Madras High Court
M/S. Tube Investments Of India Ltd vs The Special Tahsildar on 24 June, 2004
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24/06/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
APPEAL NO.550 OF 1995
M/s. Tube Investments of India Ltd.,
Madras 1. .. Appellant
-Vs-
The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition)
Miscellaneous Scheme
Madras 15. .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.58 of 1984 on the file of
Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 08.06.1992.
!For appellant : Mr. S. Parthasarathy
^For respondent : Mr. R. Ashokan
Addl. Govt., Pleader (AS)
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Sathasivam,J.,) M/s. Tube Investments of India Limited, Madras - 1 - claimant in LAOP.No.58 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee is the appellant in the above appeal.
2. An extent of 5.46 acres of land in Survey Nos.885/4B, 886/4 and 886/5 were acquired by the Government for construction of Railway line. For the said purpose, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) 1894 (in short "the Act") on 07.10.1975. After completing the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.3/80 -81 on 14.02.1981, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.26/- per cent and awarded total compensation of Rs.20,651.63. Aggrieved by the said amount, at the instance of the claimant, the matter was referred to Sub-Court, Poonamallee, which resulted in LAOP.No.58 of 1984.
3. Before the Court below, on behalf of the claimant, D. Janarthanan was examined as CW.1 and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On the side of the Referring Officer, R. Duraisamy, Special Tahsildar was examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.R.1. The learned Subordinate Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and relying on Ex. A.2, which is an assessment order passed by the Urban Land Tax Authority, fixed the value at the rate of Rs.218/- per cent. Apart from the said amount, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation for trees and also granted statutory amounts. Claiming that the amount fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is inadequate, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant by drawing our attention to the fact that the learned Subordinate Judge having accepted and relied on Ex.A.2 as well as taking note of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 07 .10.1995, ought to have fixed higher amount instead of Rs.218/- as fixed. He also pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to grant interest for the solatium. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the amount arrived at by the Court below is quite reasonable and acceptable and there is no ground for interference.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.
7. There is no dispute that though the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.26/- per cent for the acquired land, admittedly, he has not produced the document relied on by him before the Court below. In order to claim higher compensation, the claimant has very much relied on Exs.A.2 and A.3. Since the land sold in Ex.A.3 is only 2 ground and acquired land is 5.46 acres, the learned Subordinate Judge is right in not considering Ex.A.3 for arriving the value of the acquired land. The other document is Ex.A.2, which is a proceeding of the Urban Land Tax Officer. The said document shows that the said authority has fixed the value of the land in Survey No.885 at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per ground and it is dated 01.07.1971. Though the Additional Government Pleader contended that normally the Urban Land Tax Officer fix higher valuation to levy more urban land tax, the said contention cannot be accepted without any supporting evidence. Considering the fact that the acquired land lie in the very same Survey Number or adjacent to it, namely 885/4B, 886/4 and 886/5, the value fixed / arrived in Ex.A.2 can be safely applied to the case on hand.
8. It is also relevant to note that as said earlier, Ex.A.2 is dated 01.07.1971 and 4(1) notification is dated 07.10.1975, the learned Subordinate Judge, taking note of Ex.A.2, fixed the very same amount as prevailed in 1971, namely Rs.218/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in 2002 (3) S.C.C. 68 8 would submit that the claimant is entitled higher compensation by adding appreciation at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year after the base year, namely 1971. In the case before the Supreme Court in similar circumstance, their Lordships have upheld the said procedure and increased the value at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year.
9. Further, in the case of The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Master Plan Complex, Virudhunagar vs. Kamala reported in 2002 (3) C.T.C. 582, a Division Bench of this Court, following the said decision of the Supreme Court (2002 (3) S.C.C. 688), applied the said formula and enhanced the value of the land. In the light of the above decisions and taking note of the fact that the base document is dated 01.07.1971 and 4 (1) notification in our case was published in 1975, by applying the said principle, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per cent. To this extent we modify the decree of the trial Court.
10. The other grievance of the appellant is that even though the learned Subordinate Judge has granted solatium at the rate of 30% for the compensation amount, failed to grant interest at the rate of 12% for the said amount. Clause (3) of the decree shows that the claimant is entitled interest at the rate of 12% from 7.10.1975 to 14.02.1981 only for the land value viz., Rs.218/- per cent. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (7) S.C.C. 211. It is seen that in view conflicting views expressed earlier, the issue was considered by the Constitution Bench. After considering various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, "27. ...... the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. "
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimant is entitled interest not only for the land value, but also for other amounts, including 30% solatium as granted by the Subordinate Court. Accordingly, we modify Clause (3) of the decree of the Subordinate Court and hold that the claimant is entitled interest for the said period, namely from 07.10.1975 to 14.02.1981 at the rate of 12% per annum for the enhanced compensation amount, including 30% solatium.
In the light of what is stated above, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above. No costs.
Index:Yes Internet:Yes kh To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
2. The Record Keeper V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.