Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar(L.A.) vs V.N.Palani Chetty on 11 August, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.Nos.403 & 404 of 1994 and Cross Objection Nos.99 of 1995 and 18 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar(L.A.) Krishna Water Supply Project, Unit-IV, Tiruvallur. .. Appellants in both the appeals Vs. V.N.Palani Chetty .. Respondent in A.S.No.404 of 1994 V.P.Vasantha .. Respondent in A.S.No.405 of 1994 Appeals against the judgement and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, passed in LAOP Nos.335 & 338 of 1986 dated 7.4.1993. For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Government Advocate (AS) For respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT
Animadverting upon the judgement and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, dated 7.4.1993 in LAOP Nos.335 & 338 of 1986, in enhancing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer filed these appeals.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus:
The Government vide Notification dated 30.11.1983 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 1.15 acre in Survey Nos.124/2B, 142/1A, 145/1B and 145/3 and an extent of 0.40 acre in Survey Nos.125/1 and 143/2B, respectively in Pondhavakkam Village, Uthukottai Taluk for the purpose of Krishna Water Scheme, so as to say for laying channel for taking water. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 16.9.1985 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.85.00/- per cent.
4. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .
5. During enquiry, before the trial Court one Palani was examined as C.W.1 and Gopal was examined as C.W.2 and Ex.C1 and Ex.C7 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one Srikantharao was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on the side of the respondent. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Re.85.00/- per cent to Rs.500/- per cent.
6. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
(a) The judgements and decrees in both the matters are against law and weightage of evidence;
(b) The Sub Court, without any basis, simply awarded Rs.100/- per cent towards loss of income, another sum of Rs.100/- per cent for damages to crop and Rs.50/- per cent for compulsory nature of acquisition.
Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer prayed for setting aside of the judgements and decrees of the trial Court.
7. However, the land owners filed cross-objections, raising the following grounds:-
(a) the lower Court should have awarded a sum of Rs.750/- per cent;
(b) the lower Court awarded lesser compensation towards damage caused to the crop and also expenditure for digging well.
Accordingly, the land owners prayed for enhancing the compensation.
8. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court enhanced the compensation without any sound basis?.
9. The learned Additional Government Pleader drawing the attention of this Court to various portions of the judgement of the lower Court, would highlight that the judgement is fraught with inconsistencies and improbabilities.
10. At the out set itself I would like to point out that even the appellant, perhaps, mis-understood the actual purport of the judgement and decree and aired the grievance as though the compensation was enhanced from Rs.85/- per cent to Rs.250/- per cent, but in fact, it was enhanced to Rs.500/- per cent by the reference Court.
11. The land owners themselves have placed reliance on Ex.C2-the sale deed dated 30.9.1983 apart from other documents. The reference Court correctly placed reliance on Ex.C2, dated 30.9.1983 and held that as per Ex.C2, per cent of land was assessed in a sum of Rs.230/-. However, immediately after giving such a finding, the lower Court, without any basis simply observed as though per cent was worth Rs.250/-. At the most it could only be taken as a typographical error on the part of the Sub Court.
12. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 30.11.1983 and Ex.C2 emerged on 30.9.1983, so as to say exactly two months anterior to such Section 4(1) Notification. The purpose of having acquired the land is for Krishna Water Scheme, so as to say for laying channel to take water and not for any habitation purpose. As such, the sample land, as contemplated in Ex.C2 and the land acquired both belonged to the same category, namely, agricultural land and in such a case, the question of potentiality and probability of using the land for habitation purpose would not arise and the same need not be taken into consideration and the lower Court also has correctly not took into account the potentiality of the land for being used for habitation etc.
13. The trial Court would have done well to award a sum of Rs.230/- per cent of land as compensation without enhancing the compensation under imaginary heads.
14. Relating to L.A.O.P.No.335/86(A.S.403/94) the following additional compensation amounts were awarded by the reference Court:
(i)Rs.100/- per cent towards inability on the part of the land owners to use motor pumpsets because of the part of the land was acquired;
I am at loss to understand as to how a compensation of Rs.100/- per cent could be given for the acquired land under that count.
(ii) Rs.100/- per cent plus Rs.50/- per cent towards loss of income were awarded, which again is totally unknown to law.
(iii) Rs.100/- towards loss of damage to Gingili crop was awarded, which could be affirmed as such.
(iv)Rs.10,000/- towards change of electricity connection and for sinking a new well was awarded, which again is not contemplated under law;
15. Relating to L.A.O.P.No.338 of 1986 (A.S.No.404 of 1994) the following additional compensation amounts were awarded by the reference Court:
The amounts under the sub heads (i) and (ii) above are found in this case also and which are untenable. However, the sum of Rs.200/- awarded for damage to paddy crops could be confirmed.
16. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that on imaginary grounds the Sub Court simply awarded an additional sum of Rs.250/- per cent over and above the value of Rs.250/- per cent for the land. At this juncture my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court.
(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] (2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] (3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] (4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] (5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others]
17. The ratio decedendi of these precedents would run counter to the ratiocination adhered to by the lower Court.
18. An excerpt from the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC)(Tenneti Kamesam vs. Land Acquisition Officer), would run thus:
"5. In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded by several structures, residential buildings and other commercial establishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other facilities. It is, therefore, evidence that the land was already situated in a developed area and the question of deduction of development charges did not, therefore, arise".
A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment would reveal that if land acquired is already a developed land, the question of deducting any amount towards development charges would not arise.
19. Placing reliance on Ex.C2, the appropriate compensation which could be awarded is only Rs.230/- per cent and no deduction towards development charge is required, as the land acquired is only agricultural land and the purpose of acquisition also is only for laying water channel and not for any other purpose. It is also made clear, as per the decisions reported in (i) 1996(6) SCC 197 STATE OF BIHAR VS. MADHESWAR PRASAD and (ii) 1994(6) SCC 456 O.JANARDHAN REDDY V. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR that no compensation for Well could be awarded.
20. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed modifying the judgement and decree of the trial Court by reducing the compensation to Rs.230/- per cent. The sum of rupees one hundred awarded for damage to gingly croph in L.A.O.P.No.335 of 1986 and another sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hunded only) awarded towards damage to paddy crops in L.A.O.P.No.338 of 1986 are confirmed. The land owners are entitled to other statutory benefits as per law. In view of the ratiocination adhered to in allowing the appeals, the cross-appeals are dismissed. No costs.
21. The learned Additional Government Pleader made an extemporary submission that as per the earlier order of this Court, some amounts were deposited in the respectively L.A.O.Ps.
22. In view of the above submission, I make it clear that the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to withdraw from the Court the amounts deposited over and above the amount awarded in this appeal.
11.08.2008 msk Index : Yes Internet: Yes To The Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur G.RAJASURIA,J., msk A.S.Nos.403 & 404 of 1994 11.8.2008