Madras High Court
G.Vinayagam vs The Special Tahsildar on 26 April, 2010
Author: Aruna Jagadeesan
Bench: Aruna Jagadeesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
SA.No.1176/2001
G.Vinayagam Appellant
Vs
The Special Tahsildar
(Adi Dravidar Welfare)
Land Acquisition, Vellore
Krishna Nagar, Vellore Respondent
Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 22.3.2001 passed in CMA.No.4/1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, modifying the award dated 29.2.1996 passed in Award No.7/1996 by the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare, LA, Vellore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.K.Sampath
For Respondent : Mrs.Bhavani Subburayan, SGP
JUDGEMENT
The claimant is the appellant herein.
2. The Appellant is the owner of the land bearing S.No.199/1A2 of an extent of 0.97.0 hectares (2 acres 49 cents) situated at Poigai Village, Vellore District. The land was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of making provision of house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Section 4(1) notification was published on 12.12.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent herein passed an award in Award No.7/1995-96 dated 29.2.1996. In the said award, the value of the land of the Appellant was determined at Rs.86,645/-, at the rate of Rs.36,102/- per acre which comes to Rs.361/- per cent. The Appellant received said award with protest.
3. The Appellant aggrieved over the said fixation by the Land Acquisition Officer, which according to him was very low, sought for reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 18(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference has been taken on file as CMA.No.4/1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, the claimant had marked Exs.A1 to A4 and examined himself as PW.1 and one Moorthy and P.K.Natarajan as PW.2 and PW.3. The Land Acquisition Officer had marked Exs.B1 to B7.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.722/- per cent and granted a solatium amount of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit. Aggrieved over the compensation fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, this Second Appeal has been filed by the claimant.
5. This court, while admitting this second appeal, had formulated the following substantial question of law:-
(a)Whether the judgement of the learned Subordinate Judge is vitiated on the ground of wrongful rejection of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, which throw some guidelines to ascertain the market value of the acquired property?
6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.
7. Mr.M.K.Sampath, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Reference Court had committed an error in rejecting the documents Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, which clearly prove that having regard to the location of the land, it is nearby the Adi Dravida Colony abutting the Vellore-Thiruppathur Main Road and is similarly placed as that of the acquired land and admittedly, the lands acquired was for the purpose of providing house sites as is suitable for the said purpose. The learned counsel would submit that the land owner had prepared the land and made fit to be sold as house sites and the Reference Court failed to take that fact into consideration. The learned counsel further pointed out that though the Reference Court found that the sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer situated far away from the acquired land and delcined to take it as a basis to determine the value, however erred in fixing the value at random at Rs.722/- per cent without any basis.
8. On the contrary, Mrs.Bhavani Subburayan, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent supported the Judgement and Decree of the Reference Court and contended that the sale deeds Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 related to a very small piece of land as against the large area of more than two acres of land acquired in this case and the same cannot be taken into consideration for determination of fixation of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon certain decisions to countenane his argument that while determining the market value of the acquired land, the potentiality of the land and other several factors like location of land, its surroundings, available facilities like National Highway abutting this land, Bus Depot, Industrial Training Center and Temple in the near vicinity, nature of land have to be taken into account and referred to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others [2008-1-MLJ-1038-SC] and Sharadamma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another [2007-3-MLJ-814] and of this court rendered in the cases of Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputhur [2003-1-MLJ-124], M.G.Venugopal Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi, Coimbatore [1998-1-MLJ-62],and Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode Vs. D.Sakthivel [2008-3-MLJ-1415]
10. The Reference Court though found that the sale deed relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer was far away and the same could not be taken for consideration in determining the compensation, however without any basis had determined the compensation at Rs.722/- per cent. Ex.A2 sale deed is dated 22.2.1991 executed by one Moorthy in favour of one Rathinam Ammal for a sum of Rs.8000/- for an extent of 1650 sq.ft. Whereas Ex.A3 sale deed dated 7.7.1994 was executed for a sum of Rs.9000/- for an extent of 1785 sq.ft. Admittedly, the survey numbers of those lands sold is 208, which is adjacent to the acquired land and the site in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 abuts the Vellore-Tiruppathur Main Road.
11. The Reference Court, taking into account that the acquired land are lying little far away from the Vellore-Tiruppathur Main Road and as those lands in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are sold as small sites, did not deem it fit to take into consideration for determining the compensation.
12. It is no doubt true that where a large area is the subject matter of acquisition, the rate at which small plots are sold cannot be taken into consideration. But, however, where there is no other material and the one relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer has been rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that it did not reflect the correct price, it may be appropriate to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land subject to allowing of certain deductions towards development charges.
13. In 2008-1-MLJ-1038-SC stated supra the Honourable Supreme Court after referring to its decisions rendered in several cases of this nature laid down the following principles for fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales.
"(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);
(ii) it should be bona fide transaction;
(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acuired; and
(iv) it should possess similar advantages.
14. In the present case, it is not disputed that those sales referred to by the Appellant under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 sale deeds are within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not the case of the Respondent that they are not the bona fide transaction. There is no suggestion to the witnesses PW.2 and PW.3, except making a general suggetion that they are made to boost up the price. It is also not in dispute that the acquired land is adjacent to the sites sold under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Therefore, it can safely be said without any contradiction that the acquired land possesses the similar advantages as that of the sites sold under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. It is pertinent to point that the Appellant has given evidence before the Reference Court that he had spent considerable amount in converting the land into house plots, but the plan submitted by him was not taken into consideration, as it was not an approved plan.
15. Except for the fact that they are sold as small plots, on other factors, they are similar to the acquired land and hence, I am of the considered view that the sale price in Ex.A3 could be taken into consideration in determining the compensation after giving deduction of 10% towards development charges.
16. Therefore, the Appellant/claimant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1998/- per cent, after deduction of 10% towards development charges, 30% solatium under Section 23(2), 12% under Section 23(1A) on the market value and interest at 9% p.a. for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% p.a. from the date of expiry of the said period of one year till the date of payment of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant. Accordingly, the Judgement and Decree of the Reference Court is modified and the substantial question of law is answered and this Second Appeal is disposed of with proportionate costs.
Srcm To:
1.The Subordinate Judge, Vellore
2.The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare, LA, Vellore
3.The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras