Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Ramasamim Mooper on 5 February, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020
C.M.P.No.2288,2298,2290,2291,2292,2293,2294,
2295,2296,2299,2304,2300,2303,2302,2305,2306,2307,2308,
2309,2311,2314,2312,2315 of 2020
A.S.No.139 of 2020
1.The Land Acquisition Officer,
The Special Tahsildar(LA),
Mordhana Reservoir Project,
Gudiyatham.
2.The Executive Engineer(P.W.D),
Mordhana Reservoir Project,
Sethuvandai Village,
Gudiyatham. ..Appellants
Vs.
Ramasamim Mooper ..Respondent
Prayer : First Appeal filed against the Judgment & Decree dated
31.03.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the
learned Sub-Judge, Gudiyatham.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal
1/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020
For Respondent : Mr.G.Vasudevan
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeal suits are filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 passed in land acquisition proceedings by the Sub-ordinate Court, Vellore District.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in enhancing the market value exorbitantly and the compensation fixed by the land acquisition officer at Rs.29,740/- per acre as a just compensation and therefore, the enhancement made by the Trial Court is not based on any such established principles. The Trial Court enhanced the market value at Rs.600/- per cent and Rs.60,000/- per acre. The enhancement was made by the L.A.O.P Court, relying on the document marked as Ex.A1, which is a sale deed and the said sale deed was executed with reference to smaller extent of land and therefore, they cannot be ground for a enhancement by the Trial Court. The 2/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 Land Acquisition Officer referred all the connected and relevant documents and fixed the compensation by considering topography and other aspects of the matter. While so, the Trial Court committed an error in relying the document, which is a sale deed, with reference to a smaller extent of land and enhanced the compensation from Rs.29,740/- per acre to Rs.60,000/- per acre. The learned Special Government Pleader is of the opinion that the enhancement made by the Trial Court is improper and the Trial Court has not considered the deduction of development charges, which is being done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of acquisition for public scheme. The acquisition, in the present case, is to be made for the purpose of constructing a reservoir and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have imposed the development charges and on this ground also, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. The lands are undeveloped and therefore, the Government has to spend for the purpose of developing the lands, in order to construct a reservoir. Under these circumstances, deduction of development charges is highly necessary.
3/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants opposed the contention by stating that the trial Court has rightly relied upon the documents and therefore, there is no infirmity as such in respect of enhancement already granted. The Trial Court relied on the document marked as Ex.C1, which is a sale deed, with reference to an adjacent land measuring 21 cents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated that the extent of land is immaterial and the market value, which is ascertained by the Trial Court, is the criteria for the purpose of granting enhancement and relying on the said document, the Trial Court granted enhancement and therefore, there is no infirmity and accordingly, the appeal suits are liable to be dismissed.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the right of the property is a valuable right and therefore, the Court must consider the grant of just compensation by interpreting evidence pragmatically. At the outset, liberal approach is required in 4/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 respect of grant of enhancement as the land losers are being deprived of their right of property and therefore, fixation of just compensation is of paramount importance. When the citizen is deprived of his property right, on account of the fact that the State had proposed to implement certain public projects, the State also must be liberal and must have a pragmatic approach in the matter of fixation of compensation. In fact, the market value, which will be more beneficial to the land losers, are to be considered. The authorities competent should not restrict the claim by relying on the documents. Contrarily, the authorities must keep in mind that grant of compensation being a beneficial legislation, the authorities competent must consider the fixation of compensation, based on the documents which would be beneficial to the land losers. Such an approach is required in the matter of land acquisition proceedings as the land losers lose their livelihood. All these aspects are to be considered while fixing the compensation.
5. In the present case, the land was acquired for the purpose 5/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 of construction of reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.29,740/- per acre. Such a fixation was done by comparing the various documents namely sale deed registered in respect of adjacent lands measuring 2.2 acres. However, the claimants could able to file another document before the L.A.O.P. Court establishing that the market value of that location is Rs.60,000/- per acre and the said document was registered in respect of land measuring 21 cents. Extent of land may not have much relevance as the market value is to be ascertained in its true sense. Whether it is 21 cents or one cent, what is the market value fixed in respect of particular location alone is to be considered. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed an error in respect of considering the documents filed by the claimants. Under these circumstances, the only ground to be considered is whether the development charges are to be imposed by the Trial Court or not. In this regard, the learned Special Government pleader cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MAYA DEVI(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER reported 6/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 in (2018)2SCC474, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
4. The contention of the appellant claimants are mainly three-fold: (i) there was only ten months' difference between the Notification dated 12-2-1988 and the sale deed dated 27-12-1988 while so, the High Court was not justified in not considering the said sale deed dated 27-12-1988 as an exemplar on the ground that the same is a post notification; (ii) considering that the land acquired falls within municipal limits and had immense potential for use for commercial and residential purpose, applying the maximum cut at the rate of 67.5% was not justified; and (iii) for acquisition of the land of the adjoining khasra by Notification dated 27-3-1989, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7,26,000 per acre by the High Court which is more than three times higher than the compensation awarded in the present case.
5. So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellant claimants dated 27-12-1988 is post notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Dev. Authority v. Gobinda Chandra 7/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 Makal [Kolkata Metropolitan Dev. Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal, (2011) 9 SCC 207 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 561] , it was held that the relevant date for determining the compensation is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette. In para 34, it was held as under: (SCC p. 221) “34. One of the principles in regard to determination of the market value under Section 23(1) is that the rise in market value after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value. If the deeming definition of “publication of the notification” in the amended Section 4(1) is imported as the meaning of the said words in the first clause of Section 23(1), it will lead to anomalous results. The owners of the lands which are the subject-matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the Gazette or in the newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification is delayed by two or three months, there may be several sale transactions in regard to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike in value in view of the development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself.” (emphasis in original) 8/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 Applying the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that the post-notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land.
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 26-5-1983 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 v. Krishan Kumar [Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 461] , this Court has held that: (SCC p. 299, para 10) “10. … if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards 9/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 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 levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines.” (emphasis supplied)
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 [Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 766] SCC in paras 13, 14 and 20, this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 779-80) “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.
10/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 ***
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.” (emphasis supplied) The same principle was reiterated in A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy [A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010) 12 SCC 707 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 711] .
6. Therefore, fixing of development charge is to be made and admittedly, the L.A.O.P Court has not deducted the development charges in the present case. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to consider the case of the appellant only for the purpose of deduction of the development charges as the property acquired is situate in rural area. It would be appropriate to fix 25% of deduction towards development charges. In this view of the 11/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 matter, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Sub-ordinate Court, Vellore District, are confirmed in all other respects and in respect of development charges, 25% is to be deducted from the compensation amount granted by the L.A.O.P Court. Accordingly, the appeal suits are allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.02.2020 ssb Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order To The Sub-Court, Gudiyatham.
12/13 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb A.S.Nos.139 to 161 of 2020 05.02.2020 13/13 http://www.judis.nic.in