Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildhar vs Ibrahim Kalifullah ...Claimant/ on 16 April, 2010
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/04/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN A.S.(MD)No.73 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.74 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.75 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2003 & C.M.P.(MD)No.1073 of 2003 C.M.P.(MD)No.1074 of 2003 C.M.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2003 C.M.P.(MD)No.1076 of 2003 A.S.No.73 of 2003 The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pudukkottai. ...Referring Officer/ Appellant Vs Ibrahim Kalifullah ...Claimant/ Respondent Prayer in A.S.No.73 of 2003 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.79 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Pudukkottai. A.S.No.74 of 2003 The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfar, Pudukkottai. ...Referring Officer/ Appellant Vs Raj Mohammed ...Claimant/ Respondent Prayer in A.S.No.74 of 2003 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.80 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Pudukkottai. A.S.No.75 of 2002 The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pudukkottai. ...Referring Officer/ Appellant Vs Ashokkumar ...Claimant/ Respondent Prayer in A.S.No.75 of 2003 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Pudukkottai. A.S.No.76 of 2003 The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pudukkottai. ...Referring Officer/ Appellant -Vs- Karuppaiah Mazhavarar ...Claimant/ Respondent Prayer in A.S.No.76 of 2003 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.82 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Pudukkottai. !For Appellant in all Appeals ... Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate. ^For Respondent in all Appeals ... No Appearance * * * * * :COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been preferred against the award of the Tribunal fixing the compensation at Rs.3,564/- per cent.
2.The facts of the case, are as follows:
The lands comprised in Survey No.36/1 situated at Punginipatti, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukottai District were sought to be acquired under Section 4(1) notification dated 02-12-1999, for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.600/- per cent and it was enhanced to Rs.3,564/- per cent by the impugned award. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Government.
3.Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the acquisition is under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Act, 1978, by which, only 15% is required to be granted as solatium whereas, the Tribunal awarded 30% as solatium. Secondly, he submitted that there is no reduction given for development charges. In fine, he submitted that more deduction towards development charges is warranted and 15% deduction has to be made from 30% solatium granted by the Tribunal.
4. The respondents who were served, did not choose to appear either in person or through their counsel. Therefore, based on the evidence and the materials available on record, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on merits.
5.Section 4(1) notification is dated 02-12-1999 and the purpose of acquisition of land is to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Tribunal relied upon the admission of RW.1 that Punginipatti Village is situated in the border of Iluppur village. Therefore, the acquired land as well as the lands in the Iluppur village have got same potential and advantages. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the lands which are situated on the western side of the acquired land, were already plotted out and sold to various persons. The data land relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is situated about half kilometres away from the acquired land and moreover, no document with regard to the land comprised in Survey No.46/6, data land, was produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the value of data land.
6.Ex.P1 is the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.51/92 dated 02-01-1995 in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.187/11. By the said award, a compensation of Rs.1,980/- per cent was awarded. Subsequently, for the land comprised in Survey No.51/96, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award awarding a sum of Rs.700/- per cent as compensation and against which, an appeal suit was filed before this Court. By order dated 26-04-2001, in A.S.No.362 of 2000 this Court determined the value at Rs.3,300/- per cent relying upon Ex.P5 dated 11.12.1991 and Ex.P7 dated 02-08-1992, filed therein and after deducting 40% towards development charges a sum of Rs.2,000/- per cent was awarded as compensation. The land which is a subject matter of the above said appeal suit, is also situated in Iluppur village which is situated closer to the land acquired.
7.As far as the other documents viz., Exs.P3, P4 and P5 to P10 are concerned, they are in respect of Survey Nos.186/12,181/10, 131/13,185/12, 188/6, 181/5, 25/4 and 171/9 and they are situated in Punginipatti village. The Tribunal rejected Exs.P3 to P11 on the ground that they conveyed only a smaller extent of land. Therefore, the Tribunal relied upon Ex.P1, the award passed in L.A.O.P.No. 51/92 dated 02-01-1995, and fixed the value.
8.The Tribunal committed a grave error in taking the compensation of Rs.1,980/- per cent as per Ex.P1 especially when Ex.P2 judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.362 of 2004 on 26-04-2001 is available and it relates to acquisition of land comprised in Survey Nos.159/2 and 160/4 Iluppur village. As per the said judgment, this Court determined the value at Rs.3,300/-. As already noted DW.1 himself admitted that Iluppur village and Punginipatti are situated side by side. Therefore, considering the location of the villages side by side, this Court has to follow the judgment passed in A.S.No.362 of 2000 dated 26-04-2001, marked as Ex.P2.
9.The Compensation determined by this Court in A.S.No.362 of 2000 for the lands acquired under Section 4(1) notification dated 12-11-1994, is Rs.3,300/- per cent relying upon Ex.P5 dated 11.12.1991 and Ex.P7 dated 02-08-1992 filed in A.S.No.362 of 2004. After eight years, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 02-12-1999 in this case. Therefore for the interregnum period between 11.12.1991 (date of Ex.P5 in A.S.No.362 of 2004) and Section 4(1) notification dated 02-12-1999 viz., eight years, appreciation is required to be added to value of Ex.P5. As per the judgment of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in V.R.Venkatesalu and others -Vs- Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme-II, Coimbatore-18 and another reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 153 each 15% has to be added as appreciation. However, considering the nature of the case, this Court awards 10% appreciation for eight years 80%.
Value as per Exs.P1,P5 and P7 in Appeal Suit No.362 of 2000 =Rs.3,300.00 Add:Appreciation @ 10% for ) 8 years ) = Rs.2,640.00 ============ =Rs. 5,940.00 ============
Therefore, the value per cent is Rs.5,940/-. Since the purpose is for providing house sites, 30% deduction is made for development charges.
Value determined by this Court Rs.5,940.00 Less:30% deduction Rs.1,782.00 =========== Compensation fixed Rs.4,158.00 ===========
10.As rightly pointed out by Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate, the acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars. Therefore, as per Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Act, 1978, only 15% is required to be given as solatium, whereas, the Tribunal granted 30%. Hence, the solatium is reduced to 15%.
11.The Tribunal did not award any interest on solatium. A Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunder -Vs- Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC 211 granted interest on solatium on par with compensation. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium also. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire award amount to the appellants within a period of two weeks. Consequently, connected C.M.P.Nos.1073 TO 1076 of 2003 are dismissed.
gsr To The Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.