Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar(La) vs V.Pankajam on 24 February, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
A.S.No.226 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.Nos.194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210,
218, 227, 241 & 242 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.2870, 2872, 2884, 2885, 2983, 2988, 2883, 2888, 2887, 2889, 2909,
2910, 2899, 2904, 2907, 2912, 2913, 2920, 2923, 2924, 2926, 2931, 2933, 2948
2950, 2991, 2996, 3009, 3011, 3036, 3039, 3060, 3063, 3073 & 3074 of 2020
A.S.No.194 of 2020:
The Special Tahsildar(LA)
SIPCOT Unit IV,
Irungattukottai Scheme/Sriperumbudur Scheme
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Pankajam
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
SIPCOT
19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. ...Respondents
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set
aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.840 of 2007 dated 26.02.2008 on the file
of the Sub Court of Kancheepuram.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.226 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader(AS)
[in all A.S]
For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Vijay Anand
[For R1]
[in all A.S]
C O M M O N JUDGMENT
The issues involved in the First Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appeal suits are filed, challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram in the following L.A.O.Ps respectively:
L.A.O.P.Nos. Dated A.S.Nos.
L.A.O.P.No.840/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.194/2020
L.A.O.P.No.841/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.196/2020
L.A.O.P.No.839/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.197/2020
L.A.O.P.No.562/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.198/2020
L.A.O.P.No.861/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.199/2020
L.A.O.P.No.843/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.201/2020
L.A.O.P.No.842/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.202/2020
L.A.O.P.No.2/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.203/2020
L.A.O.P.No.838/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.204/2020
L.A.O.P.No.852/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.205/2020
L.A.O.P.No.550/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.206/2020
2/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.226 of 2020
L.A.O.P.Nos. Dated A.S.Nos.
L.A.O.P.No.556/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.207/2020
L.A.O.P.No.11/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.209/2020
L.A.O.P.No.566/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.210/2020
L.A.O.P.No.564/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.218/2020
L.A.O.P.No.308/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.227/2020
L.A.O.P.No.591/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.241/2020
L.A.O.P.No.597/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.242/2020
3. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, SIPCOT in Irungatukottai, is the appellant in the appeal suit and the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly contended that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.450/-(Rupees Four Hundred only) per cent and the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,200/-(Rupees Four Thousand and Two Hundred only) per cent, which is in violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The enhancement of compensation awarded by the trial Court is excessive and not in commensuration with the market value prevailing in that particular locality. The trial Court has not considered the claim made out by the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer and the very same claimants subsequently claimed an excessive compensation, which was considered by the trial Court and accordingly, enhancement of Rs.4,200/- was granted. The trial Court has 3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 not considered the disadvantages prevailing in respect of the lands acquired and therefore, the trial Court judgments are liable to be set aside. The requisitioning bodies namely SIPCOT, spent huge amount for the development of that locality. Reclamations were made and therefore, the development charges of 30% is improper and in other cases of acquisition, 40% of development charges were deducted. For all these reasons, the trial Court judgments are perverse and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants disputed the said contentions by stating that the right of land losers / claimants cannot be undermined by fixing lesser compensation. It is a practice that the Land Acquisition Officers are always in the habit of fixing lesser amount of compensation without reference to the locational advantages as well as the market rate prevailing in that locality. Being a Government authority, the Land Acquisition Officers are taking the lowest rates for fixing compensation and such a practice by the competent authorities itself is improper and cannot be construed as a just compensation. The authorities of the State are bound to be neutral and fix the compensation in accordance with law, so as to ensure that the land losers are not affected or deprived of their right of just compensation. However, the practice is otherwise being followed and the 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 authorities competent are fixing the lowest rate as compensation for the lands acquired and on each and every occasion, the claimants are bound to approach the LAOP Court for enhancement under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Such a practice is not only causing delay in settling the compensation and on account of the consistent escalation of market value in respect of the immovable properties, the land losers are made to suffer both mentally and financially. Such an escalation in the sub urban areas of cities are creating a great concern to these land losers / claimants and therefore, the authorities competent are expected to be fair and reasonable and accordingly, fix the just compensation, so as to ensure that the land losers are able to get a fair compensation for the lands acquired.
5. As far as the present appeals are concerned, the trial Court considered the documents produced by the claimant as well as by the Land Acquisition Officer. Witnesses were examined and Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 were marked. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Special Officer, Land Acquisition, SIPCOT was examined as RW1 and Ex.A1 plan alone was marked by the Land Acquisition Officer. The trial Court considered the documents as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimants that the properties acquired are house sites and valued as per square feet basis. RW1 Land 5/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 Acquisition Officer also admitted before this Court that @khk;ghf;fk; Mh;$pj epyk; njrpa beL";rhiyia xl;o epy vLg;gpd; xU gFjp xl;oa[ss ; J vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vz;/199/v bfhz;l bek;giu khk;ghf;fk; Mh;$pj epyk; m';fho tpiy eph;zapf;f vLj;Jf;bfhz;nlhk;/ ,it njrpa beL";rhiyf;F 2 fp/kP J}uk; js;sp cs;sJ vd;why; rhpay;y/ r/vz;/165. 178. 179 vz;fs; khk;ghf;fk; epy Mh;$pj epy';fSf;Fl;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 1966y; 62 brd;l; epyk; r/vz;/165/1lt U:/3.72.000-? tPjk; xU brd;l; U:/61 Mapuk; tPjk; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ me;j 3 vz;fSk; epy Mh;$pjj;jpw;F cl;gl;lJ/ rp/1 rp2 gj;jpu';fs; ,uz;L Mz;LfSf;F Kd;g[ gjpt[bra;ag;gl;lJ/@
6. The lands acquired are located at the distance of about 45 km from Chennai and adjacent to Chennai-Bangalore National Highways. The area so identified by SIPCOT constitutes a compact block and located at the east of National Highways, proves that the acquired lands are highly suitable for locating the industries and Multi-National companies. In this regard, the trial Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in AIR 1979 SC 472.
7. The trial Court considered the judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by appreciating sale deeds marked as Exs.C1 & C2 are reflected the correct average amount and 6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 accordingly, arrived the market value of the property acquired as Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per cent.
8. This Court is not inclined to review the said findings in view of the fact that the trial Court arrived the finding based on the documents produced by the claimants before the trial Court and such documents are not disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the other locational advantages and the nature of the land and other factors regarding the developments are also not disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
9. This being the categorical findings of the trial Court, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity as such in respect of the conclusion arrived. However, the development charges of 30% requires a modification as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India consistently has taken a decision that 1/3rd amount is to be deducted towards development charges. Accordingly, 33% is to be deducted towards development charges. Thus, this Court is inclined to modify the development charges as 33% from 30%, which was imposed by the trial Court. In all other respects, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is in consonance with the legal principles and in accordance with the documents relied upon. However, the development charges of 30% 7/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 ordered to be deducted by the trial Court is modified as 33% and the claimants are entitled to all other statutory and other benefits as per law.
10. With this modification, the judgments and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, in the the following L.A.O.P.Nos. stand confirmed:
L.A.O.P.Nos. Dated A.S.Nos.
L.A.O.P.No.840/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.194/2020
L.A.O.P.No.841/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.196/2020
L.A.O.P.No.839/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.197/2020
L.A.O.P.No.562/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.198/2020
L.A.O.P.No.861/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.199/2020
L.A.O.P.No.843/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.201/2020
L.A.O.P.No.842/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.202/2020
L.A.O.P.No.2/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.203/2020
L.A.O.P.No.838/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.204/2020
L.A.O.P.No.852/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.205/2020
L.A.O.P.No.550/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.206/2020
L.A.O.P.No.556/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.207/2020
L.A.O.P.No.11/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.209/2020
L.A.O.P.No.566/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.210/2020
L.A.O.P.No.564/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.218/2020
L.A.O.P.No.308/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.227/2020
L.A.O.P.No.591/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.241/2020
L.A.O.P.No.597/2007 26.02.2008 A.S.No.242/2020
8/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.226 of 2020
11. Consequently, all the First Appeals stand allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.02.2020 Index:Yes Internet:Yes Speaking order Pns/Kak To The Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.226 of 2020 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Pns/Kak A.S.Nos.194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 218, 227, 241 & 242 of 2020 24.02.2020 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in