of the land as per Ex.C2 is Rs.697/- per sq.ft. The Tribunal is bound to explain as to the method in which it arrived at the market value and the justification there for. Without any justification and without recording reasons for enhancement has abruptly fixed the market value at Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. In this process, though it relied on the judgments of the superior courts, failed to adhere to the principles laid down in strict sense and omitted to deduct developmental charges.
19.The learned Special Government Pleader would rely on the following judgments in support of his submission:
(i)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAYA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2018 (2) SCC 474] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
(ii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVARDHANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2019 (8) SCC 56].
20.He would draw the attention of this court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVARDHANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2019 (8) SCC 56] wherein it has been held that for determining the market value, large chunk of land shall be taken into account and it shall not be fixed on the basis of the commercial transactions for smaller piece of land. Therefore, the value should have been fixed on the basis of the data document produced by the revision petitioners and relying on the fancy price mentioned in respect of a small piece of land measuring 300 sq.ft, is not correct.
21.Further, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAYA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch ANOTHER [2018 (2) SCC 474] he would contend that when the larger extent is acquired, the development charges must be given at 33 1/3 percent and would pray for modification of the award.
22.Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants relying on the following judgements would submit his arguments.
(i)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ATMA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2008 (2) SCC 568]
(ii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [1988 AIR 1652]
(iii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.R.NAGARAJA SHETTY VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ESTATE OFFICER AND ANOTHER [2009 (11) SCC 75] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
(iv)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUBH RAM VS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [2009 (8) MLJ 979]
(v)Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-II) TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEMES VS. JEGANATHA NAICKER AND OTHERS [2010 (3) MLJ 551]
(vi)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HIMMAT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [2013 (16) SCC 392]
23.On the other hand, Mr.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in addition to the above cited judgments would rely on the following judgments.
(i)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.R.NAGARAJA SHETTY VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ESTATE OFFICER AND ANOTHER [2009 (11) SCC 75] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
(ii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. NOOKALA RAJAMALLU AND OTHERS [2003 (12) SCC 334]
(iii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVARDHANE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [2019 (8) SCC 56]
(iv)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HASANALI KHANBHAI & SONS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [1995 (5) SCC 422]
24.Both the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would impress upon the Court by their effective arguments on the legal and factual position. According to them, the purpose of land acquisition is for widening the road. The existing 40 feet road in a well developed layout is sought to be extended as 100 feet road. All it requires is nothing but extension of existing roads in a well developed housing layout approved https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch by the authorities. For that purpose, the State need not lay a new road, but it has to expand only the width; if the electric poles are shifted to the expanded road margins, the work would be completed. It hardly requires any expenditure towards development as claimed by the State. He would further contend that the acquired land situate within the limits of Corporation of Chennai and a fast developing part of the City. The guideline value at the Registrar’s office is very high and the market value of the property is still higher than the guideline value. The factum of higher value has been admitted by R.W.2, Tmt.K.S.Kanchanamala (The Special Tahsildar under the control of Referring Authority) during her cross examination. Therefore the argument was advanced that the market value fixed by the Tribunal upon reference for enhancement by itself is very low and it should be enhanced considering the rapid development applying the judicial experience and the principles laid down in the catena of judgments relied on by the counsel for claimants. Further the attention was drawn the evidence of Revenue and that the witness has not adduced https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch any evidence about requirement of developing the land and the expenditure involved for that purpose. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme court, without any evidence, development charges cannot be deducted. The Tribunal has rightly followed the principles and rejected the request for deduction towards development charges. On these grounds the claimants would pray for further enhancement where the award was fixed at Rs.1500/- and not to interfere with the enhancement in other cases.
25.I have heard the submissions made by all the parties and perused the materials available on record and the judgments placed before me.
26.The first and foremost issue to be decided is as to what is the correct market value of the acquired land and what would be a fair and just compensation?.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch Secondly, as to whether deduction towards development charges to be allowed or not? and Thirdly, as to the the quantum of compensation. Market Value:
27.For fixing the market value of the land acquired, it is but fair to take into account the highest exemplar among the sale transactions in that locality. Normally, where larger extent of lands are acquired, the sale transactions with respect to sale of larger extent of lands will relect the true market value of land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in very many cases that comparative sale value method and cumulative enhancement method shall be adopted in compulsory acquisitions. But as in the instant case when then there is no documents were produced for large extent, it is immaterial whether the exemplar is based on smaller extent or larger extent. What is material is to see whether the transaction is bonafide or not? The data document relied on by the State was referred to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch determination of market value under Sec.47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, meaning the sale document does not reflect the true market value of the land as admitted by the official witness.
28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD., VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER [2009 (2) MLJ 78 (SC)] has observed that “normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition). In the very same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that “primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors – situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.” Therefore, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the market value shall be fixed on the basis of highest value of the sale transaction which had taken place in the same locality and the appreciation on the basis of the above factors should also be considered.
29.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (REGISTERED) FARIDKOT AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [2012 (5) SCC 432] has observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch “17.It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation. “
30. In the above judgments, as discussed above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the principles to be followed during compulsory acquisitions and the method of fixing fair compensation taking into account the factors and held that primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors – situation of the land, nature of development in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bonafide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.
31.A Division Bench of this Court in THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER / SUB COLLECTOR, TINDIVANAM VS. KUPPUSWAMI NAIDU AND FIVE OTHERS [1997 (I) CTC 539] has held as under:
“22......... The authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to made an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has, therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under Section 4 of the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. The sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market value. Applying to the above test to the case on hand, it can be safely concluded that the condition of the land acquired at the time of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was only house site. If we take the potential value also into account besides the market value of the land sold in the vicinity, this court is justified in fixing the market value at Rs. 3,00,000 per acre.
23.The market value of the property at the time of acquisition for purpose of determining the compensation payable under Act is its then value in its actual condition with all its existing advantages including the realised possibilities plus in cases where there is possible enhancement of its value in future considering the peculiar location and use the property may potentially be put to, such additional value.
26.The learned Additional Government Pleader then argued that 1/3rd of the market value of the land acquired is to be deducted towards development charges.
We are unable to agree with this contention as well. The learned Additional Government Pleader forgets the fact that the lands in the instant case were acquired for the establishment of a bus stand. If it were a case where the lands are acquired for providing house sites, necessarily the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 25/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities and electricity facilities have to be provided for. In that regard, some additional expenditure is to be incurred and also some portions of land are to be set apart from the land acquired. In that context, Courts have held that at least 1/3rd of the market value of the land acquired is to be deducted towards development charges. But, when the land is required for the establishment of a bus stand, these requirements are not needed except to level the land. In the instant case, it is found, that the lands are even lands and therefore, no additional expenditure is needed for leveling the lands. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention.
27.We are also unable to countenance the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale has to be made in this case if the compensation is to be enhanced any further. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all the relevant facts. It is not the extent of area covered under the acquisition is the only factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 26/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch etc., then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired may not be justified. We, therefore, reject this contention also.”
32.As per the above judgment, it is to be seen that the actual condition of the land on the date of acquisition with all its existing advantages including the realised possibilities of enhancement of its value in future corresponding to the location, use of property and its potentiality, market value has to be fixed. The Division Bench has also rejected the claim for deduction of development charges considering the purpose of the land acquisition as well as the development condition of the land.
33.In the instant case, the land was acquired for widening the existing Velachery – Tambaram Road. It situate very near to Vijaya Nagar at Velachery. Vijaya Nagar is a very important location and known for its best commercial value. This land situate well within the limits of Greater Chennai Corporation and very near to so many IT Parks, Velachery Bus https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch Terminus, Velachery Metro Railway Station and surrounded by very big Companies, Hotels, Cinema Theatres, Commercial Malls, Banks, Educational Institutions and Commercial Buildings. The development in this area is very rapid and it is an important location for residential and non-residential growth. One Parimala Devi was examined as R.W.1 on the side of the Referring Officer. She admitted in her cross examination that the rate fixed by the Acquisition Officer was based on guideline value and that does not reflect the market value and also admitted that the acquired land is surrounded by many Apartments, Velachery Bus Terminus, Metro Railway Station, Fly-over and Commercial Establishments very near to the land. The Tribunal, has also noted down the guideline value for the land situated in Vijaya Nagar Main Road and its extension as Rs.1300/- per sq.ft during the year 2004.
34.The above factors show that the land acquired is a very potential site within the City of Chennai. For the purpose of fixing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 28/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch market value, 3 documents were produced before this Court viz., (i) Sale Deed No.2502/2003 dated 05.06.2003; (ii) Sale Deed No.2025/2005 dated 06.05.2005; and (iii) Sale Deed No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002. We have already noted that the date of Notification under Section 15(2) of the Act is 18.12.2003 and 10.06.2004. Therefore, the Sale Deed No.2025/2005 dated 06.05.2005 which is subsequent to the date of Notification cannot be taken into consideration and the Tribunal has rightly omitted the same. Out of the two Sale Deeds remaining for consideration, Sale Deed No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002 pertains to sale of 310 sq.ft., in the area, for a value of Rs.3,00,000/- and Sale Deed No.2502/2003 dated 05.06.2003 is for sale of land measuring an extent of 335 sq.ft., for a sale consideration of Rs.2,33,550/-. The market value was mentioned as Rs.3,36,660/- which works out to Rs.1086/- per Sq.ft. The highest exemplar is Sale Deed No.2589/2002 dated 13.06.2002 wherein sale of 310 sq.ft., was made for a sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the above documents for fixing the market value. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 29/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch market value mentioned therein was Rs.4,08,036/- which works out to market value of Rs.1217/-per Sq.ft. The Tribunal has also taken judicial notice of the guideline value of the adjacent places, namely, Vijay Nagar Main Road, during the period 2004 which was Rs.1300/- per sq.ft. However, while fixing the compensation, the Tribunal, without adopting any specific method, had observed as follows:-
“23.Therefore, though the Claimant claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft., no documents produced in support of such claim. Eventhough, this Court deem it fit to fix market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft., and accordingly the claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft., the compensation awarded by the referring authority at the rate of Rs.102/- per sq.ft., is ordered to be deducted from the enhanced compensation award amount.”
35.Though the Tribunal adverted to all the factors failed to record the reasons for fixing the market value, except in one batch of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 30/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch cases. Even there it has not followed any rational formula for fixing the rate. The Tribunal below abruptly fixed the market value and enhanced the compensation. In that process it has also failed to consider the expenditure to be incurred for development of land. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in GENERAL MANAGER, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD., VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER [2009 (2) MLJ 78 (SC)] the rapid development and high demand for the land, the escalation in prices shall be taken into consideration. As rightly considered by the Tribunal the guideline value for the purposes of Stamp Duty will not reflect the true market value of the land. The market value mentioned in the exhibit marked on the side of the claimants as Exhibit C series, the document number differs in respective cases, indicates the market value around 1217/- per sq.ft. It is also pertinent to take judicial notice to the prevailing guideline value of the adjacent area during the year 2004, which was Rs.1300/- per sq.ft. The Notification was also issued in December 2003 and June 2004. Therefore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 31/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch based on the market value mentioned in the exhibit C-2 and C-3, and the prevailing guideline rate during the relevant point of time at Rs.1300/- per sq.ft., I prefer to the highest exemplar and fix the market value at Rs.1217/-
36.As already discussed the data document relied on by the Acquisition Officer in Sale Deed No.783/2002 dated 26.02.2002 at Kuberan Nagar, measuring an extent of 4 Grounds 192 sq.ft., does not reflect the true market value and that it was referred for determination of market value under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, it is not safe to rely on the document and enhancement shall be made on the basis of the market value fixed above.
37.As admitted by the official witness it is very clear that the Velachery area is a prime locality and a developed area and the growth very fast and availability of lands have become dear. I have already https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 32/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch observed that the land acquired is surrounded by so many Commercial and Residential Buildings and Bus Stand, MRTS Fly-Over and IT Parks, the rapid development is obvious. Therefore, as observed by the Tribunal below escalation of price has gone beyond 50%. The Tribunal has also rightly rejected the current guideline value prevailing for residential area at Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft and Rs.12,000/- per Sq.ft as they are supported by material evidence. But it cannot be denied that the land value has increased double or triple the value, if not six to seven times more. The present project is also one of the reasons for such manifold price hike.
Therefore, applying the judicial experience and discretion I deem it just to give 60% escalation to the market price fixed on the basis of the comparative values of the sale deed and guideline rate at the relevant point of time and thereafter. Accordingly, 60% enhancement over the market value viz, Rs.1217/- per Sq.ft is taken for arriving at the fair compensation, which works out to Rs.1947/- per Sq.ft.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 33/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
38.It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. NOOKALA RAJAMALLU AND OTHERS [2003 (12) SCC 334] wherein it has been held as under:
“6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to few decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimour v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta , Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. (AIR 1984 SC
392).
7.It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 34/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
8.In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 35/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criteria to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality.”
39.The market value of the land shall be taken into consideration the price which willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. In that view of the matter, residentially and commercially important and potentiality of development, where the price increases by metes and bounds day by day, the enhancement given https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 36/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch above at Rs.1950/ per sq.ft., in the considered opinion of this court, will meet the ends of justice.
Development Charges :-
40.Before deciding on the issue of deduction of development charges it is imperative to look in to the legal position.
41.In the judgment of this Court in THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR, TINDIVANAM VS. KUPPUSWAMI NAIDU AND FIVE OTHERS [1997 (I) CTC 539] it has been held as under:
“26. The learned Additional Government Pleader then argued that 1/3rd of the market value of the land acquired is to be deducted towards development charges. We are unable to agree with this contention as well. The learned Additional Government Pleader forgets the fact that the lands in the instant case were acquired for the establishment of a bus stand. If it were a case where the lands are acquired for providing house sites, necessarily the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 37/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities and electricity facilities have to be provided for. In that regard, some additional expenditure is to be incurred and also some portions of land are to be set apart from the land acquired. In that context, Courts have held that at least 1/3rd of the market value of the land acquired is to be deducted towards development charges. But, when the land is required for the establishment of a bus stand, these requirements are not needed except to level the land. In the instant case, it is found, that the lands are even lands and therefore, no additional expenditure is needed for leveling the lands. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention.
27. We are also unable to countenance the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale has to be made in this case if the compensation is to be enhanced any further. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all the relevant facts. It is not the extent of area covered under the acquisition is the only factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 38/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch etc., then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired may not be justified. We, therefore, reject this contention also.”
42.The learned counsel for the claimants also relied on a judgment of this court in SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-II) TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEMES VS. JEGANATHA NAICKER AND OTHERS [2010 (3) MLJ 551] wherein relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ATMA SINGH's case (cited supra) this Court has restricted the deduction to 10%, for the lands acquired which are very nearer to the City, for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. Relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“26.In the present case, lands acquired are in the developed Area / Industrial Area. The neighbouring areas are already developed and houses have been constructed. The land has potential value for being used as house sites. The acquired lands are very near to the City and is in a very advantageous position and therefore, there need not be one-third deduction. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 39/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
27.Lands were acquired in 1975, but due to one litigation or other, Awards were passed in 1985, 1986, 1989 etc. Having regard to the potentiality of the lands and that the acquired lands are situated in the Industrial area, in our considered view, applying the ratio of Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of Gujaraj (supra) deduction of 10% would be reasonable.....”
43.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in HIMMAT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [2013 (16) SCC 392] observed that in the absence of any evidence as to the expenditure incurred for development and also the requirement for development and held the deduction made by the Reference Court as legally unsustainable. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment reads as under:
“26. The next issue which merits consideration is whether the Reference Court and the High Court had correctly made deductions in the name of development charges/cost of development. The Reference Court made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 40/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch three- tier deduction. In the first place, 25% was deducted in the name of leaving out portions of the acquired land for the purpose of laying roads, drains, sewer line, parks, electricity line etc. Thereafter, 25% deduction was made towards expenses for development work. Finally, 50% deduction was made because of smallness of the plots sold vide Exhibits P1 to P12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court approved the deduction and determined market value of the acquired land at the rate of Re.1 per sq. ft.
27. The approach adopted by the Reference Court and the High Court in making deductions towards the cost of development / development charges from the market value determined on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the appellants was clearly wrong. The respondents had not even suggested that the development envisaged by the Reference Court, i.e., laying of roads, drains, sewer lines, parks, electricity lines etc. or any other development work was required to be undertaken for laying the Railway line.
Therefore, 25% deduction made by the Reference Court and approved by the High Court under two different heads is legally unsustainable.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 41/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
44.In C.R.NAGARAJA SHETTY VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ESTATE OFFICER AND ANOTHER [2009 (11) SCC 75] the Honble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on its various judgments and the judgment in NELSON FERNANDES AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SOUTH GOA AND OTHERS [2007 (9) SCC 447] has held as under:
“16. In the reported judgment in Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others in 2007(9) SCC 447, this Court has discussed the question of development charges. That was a case, where, the acquisition was for laying a Railway line. This Court found that the land under acquisition was situated in an area, which was adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose, i.e., for laying Railway line. In paragraph 29, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 42/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch the Court observed that the Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and the High Court had failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition was for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation.
17.The Court relied on judgment in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(4) SCC 789, where it was held that the purpose for which the land is acquired, must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. Further, in paragraph 30, the Court specifically referred to the deduction for the development charges and observed:-
"30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways...................... In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 43/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch The Court made a reference to two other cases, viz., Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons Vs. State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported in 1995 (5) SCC 422 and 2003(12) SCC 334 respectively, where, the deduction by way development charges, was held permissible.
18.The situation is no different in the present case. All that the acquiring body has to achieve is to widen the National Highway. There is no further question of any development. We again, even at the cost of repetition, reiterate that no evidence was shown before us in support of the plea of the proposed development. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred in directing the deduction on account of the developmental charges at the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet out of the ordered compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet. We set aside the judgment to that extent. .....
45.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAYA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2018 (2) SCC 474] has observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 44/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch “6.So far as the contention regarding deduction at the rate of 67.5% for development charges is concerned, the exemplar relied upon by the High Court dated 26.05.1983 was for a small extent of land of 9 marlas which was sold for Rs.25,500/-. The transaction relates to the period which is about 56 months prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the High Court adopted the rate of escalation at 10% and calculated the value at Rs.6,64,887/-
. Considering the fact that the acquired land required for development and that the property covered under the exemplar was for a small extent of 9 marlas of land, the High Court applied maximum deduction at 67.5% and calculated the compensation to be paid at Rs.2,19,413/- per acre.
7.In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297, this Court has held that "if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 45/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
8.Observing that the development charges for development of particular plot of land could range from 20% to 75%, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, in paras (13), (14) and (20), this Court 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.
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.
.….....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 46/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
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.”
9.In a catena of judgments, this Court has taken the view to apply one-third deduction towards the development charges. After referring to various case laws on the question of deduction for development, in Major General Kapil Mehra and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 262, this Court 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 47/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch 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: (SCC pp. 359- 60, para 7) ‘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 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 incurredin 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 48/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch 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)
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 49/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch 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.
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."” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 50/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
46.Admittedly, the land acquired measures a larger extents of 18 acres and 85 cents. Though major portion comprise of house sites, it cannot be denied that it also comprise of approved, unapproved, developed, undeveloped house sites and dry lands also. Neither can it be denied that the alignment of the 100 feet road will not fall exactly over the roads developed on approved layouts, nor can it be asserted that the roads formed in these approved and unapproved layouts are contiguous and does not require formation or extension or laying of new stretch of roads by levelling the ground. The terrain cannot be said to be uniform and the authorities may be needed to form elevated roads and build over bridges and culverts, where it crosses waterways. Of course, filling may be required for levelling the dry lands, more particularly, when the acquisition involves larger extent of land as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAYA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2018 (2) SCC 474].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 51/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
47.The contention made on behalf of the claimants that it is not just an extension of margins of the roads and shifting of electric poles and not innocuous and easy as projected. Even though, no evidence has been adduced, it is common knowledge that for the purpose of providing facilities to the commuters or road users, more particularly long distance travellers developments shall be made. Access to Restaurants, Gas Stations, Truck lay by, Bus Stops and Bus shelters, Mechanic Shops and Road utility services have to be provided.
48.The electric poles erected for domestic purpose on a 30” or 40” road will not be enough to cover the area and width of a 100” road. The dimensions of the electrical poles, breadth wise, Height and depth wise shall correspond to the formation of 100 feet broad road and other facilities. Thus, the electric poles, certainly, shall possess strength to bear the heavy winds, rains and storms etc. Depending upon the technical advice, specifications and feasibility metals like Iron, Aluminium etc., may https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 52/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch be used to withhold the situations indicated above. Apart from the poles, the wires and all other allied equipments, transformers and sub-stations have to be established. Further water drainage is another factor of serious contemplation to avoid stagnations, accidents and smooth commutation.
49. Bearing all these factors and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Courts, the decision has to be taken. The judgments relied on by the claimants in THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER / SUB COLLECTOR, TINDIVANAM VS. KUPPUSWAMI NAIDU AND FIVE OTHERS [1997 (1) CTC 539] and SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA- II) TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEMES VS. JEGANATHA NAICKER AND OTHERS [2010 (3) MLJ 551] are for a very different purpose. In the former case, land was acquired for Bus stand where much of the development was not required. Likewise, in the later, land was acquired from a neighbourhood area and therefore, the development https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 53/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch charges were not permitted. But, as discussed above, in the present case on hand, the land was acquired for laying a 100 feet Inner Ring Road involving the huge expenditure towards electrification and drainage facilities. Therefore, the State has certainly to incur expenditure towards development charges. In that view of the matter, I consider the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAYA DEVI's case (cited supra) will be apt.
50.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HASANALI KHANBHAI AND SONS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [1995 (5) SCC 422] has held as under:
“.....The question, therefore, is whether the High Court was right in deducting 60% of the price in determining the compensation. Since the State had not come in appeal against the determination of the compensation at Rs.10/- per sq. yard, the need to go into its correctness is obviated. But suffice it to state that the High Court has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 54/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch rested its conclusion on diverse facts. The first, in our view, rightly is that the lands are situated far away from the municipal limits so as to use for building purpose; secondly, possibility of the restrictions to be imposed by the State under Section 74 of the Highways Act is always imminent. Thirdly, the vast extent of lands acquired. Lastly, the comparative extent of land under acquisition and the smallness of the lands covered by the sales in Survey Nos. 334 and 335. It had held that sales of small extent do not offer as a comparable instance in determination of the compensation of vast lands. The question is whether these principles are not relevant and germane to adjudge the market value ultimately to be fixed by the Court. It is true, as contended by Mr. Dholakia, that the counsel appearing for the State in the Reference Court had not adverted in the cross-examination to the relevant factors to be elicited in the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the appellant. But it is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; he evalutae the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 55/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch constitutional, statutory and social duty. The court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the arm-chair of a prudent willing but not too anxious purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the Court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value. These principles were enunciated by this Court in, all decisions including the one relied on by Mr. Dholakia which needs no reiteration. It is a question of fact in each case to consider whether the land under acquisition is possessed of such value which includes potential value, if any, as comparable with reference to the evidence on record. It is seen that the sale instances referred and relied on by the High Court in Survey Nos. 334 and 335 are small pieces of land; they do not offer as comparable sales. This Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi [AIR 1988 SC 943] has settled the law that when sales of small lands are found to be germane sales in developed area between willing purchaser and willing vendor but not too anxious buyer the value of small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in fixing the price for large extent and is not a safe https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 56/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch guide in valuing large extent of lands. However, if it is found that large extent to be valued admits of and is ripe for use of building purposes, that building lots could be laid out on the land could be good selling proposition and that valuation on the basis of method of hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted. Then in valuing such small layout any such valuation as included in the sales comparably small sites in some area at the time of notification would be relevant in such cases. Necessary deduction for the extent of the land required for the formation of the roads and other civic amenities requires to be made. In that case 50% was deducted..... “
51.In that view of the matter, considering the ratio laid down in the other judgments, I deem it fit to allow minimum of 15% deduction towards development charges. Thus, after deducting 15% towards development charges, the rate of compensation works out to: -
Rs.1947 x 15/100 = Rs.292.05/-
Rs.1947 – Rs.292/- = Rs.1655/- sq.ft.
(Rounded off to Rs.1655/- per sq.ft.) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 57/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
52.In the result, i. The Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed by modifying the awards as indicated.
ii. The land value is uniformly fixed at Rs.1,655/-
(Rupees One thousand six hundred and fifty five only) per sq.ft.
iii.The claimants are entitled to all other statutory benefits particularly interest as per Section 28 and its proviso of Land Acquisition Act viz., the other benefits provided to the claimants by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in the above Awards, stands confirmed.
iv.The learned Special Government Pleader is entitled to get separate fee for all the Civil Revision Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 58/61 CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch v. Twelve weeks time is granted for deposit of the Award amount from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
53.Post the matter for reporting compliance on 15th April 2021.
01 / 10 / 2020
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
TK
To
The VI Assistant Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
59/61
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
60/61
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413 OF 2020 etc., batch
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
CRP (NPD) NOS.1413, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 912, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 928, 1592, 1593, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1685, 1687, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1735, 1739, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 , 1775 AND 1802 OF 2020 01 / 10 / 2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 61/61