Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar [La vs V.Saravanan on 6 April, 2010
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2010
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
A.S.Nos. 751, 752, 753, 937, 938, 939, 955, 956 of 2001; A.S.Nos.722, 723, 724, 725, 726 of 2004 & A.S.No.7 of 2006
and
A.S.No.416 of 2002
and
CMP.Nos.1686/2009 in AS.No.751/2001; 1713/2009 in AS.No.752/2001; 1714/2009 in AS.No.753/2001; 1684/2009 in AS.No.937/2001; 1692/2009 in AS.No.955/2001; 1712/2009 in AS.No.956/2001; 1693/2009 in AS.No.722/20004; 1680/2009 in AS.No.723/2004; 1685/2009 in AS.No.724/2004; 1683/2009 in AS.No.725/2004; 1681/2009 in AS.No.726/2004
A.S.Nos. 751,752,753,937,938,939,955,956 of 2001;
A.S.Nos.722,723,724,725,726 of 2004 & A.S.No.7 of 2006:
1. The Special Tahsildar [LA],
Namakkal.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways, Salem.
3. The National Highways Authorities of India,
Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport
and Highways, represented by its
Project Director and General Manager
(Technical). .. Appellants in
all appeals.
vs.
V.Saravanan .. Respondent in
AS No.751/2001
Askar Batcha .. Respondent in
AS No.752/2001
S.Jawahar .. Respondent in
AS No.753/2001
C.Kumarasamy .. Respondent in
AS No.937/2001
R.Raju .. Respondent in
AS No.938/2001
P.Loganathan .. Respondent in
AS No.939/2001
J.Jeyalakshmi .. Respondent in
AS No.955/2001
K.Kanagaraj .. Respondent in
AS No.956/2001
R.Murugan .. Respondent in
AS No.722/2004
P.Mangani .. Respondent in
AS No.723/2004
Tamilarasi .. Respondent in
AS No.724/2004
R.Rajendran .. Respondent in
AS No.725/2004
R.Ettiappan .. Respondent in
AS No.726/2004
R.Kaliyappan .. Respondent in
AS No.7/2006
A.S.No.416/2002:
S.Jawahar .. Appellant.
vs.
1. The Land Acquisition Officer cum
Special Tahsildar (LA),
Bye Pass Road, Namakkal.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways,
Salem-5. .. Respondents
CMP.Nos.1686/2009 in AS.No.751/2001; 1713/2009 in AS.No.752/2001; 1714/2009 in AS.No.753/2001; 1684/2009 in AS.No.937/2001; 1692/2009 in AS.No.955/2001; 1712/2009 in AS.No.956/2001; 1693/2009 in AS.No.722/20004; 1680/2009 in AS.No.723/2004; 1685/2009 in AS.No.724/2004; 1683/2009 in AS.No.725/2004; 1681/2009 in AS.No.726/2004:
National Highways Authority of India,
represented by its
Project Director (Ministry of Road Transport
& Highways) No.10, Kamadhenu Nagar,
Karur-639 001. .. Petitioner/3rd
Appellant.
vs.
1. The Land Acquisition Officer
and Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Bye-pass road, Namakkal.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways, Salem. .. Respondents/Appellants
1 and 2.
3. V.Saravanan
Askar Batcha
S.Jawahar
C.Kumarasamy
R.Raju
P.Loganathan
J.Jeyalakshmi
K.Kanagaraj
R.Murugan
P.Mangani
Tamilarasi
R.Rajendran
R.Ettiappan
R.Kaliyappan .. Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Appeal Nos. 751,752,753,937,938,939,955,956 of 2001;
722,723,724,725,726 of 2004 & 7 of 2006 filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Common Judgment made in LAOP.Nos.3,4,6,9,10,11,12,13/1996 dated 28.4.2000 and LAOP.Nos.15,11,12,13,14/1997 dated 30.09.2002 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and LAOP.No.27/2002 dated 02.04.2004 on the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal.
Prayer: A.S.No.416/2002 filed by the Claimant against the decree and Judgment in LAOP.No.6/1996 dated 28.04.2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Namakkal.
Prayer: Petitions filed under Or.41, Rule 27 CPC praying to receive the documents filed along with the Petitions.
For Appellants 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Ravi
both the appeals Special G.P. [AS]
For 3rd Appellant in : Mr.M.Ravindran,
both the appeals Addl. Solicitor General
assisted by
M/s.P.Wilson Associates
For Respondents/ : Mr.S.Silambanan
Claimants Senior Counsel
Mr.R.Bharanidaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from 0.79 Paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft. in respect of the lands acquired in Vallipuram village, Namakkal Taluk for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town, the Special Tahsildar and National Highways Authorities of India have filed these Appeals. Since, all the appeals arise out of common order and the points for consideration are one and the same, all the Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2. Large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town having length of about 8 Kilometers. An extent of 11.47.0 Hectares of lands in Vallipuram village were acquired. Sec.4(1) notification was approved in G.O.No.1242 P.W. (Highways) H.P.1 dated 24.8.1993 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.9.1993. Sec.4(1) notification was also published in Tamil newspapers viz., "Makkal Kural" and "Kumari Murasu" on 23.9.1993 and the substance of the above notification was also published in the village on 25.10.1993. Sec.5-A enquiry was conducted on 15.04.1994. Sec.6 notification was published in the Government Gazette on 20.07.1994 and in the newspapers on 21.07.1994 and substance of the said notification under Sec.6 of the Act was also published in the locality on 08.08.1994.
3. To determine the market value of the lands under acquisition, sales statistics for the period of three years from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993 have been gathered. Totally 95 sales have been taken place during the said period. Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] has examined those sale deeds for fixing the market value for the lands under acquisition. Except the lands covered in Sl.No.16 in the sales statistics, the other sales were discarded that they are far away from the lands under acquisition or that the rates do not reflect the prevailing rate of lands under acquisition. Under sale deed [Sl.No.16] dated 08.06.1991 [Document No.829] an extent of 1.27.5 Hectares (or) 3.15 acres comprised in Dry S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B of Vallipuram village has been sold for Rs.75,000/- i.e. per Hectare Rs.58,823/- i.e. Rs.23,814/- per acre. LAO was of the view that S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B is identical to the Manavari Dry lands under acquisition. Hence, the above sale which took place in S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B has been taken as basis for fixing the market value for the Manavari Dry lands under acquisition.
4. In so far as irrigated Dry lands, in Serial No.27 - an extent of 1.21.5 Hectares (or) 3.01= acres comprised in S.No.254/3, 6, 8A of Vallipuram village has been sold for Rs.75,000/- under Document No.949 dated 28.06.1991 which means Rs.61,475/- per Hectare (or) Rs.24,888/- per acre. LAO was of the view that S.F.Nos.254/3, 6, 8A and the Dry lands under acquisition are identical in all respects and therefore, the above sale which took place on 28.6.1991 [Document No.949] has been taken for fixing the market value for the irrigated Dry lands under acquisition. Fixing the above value for Manavari and irrigated Dry lands, Award No.3/1995 was passed ordering 30% solatium, 12% additional market value from 25.10.1983 to 05.10.1995. LAO has also fixed appropriate value for the trees in the acquired lands.
5. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act were made. References were taken on file as LAOP Nos.3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13/1996 and 11, 12, 13, 14, 15/1997 and 27/2002. In the Reference Court, LAOP.Nos.3 to 6, 9 to 13/1996 were taken up together and disposed on 28.04.2000 as one Batch. LAOP.Nos.15, 11 to 14/1997 were taken up together and disposed on 30.09.2002 as one Batch. Adopting the same rate, LAOP.No.27/2002 was disposed on 02.04.2004 separately. Before the Reference Court, the Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition] and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem alone were Respondents. The Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body for which the lands were acquired viz., National Highways Authorities of India [NHAI] was not made as a party in the LAOPs.
6. In the Reference Court, in LAOP.No.3/1996 Batch, respective Claimants were examined as CWs.1 to 7 and one Manohar, witness to Ex.C4-sale agreement, one Mahalingam, power agent of Askar Basha, one Seerangan, witness to Ex.C1-sale deed and one Balasubramaniam, witness to Ex.C7 were examined as CWs.8 to 11 respectively. Exs.C1 to C7 were marked. No oral evidence on the side of the Respondents and no document was marked on the side of Respondents. Similarly, in LAOP.Nos.15/1997 Batch, Claimant Ettigan [LAOP.No.15/1997] was examined as CW1 and one Thangam was examined as CW2. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. No oral evidence on the side of Respondents and no document was marked. Like wise, in LAOP.No.27/2002, Claimant-Kaliappan was examined as CW1. Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.15/1997-Batch were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. On the side of Respondents, one Venkatesan, the Special Tahsildar [LA] was examined as RW1. Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of Respondents.
7. In LAOP.No.3/1996 Batch, Reference Court has taken Ex.C1- sale deed [19.1.1993] in which an extent of 500 sq. ft. in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold for Rs.50,000/- by one Saravanan and others infavour of Jawahar and fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Reference Court has also referred to Ex.C5-sale deed [25.8.1993] in which 600 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 was sold for Rs.45,000/- by Ramachandran, Power of Attorney of one Doss infavour of one Marimuthu. After taking Ex.C1-sale deed for fixing the market value, Reference Court has passed:- (i) enhancement of compensation from 0.79 Paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft.; (ii) 12% additional market value from 25.10.1993 to 05.10.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation.
8. In LAOP.Nos.15/1997 Batch and LAOP.No.27/2002, applying the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.3/1996 Batch, Reference Court has ordered:- (i) enhancement of compensation from 0.79 paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft.; (ii) 12% additional market value from 25.10.1993 to 05.10.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation.
9. Challenging the enhancement of compensation, the LAO/Special Tahsildar [LA] and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways [not National Highways Authorities of India] have preferred these Appeals. In the Appeals, on Petitions filed by the National Highways Authorities of India, Requisitioning body [National Highways Authorities of India] was impleaded as 3rd Appellant subsequently.
10. Main contention of learned Additional Solicitor General is that to determine just and proper compensation the Beneficiary National Highways Authorities of India ought to have been made as a party. It was further submitted that though the Divisional Engineer, National Highways was one of the Respondent in the LAOPs, there was no representation for National Highways Authorities of India. Main plank of argument of the Appellants is that without proper and effective representation of NHAI, the compensation amount was enhanced prejudicially affecting the interest of National Highways Authorities of India/Union of India which has to bear the heavy compensation.
11. Drawing our attention to the additional documents filed in the C.M.Ps., Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that even from 1991, there were protests and demonstrations in and around Namakkal for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town and that after knowing about the scheme for formation of bye-pass road, land owners have brought into existence the sale deeds boosting the land value and the considerations stated in Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds are fancy value to make a boosted claim for compensation. Taking us through the sales statistics and also the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that there was only slow increase in price of the lands and the sudden spurt in the value of the land was boosted as it was after the grant of administrative sanction for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town.
12. Learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that if the additional documents are received in evidence, it would be evident that Exs.C3 and C2-sale deeds were brought into existence boosting the value by Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan. It was further argued that when large extent of land is acquired, there cannot be determination of market value on square feet basis and the enhancement of compensation at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. is not supported by any objective assessment. It was also urged that for formation of highways, National Highways Authorities of India has spent huge amount for laying road and developing it and while so, Reference Court erred in not making any deduction for development charges.
13. We have also heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader [AS] appearing for the Appellants 1 and 2 who submitted that LAO has taken the relevant sale deed which is prior to Sec.4(1) notification and has rightly fixed the market value at 0.79 Paise per sq. ft. and while so, Court below erred in relying upon Ex.C1-sale deed without any basis. In support of his contention, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance upon (1997) 9 SCC 330 [P.Rajan and another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and another] and AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition], Neyvely and others]. Placing reliance upon (1996) 6 SCC 41 [Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others], the learned Special Government Pleader contended that it is the bounden duty of the Court to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market and the value fixed by the Reference Court is exorbitant.
14. Laying emphasis upon Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds, Mr.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Claimants contended that under Exs.C1-sale deed, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. and Reference Court has rightly taken the market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. and even in January 1993, it was sold for Rs.100/- per sq. ft. It was further argued that merely because some persons were agitating for forming bye-pass road, it cannot be the ground to hold that the value was boosted in Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds. It was contended that Ex.C5-sale deed is said to have been preceded by an agreement - Ex.C4 dated 22.12.1992 under which Plot No.83 comprised in S.F.Nos.251.2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 measuring an extent of 600 sq. ft. was agreed to be sold for Rs.45,500/-. Stand of Respondents-Claimants is that Ex.C5-sale deed was preceded by an agreement which lends assurance to Ex.C5-sale deed. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the potential value of the land has to be kept in view and no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Appellants and the acquired lands are in the midst of developed area and the value prior to Sec.4(1) notification was rightly taken into consideration by the Reference Court. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the lands situated nearby the acquired lands were already purchased by Ashok Leyland Company and therefore, the market value fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon 1985 ALL. LJ 1324 [State of UP v. Afazulul Haq]; 98 LW 725 [Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh]; AIR 1992 SC 2298 [Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality]; (1995) 2 SCC 305 [P.Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others]; 1996 LACC 231 [Puvvada Nageswara Rao and others v. Land Acquisition Officer]; 2001-1-LW 120 [Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Sipcot, Pudukottai v. RM.Ramasamy and 3 others]; (2001) 7 SCC 211 [Sunder v. Union of India]; 2003-4-LW 137 [Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur v. N.Swaminathan]; (2004) 2 SCC 184 [H.P.Housing Board v. Bhyarat S.Negi and others]; (2004) 10 SCC 640 [V.Subrahmanya Rao v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer]; 2004-2-LW 673 [The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Sivagangai v. Muthu Konar]; 2005 (1) LACC 413 [Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Munikrishna Reddy]; (2005) 12 SCC 59 [Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India] and 2006-1-LW 394 [Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram Thakkalai village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District v. R.S.Raveendran].
15. We have carefully examined the submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General and learned Special Government Pleader and also learned Senior Counsel for Claimants.
16. Lands measuring 11.47.0 Hectares in Vallipuram village in various sub-divisions comprised in S.F.Nos.123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 233, 235 237, 244, 245, 251, 253, 254 and 255 have been acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town. Vallipuram is a ryotwari village. To determine the market value of the lands under acquisition, sale statistics for the period of three years from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993 were gathered and there were totally 95 sales during the said period in the village. Upon careful analysis of the said sales, it is seen that under Sl.No.5 sale deed dated 12.03.1991 an extent of 1258 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A1 and 2B1 was sold by Mahalingam and others to one Viswanath for Rs.1000/- i.e. 0.79 Paise per sq. ft. Analysis of various sale deeds contained in the sales statistics would show that there was only slow increase in the value of the lands as is seen from the following:-
Sl.No Doc. No. and Date S.F.No. Extent sold in sq.ft.
Name of Vendor Name of Vendee Sold at Rs.
Rate per Sq. Ft. Rs.5 369
12.03.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1258 sq. ft.
Mahalingam and others Viswanath 1000/-
0.79 Paise 6 371 12.03.1991 251/2A1, 2B2 3500 sq.ft.
Kaliammal and others Jeganathan 12,000/-
3.43 8 625 25.04.191 251/2A1, 2B1, 2B2 3000 sq.ft.
Mayilvaganan and others Kambalathan Chettiar 10,000/-
3.33 10 677 03.05.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1600 sq.ft.
Mahalingam and others Aushgar Basha 5600/-
3.50 11 713 08.05.1991 251/2A1, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft.
Mayilvaganan and others Raju 5000/-
3.33 19 883 14.06.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft.
Mahalingam Saravanan 6000/-
4.00 32 1005 12.07.1991 251/2A2,2B1, 2B2, 2A2 1475 sq.ft.
Mahalingam Gnanasekaran 15,000/-
10.16 36 1205 05.09.1991 251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft.
Mayilvaganan Subramanian 15,000/-
10.00 48 1507 30.10.1991 251/2A1,2B1, 2A2, 2B2 412= sq.ft.
Mahalingam and others Saravanan 6,200/-
15.05 65 898 15.06.1992 251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft.
Mayilvaganan and others Kumarasamy 22,500/-
15.00 71 1554 21.10.1992 251/2A2, 2B2 1500 sq.ft.
Mayilvaganan Kanagaraj 30,000/-
20.00 By analysis of the above sales, it is clear that there was only very slow increase in the value of the lands. Most of the sale transactions pertaining to house sites were sold only by Claimants-Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan and rest of the transactions were predominantly of agricultural lands.
17. Serial No.76 of sales statistics [Ex.C1] is the sale deed dated 19.1.1993 [registered on 20.1.1993] in which an extent of 500 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold by Saravanan and others to one Jawahar [Claimant in LAOP.No.6/1996] for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Like wise, Serial No.93 [Ex.C5] is the sale deed dated 25.8.1993 [registered on 27.8.1993] in which an extent of 600 sq. ft. was sold by Ramachandran infavour of Marimuthu for Rs.45,000/- i.e. Rs.75/- per sq. ft. Leaving all the documents for a period of three years where the land value was slowly increasing ranging from Rs.3/- to Rs.20/-, curiously the Reference Court has taken Ex.C1-sale deed as basis for fixing the market value. For taking Ex.C1-sale deed, Reference Court has observed that Ex.C1 is prior to Sec.4(1) notification and therefore, Ex.C1 is taken as basis for fixing the market value. The value fixed by the Court is not based on any objective assessment.
18. As pointed out earlier, by analysis of sales statistics, one Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan were selling small extent of house sites and most of the sale transactions in the sales statistics are sale deeds executed by the said Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan. As seen from Serial No.19, Respondent-Claimant Saravanan purchased 1500 sq. ft. in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1 from Mahalingam under Document No.883 [14.6.1991] for Rs.6000/- i.e. Rs.4/- per sq. ft. The said Respondent-Claimant Saravanan sold 500 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 to Jawahar for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Like wise, under Ex.C5, an extent of 600 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 was sold for Rs.45,000/- i.e. Rs.75/- per sq. ft.
19. For quite some time, from May 1991 there was a demand for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town. From one of the pamphlets filed by National Highways Authorities of India as additional documents, it is seen that from 1991, there were protests and demonstrations in and around Namakkal for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town. Additional documents were also produced to show that administrative sanction [C.No.45/93/JDO dated 09.01.1993] was granted for the estimate of Rs.83.11 lakhs for formation of Namakkal bye-pass road. When the above Proceedings of administrative sanction was issued in January 1993 giving details of extent of lands to be acquired in various villages, by the said Proceedings dated 09.01.1993 the project has taken final shape. In such circumstances under Serial No.76, a small extent of 500 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold by one Saravanan and others infavour of Jawahar under Ex.C1 sale deed dated 19.1.1993 for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. As rightly contended by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General, serious doubts arise as to genuineness of the transaction of Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds. Reference Court appears to have fixed the value unmindful of fact that there was long standing agitation to form bye-pass road from 1991.
20. Laying emphasis upon the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, the learned Senior Counsel contended that Ashok Leyland Company and TVS Group have purchased the property in S.F.Nos.276, 277 and 278, the value of the lands nearby the acquired lands has gone up and Reference Court has rightly fixed the value of the land at Rs.100/- per sq. ft.
21. There is no force in the contention that the value of the land had substantially gone up after Ashok Leyland Company has purchased the property. In the sales statistics, Serial Nos.80 to 86 are the sale deeds dated 29.03.1993 under which an extent of land ranging from 4.40 acres to 2.61 acres was sold by Namakkal Auto Nagar Association to Ashok leyland Company and as per the said sale deeds, rate per Hectare is Rs.1,11,000/-. The details of lands sold to Ashok Leyland Company are as under:-
Sl.No Doc. No. and Date S.No. Extent sold in acres Name of Vendor Name of Vendee Sold at Rs.
Rate per Hectare Rs.80 544
29.03.1993 274/7, 3, 2C, 9 275/1, 2 276/13B 4.40 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,97,838/-
1,10,000/-
81 54529.03.1993 276/11, 12A 277/13B 4.35 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,95,624/-
[After enquiry value was fixed at 2,36,260/-
1,11,000/-
82 54629.03.1993 276/2B, 13A 277/3B 3.63 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,63,391/-
1,11,000/-
83 54729.03.1993 277/1, 2, 5A & 5B 3.51 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,57,829/-
1,11,000/-
84 54829.03.1993 278/2 293/2 3.98 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,78,947/-
1,11,000/-
85 54929.03.1993 278/3 2.61 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,17,261/-
1,11,000/-
86 55029.03.1993 278/3 2.62 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,17,819/-
1,11,000/-
22. The sale deed [Document No.545 dated 29.03.1993] presented for registration by Ashok Leyland Company was not registered on the ground that it was undervalued. After enquiry, the land value was fixed at Rs.2,36,260/- i.e. Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and deficit stamp of Rs.4149/- and registration fee of Rs.345/- were collected from Ashok Leyland Company. So even after enquiry for under valuation, the value fixed was only Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and not a higher value as contended by the Claimants.
23. By analysis of the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, three things are emerge:-
Large extent of lands were sold on the basis of value per Acre.
Per Hectare value is Rs.1,11,000/- that means Rs.44,939/- rounded to Rs.44,940/- per acre which means more or less Rs.1.03 per sq. ft.
Even after enquiry, the value was fixed at Rs.2,36,260/- i.e. Rs.1.25 per sq. ft.
24. Likewise, if we take Serial No.78 sale deed dated 05.03.1993, an extent of 0.38= cent in S.F.No.303/2 was sold by one Muthusami to Nallusami for industrial purpose for Rs.20,000/- which means per Hectare Rs.1,29,000/- i.e. Rs.52,226/- per acre [Rs.1.19 rounded to Rs.1.20 per sq. ft.].
25. Ex.C7 [26.02.1993] is an agreement by Mayilvaganan and others agreeing to sell 0.75.0 Hectares in S.F.Nos.251/2A1, 2A2, 2B1, 2B2 at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. Placing reliance upon 1996 LACC 232 [Puvvada Nageswara Rao and others v. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole], the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Silambanan contended that reliance can be placed on the agreements to sell and the Reference Court ought to have fixed the value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. In the said decision, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that reliance can be placed upon the agreements to sell if they are found to be not merely for claiming higher compensation. In the said case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the agreements were registered much prior to issuance of notification and not merely for claiming higher compensation. In the instant case, Ex.C7 is an unregistered agreement by Mayilvaganan and others. National Highways Authorities of India had no chance to meet the agreement [Ex.C7] to bring home the point whether Ex.C7 could be relied upon or not.
26. Under Sec.23(1) of the Act, the Court has to determine the market value of the land. One of the methods of valuation is the price paid, within a reasonable time, in bonafide transactions of purchase of land acquired, or of the land adjacent to the land acquired having similar advantages. Such transactions of sale indicate the price of the land acquired on the date of the notification. The Court has to consider whether or not any particular transaction of sale affords a fair criterion of the market value of the land acquired.
27. By perusal of documents now filed as additional documents, there had been protests and demonstrations even from 1991 for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town. Administrative sanction was granted vide Proceedings C.No.45/93/JDO dated 09.01.1993 . Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds are after the administrative sanction. Reference Court was swayed by Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds and does not appear to have carefully examined Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds which are not compatible with the trend of slow increase of the land value.
28. In this case, large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town. In his evidence, RW1 [LAOP.No.27/2002] has stated that the lands acquired are very far away from the village and in and around the acquired lands there is no house or village situate. In this regard, the evidence of RW1 reads as follows:-
@Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyk; Cuf;F xJf;Fg[wj;jpy; cs;sjhFk;/ vjw;Fk; cgnahfkw;wjhFk;/ vdnt. mjd; kjpg;gpid rhpahd Kiwapy; fzf;fpl;L kjpg;gPL eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyk; nuhL trjp ,y;yhky; kpft[k; cs;sl';fpa epykhFk;/ nkw;go epy';fSf;F mUfpy; ve;jtpjkhd tPLfnsh. Cnuh ,y;iy/ Mh;$pj epyj;jpw;F mUfhikapy; mnrhf; iynyz;l; epWtdnkh. o/tp/v!;/ epWtdnkh. fhydp tPLfnsh. nfhHpg;gz;izfnsh. tPl;Lkidfnsh. fpwpj;Jt gs;spfnsh. nfhtpy;fnsh. yhhpg;gl;liwfnsh. tptrha epy';fnsh ,y;iy/ beL";rhiyapypUe;J kpf bjhiytpy; cs;sJ/
29. Viewed from any angle, the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. is exorbitant and very much on the higher side. The various aspects like demonstration for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town from 1991 and other relevant aspects would have been brought forth before the Reference Court had the Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body National Highways Authorities of India been was impleaded. Without impleading the National Highways Authorities of India in the LAOPs and without any basis, Reference Court had fixed the market value of the acquired lands on the higher side unmindful of financial implications.
30. Yet another material aspect is relevant to be noted. When large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town and when the acquired lands are far away from Namakkal town, Reference Court erred in determining the value of the land per square feet. Holding that when large extent of lands are acquired, determination of value on the square feet basis is a wrong principle and market value could be fixed only per acreage or per cent, in (1997) 9 SCC 330 [P.Rajan and another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and another], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"When a large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on the foot of a cent, square yard or square foot is a wrong principle. The principle of fixation on acreage basis would be the correct principle. If the land acquired is situated in a developed area and is converted into buildings in a colony after obtaining sanction from the competent authority or is situated in a well-developed area like in the heart of a commercial centre, determination of the compensation could be on square yard basis after giving due deduction according to law. Determination on square foot basis would be confined only to highly developed commercial land or land situated at a place in the heart of a city like Nariman Point in Bombay or Connaught Place in Delhi."
31. Yet another infirmity in the Judgment of Reference Court is also to be noted. Large block of land will have to be developed for formation of bye-pass road. Even though, Highways is a strip for which common space like roads, drainage and other common space may not be required yet like any other scheme, huge amount will have to be spent for formation of road i.e. place has to be treated and side ways are to be formed and for forming Highways and developing proper infrastructure huge amount will have to be spent. This factor can be balanced only by making a deduction by way of allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for the land required to be set apart for forming bye-pass road. As pointed out earlier, though the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. no percentage of deduction for development charges was made. More over, we do not find that any development had taken place in the acquired land as on 4(1) notification. No piece of evidence has been produced by the Claimants showing that the alleged layout has been approved by the competent authority and that the lands were converted as house sites prior to 4(1) notification. In our considered view, the reasons assigned by the Reference Court for not making deduction towards the development charges are not convincing.
32. National Highways Authorities of India necessary party : non-impleading of Beneficiary/NHAI in LAOPs:-
In the LAOPs. Government has not filed the counter. The main plank of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for Claimants is that Government not even chosen to file counter and not even elaborately cross examined the Claimants. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Silambanan submitted that Divisional Engineer was already a party and even though opportunity was given, the Government neither chose to file counter nor elaborately cross examined the Claimants and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, based upon Ex.C1-sale deed, Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft.
33. In the LAOPs, the Respondent was only the State Government i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem. Requisitioning Body National Highways Authorities of India who has to pay compensation was not made a party. Only if National Highways Authorities of India had been made as a party being Requisitioning Body, NHAI would have put forth their objection by filing counter and by adducing evidence.
34. The contention of National Highways Authorities of India is that the acquisition not having been for Tamil Nadu State Government but for the National Highways Authorities of India and therefore, it was incumbent on the Reference Court to issue notice to the 3rd Appellant National Highways Authorities of India before considering the claim of the Claimants for enhancement of compensation. Even though, the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem was shown as 2nd Appellant, the said Divisional Engineer of National Highways was represented by State Government Pleader himself. It cannot be disputed that Requisitioning body National Highways Authorities of India was not made as a party in the LAOPs nor any opportunity was afforded to National Highways Authorities of India to adduce evidence.
35. Section 20 (c) makes it obligatory for the Court to issue notice to the person or authority for whose benefit the acquisition is made. Sec.20 of Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:
20. Service of notice. - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determining the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely :
(a) the applicant;
(b) all the persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and
(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.
36. The Court having seisin of the reference is empowered under Sec.20 of the Act to direct appearance before him not only of the: (a) applicant that is applicant for reference but also; (b) all persons interested in the objection except such (if any) of those as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded. The term "interested" in Clause (b) is wide enough to include both, the persons interested in supporting, or opposing the applicant, that means, Cl.(b) must have reference to parties having conflicting claims to the compensation either whole or party, as against the applicant and otherwise. The Court therefore, had power, irrespective of any reference in that behalf, to investigate the claims.
37. The scheme of the Act makes it clear that when the land is acquired for the Government, it is only the Requisitioning Body that is expected to participate in the proceedings and to safeguard the interest of the Government for whom the land is acquired. If the Government for whom the land is acquired can be regarded as a "person interested" in the reference, there is no need to have an independent provision like Clause (c) of Section 20 giving right to the person or authority other than the Government of being notified and participating in the proceedings. Further, it is not reasonable to presume that the legislature intended to make a redundant provision in Clause (c) of Section 20 of the Act.
38. Sec.54-A of Land Acquisition Act was inserted by the Tamil Nadu State by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1997), so as to enable to implead the requisitioning body as a party in the cases filed before the High Court. Sec.54-A reads as under:-
"54-A. Service of notice by High Court.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), the High Court, before which an appeal has been filed under Section 54, shall cause a notice, specifying the date on which such Court will proceed to hear the case and directing the appearance before such Court on that day, to be served on the person or authority also, other than the Government, for whom the acquisition is made."
Only if the requisitioning body is impleaded as party, it could put forth its point/objection through counter-affidavit.
39. Observing that it was mandatory on the part of Reference Court to have caused a notice on the Requisitioning Body before proceeding to determine the compensation, in (1990) 3 SCC 617 [Neelagangabai and another v. State of Karnataka and others], the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the Respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the Court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the Court, the judgment rendered ion the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation".
40. The Authority or Company for whose benefit the land was acquired who is a beneficiary is necessary party. Holding that beneficiary is a necessary party, in AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others], the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"11. ....... The beneficiary, i.e. the local authority or company, a co-op society registered under the relevant State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person. The beneficiary has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of the Court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil Court under Section 26 or of the judgment and decree under Section 54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Art.226 and assail its legality or correctness. When the award made under Section 11 of the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition apart from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector or Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and appropriate action. These are very valuable and salutary rights. Moreover, in the language of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. So it is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Art.14 of the Constitution."
41. By perusal of the records of Reference Court, it is seen that the State Government Pleader appeared for Land Acquisition Officer also represented the Divisional Engineer, Highways. We do not think that the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced. Observing that Government Agencies remain insensitive even if stakes involved run into several crores of public money, in AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"12. The reasons are not far to seek. It is notorious that though the stakes involved are heavy, the Government Pleader or the Instructing Officer do not generally adduce, much less proper and relevant, evidence to rebut the claims for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal, haulting and ineffective. Generally, if not invariably the Governmental agencies involved in the process take their own time and many a time in collusion, file the appeals after abnormal or inordinate delay. They remain insensitive even if the stakes involved run into several crores of public money. The Courts insist upon proper explanation of every day's delay. In this attitudinal situation it would be difficult to meet strict standards to fill the unbridgeable gaps of the delay in filing the appeals and generally entail with dismissal of the appeals at the threshold without adverting to the merits in the hike in the compensation. On other hand, if the notice is issued to the local authority etc. it/they would participate in the award proceedings under Sections 11 and 18 adduce necessary and relevant evidence and be heard before determining compensation. For instance that without considering the evidence in the proper perspective, the Court determined the compensation.
13. If there is no right of hearing or appeal given to the beneficiary and if the State does not file the appeal or if filed with delay and it was dismissed, is it not the beneficiary who undoubtedly bears the burden of the compensation, would be the affected person? .......... But suffice it to state that when the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is served with the notice and brought on record at the state of enquiry by the Collector and reference Court under Section 18 or in an appeal under Section 54, it/they would be interested to defend the award under Section 11 or 26 or would file an appeal independently under Section 54 etc. against the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or proper party affected by the determination of higher compensation, the beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the award made by the Reference Court under Section 18 or in appeal under Section 54 etc. Considered from this perspective we are of the considered view that the appellant-company is an interested person within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC. The High Court had committed manifest error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person interested." [underlining added]
42. National Highways Authorities of India is a person or authority for whose benefit and for whom the land is being acquired and who may have to pay the compensation ought to have been impleaded as Respondent in the LAOP proceedings. Without being made as a party, National Highways Authorities of India was subjected to serious hardship in being deprived of an opportunity in putting forth its case. In the absence of beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired who is ultimately to bear the higher compensation, there is no complete and effectual determination. Without impleading the beneficiary, there is no effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired lands could be made. In our considered view, without impleading the National Highways Authorities of India Requisitioning Body/Beneficiary, there is no effectual determination of compensation. Denial of right to a "person interested" is negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of Constitution of India.
43. PETITIONS UNDER OR.41, RULE 27 CPC FILED BY NHAI:- CMP.Nos.1686/2009 in AS.No.751/2001; 1713/2009 in AS.No.752/2001; 1714/2009 in AS.No.753/2001; 1684/2009 in AS.No.937/2001; 1692/2009 in AS.No.955/2001; 1712/2009 in AS.No.956/2001; 1693/2009 in AS.No.722/20004; 1680/2009 in AS.No.723/2004; 1685/2009 in AS.No.724/2004; 1683/2009 in AS.No.725/2004; 1681/2009 in AS.No.726/2004:
Stating that they have not been impleaded as party in the LAOP and that they have been deprived of opportunity of putting forth relevant evidence, the National Highways Authorities of India has filed applications to receive the documents as additional evidence. The National Highways Authorities of India has filed various documents which are as follows:-
S.No. Date Description of document 1 29.12.1992 Xerox copy of Representation of Makkal Development Council, Namakkal addressed to the Prime Minister of India.2
-
Xerox copy of pamphlet 3 27.11.1992 Copy of Letter No.12014/272/92-TN by Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) addressed to the Special Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu.
409.01.1993 Xerox copy of Letter C.No.45/93/JDO addressed by Divisional Engineer (NH), Salem to the District Collector, Namakkal.
526.08.1997 Xerox copy of Decree in LAOP.No.63/1991 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal.
629.04.2003 Xerox copy of Judgment in A.S.No.34 of 2000 on the file of High Court of Judicature, Madras.
7-
Xerox copy of Award No.8/1998.
803.05.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by Mahalingam infavour of Aushgar Basha.
912.06.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by Mahalingam infavour of Saravanan.
1012.06.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by Mahalingam infavour of Saravanan.
44. There had been protests and demonstrations demanding bye-pass road to Namakkal town even from 1991. By perusal of the additional documents filed, it is also seen that on 09.01.1993, administrative sanction was given to the scheme of bye-pass road. Thereafter, Ex.C1 sale deed [19.1.1993] came into existence. The weight of the recitals, particularly the consideration aspect, the documents will have to be examined in the light of the additional documents filed by National Highways Authorities of India.
45. It is also seen from the additional documents filed along with the Petitions that for the lands acquired for Master Plan Complex and Neighbourhood scheme, the value of the land was fixed at very lesser rate and in our considered view that the additional documents are very relevant to be marked. We are of the view that National Highways Authorities of India has to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence and to demonstrate its stand in respect of Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds.
46. In the light of the above, the additional documents filed by the National Highways Authorities of India and having regard to the serious doubts that arise regarding genuineness of Exs.C1 and C5 sale deeds, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Reference Court in the above said three Batch of cases are to be set aside and the matters are ordered to be remitted back to the Reference Court for consideration of the matter afresh.
47. We are conscious that the lands were acquired about 1= decades ago i.e., in the year 1995 and in some of the LAOPs Judgment was pronounced in 2000. We are also conscious that under Or.41, Rule 27 CPC, the first Appellate Court can itself receive the documents produced as additional evidence and thereafter proceed to analyse the matter by receiving the additional documents. From the chart filed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it comes to be known that as against the estimated cost of acquisition of about Rs.1 crore and odd, by the impugned Judgment, several crores were awarded by enhancement of compensation. Having regard to the higher stakes involved, we are of the view that National Highways Authorities of India has to be given sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence apart from the additional documents filed before us. In such view of the matter, having regard to the higher stakes involved, notwithstanding the passage of time, the matter has to be remitted back to the Reference Court for consideration of the matter afresh by affording sufficient opportunity to the Appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Like wise, the Reference Court shall provide an opportunity to the Claimants to let in additional oral and documentary evidence by means of examining the witnesses if they so desire.
48. Guidelines to Subordinate Courts:-
While determining the market value and awarding enhanced compensation, Court is enjoined upon the public duty/public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land. It is the bounden duty of the Court to determine the market value on objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market. As discussed earlier, in most of the cases, we notice that in fixing the market value, Courts are not guided by objective assessment. The Reference Courts are laying too much emphasis upon the Claimant's right to compensation and awarding higher compensation which would place a very heavy burden on the public exchequer. We notice that in number of cases, Reference Court is awarding higher compensation and such higher compensation is not based upon objective assessment. Even if the sale deeds of comparable instances are filed, Courts will have to be weary of tendency of the land owners/others in creating the documents boosting up the value as it appears to have happened in the instant cases. Since, it is enjoined upon the Reference Court to perform the public function of fixing the market value which has serious implication of public exchequer, we deem it appropriate to recapitulate the well settled principles:- (i) market value; (ii) duty of the Court in fixing the market value; (iii) fixing the market value based on comparable instances; (iv) deduction for development; (v) duty of the Court in appreciating the evidence while fixing the market value.
49. Fixation of Market Value:-
Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination.
50. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of market value and the amount of compensation. The positive as well as negative factors and potentiality of the land to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value. In (2005) 4 SCC 789 [Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:-
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size
(i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road distance
(ii) situation in the interior at a from the road
(iii) frontage on a road
(iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area
(iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape
(v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under
(vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots,waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
51. In (2009) 1 SCALE 545 [Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb], the positive as well as negative factors indicated in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor's case (supra) as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus:
"11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land.
12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom.
13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra)."
52. Considering the factor whether the land has got potential value, in (2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC) [Atma Singh (died) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector Raigarh v. Hari Singh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472, Raghubans Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1969 SC 465 and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi (supra). It has been held in Kaushalya Devi v. L.A.O. Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 and Suresh Kumar v. T.I.Trust, AIR 1980 SC 1222 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle."
53. Duty of the Courts in fixing the market value:-
What emerges from the above decisions is that the burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adducing of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the Court has to adopt is that the Court has to sit in the arm-chair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price which the Court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is the compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer. No feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that when large extent of land was offered, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on square feet basis.
54. Holding that when large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation cannot be on square feet basis and that it would be confined only to highly developed commercial land or the lands situated in the Cities, in (1997) 9 SCC 330 [P.Rajan and another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and another], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"4. It is a well-settled position that when a large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on the foot of a cent, square yard or square foot is a wrong principle. The principle of fixation on acreage basis would be the correct principle. If the land acquired is situated in a developed area and is converted into buildings in a colony after obtaining sanction from the competent authority or is situated in a well-developed area like in the heart of a commercial centre, determination of the compensation could be on square yard basis after giving due deduction according to law. Determination on square foot basis would be confined only to highly developed commercial land or land situated at a place in the heart of a city like Nariman Point in Bombay or Connaught Place in Delhi."
55. Burden is on the Claimant to establish that the land was capable of fetching higher market value. Duty of the Court is to scrutinise and the objective assessment of evidence tendered by the parties and fix fair, reasonable and adequate market value which is a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced. Holding that it is the paramount duty of the Courts to assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper consideration in correct perspective, in (1997) 6 SCC 41 [Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"6. ...... Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. If the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in beadroll of decisions. In Periar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195], this Court considered the entire case-law as on that date, on the principle of determination of market value and the relevant test laid in that behalf. The burden of proof that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimant. The burden is to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector or that the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector proceeded on a wrong premise or applied a wrong principle of law. The object of the enquiry in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is to bring on record the price which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in the open market as on the date of the notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of and the sale transactions in respect of lands covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is, therefore, the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively in correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. It is equally relevant to consider the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. The Court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guesswork is involved, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries the Judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes."
7. Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw-away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The Judge should sit in the armchair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available conditions. The court is, therefore, enjoined with the bounden duty of public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land and compulsory acquisition.
.......
11. It would thus be settled law that the Court is enjoined to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market, the nature of the user of the land to which the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, the income derived therefrom and all other relevant attending circumstances. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable. In other words, it must be just equivalent to what the land is capable of fetching in the open market from a willing and prudent buyer. Therefore, the Court is required to sit in the armchair of a bona fide willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek an answer to the question whether in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value as the Court has proposed.
56. Comparable instances:-
In AIR 2008 SC 399 (Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others), the Supreme Court highlighted the aspects for taking as comparable sales as under:-
"18. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1):
(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(iv) it should possess similar advantages.
19. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case [See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T.Adinarayan Setty (AIR 1959 SC 429).
20.These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India (2003 (4) SCC 481).
57. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. In that case, the features required to be present are: it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would be established by examining either the vendor or the vendee. If it is proved that they are not available, the scribe of the document may also be examined in that behalf. Section 51-A of the Act only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with the original sale deed since acquisition proceedings would take long time before award of the compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using the same for other purposes vis-a-vis this land. The marking of the certified copy per se is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are examined. This principle has been repeated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court.
58. Large extent of land acquired - rate of small plot cannot be the basis:-
Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. In this context, reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 2015 [The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta]; AIR 1977 SC 1560 [Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another]; AIR 1984 SC 892 [Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another] and (2008) 2 SCC 568 [Atma Singh v. State of Haryana].
59. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices [See AIR 2008 SC 399 (Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others].
60. Deduction towards Development charges:-
Learned Additional Solicitor General and learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Reference Court has failed to give deduction towards development charges. Placing reliance upon (2009) 5 MLJ 2 [Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District v. Jaganathan Gounder and another], Mr.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that 40% deduction should be made towards development cost and 20% on account of small size of plot taken as basis to arrive at the market value.
61. Reiterating the settled principles regarding deductions, in Atma Singh's case, the Supreme Court held as under;-
"13. The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are so incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart, it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile, the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up, a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made."
62. The Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC)] referred to an earlier decision relating to deduction towards development charges, in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1991 SC 2298 : (1991) 4 SCC 506 : (1992) 1 MLJ 9, wherein it was held as follows:-
"9. ..... In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."
63. The principle of deduction was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in (2009) 8 SCC 979 [Subh Ram and others v. Haryana State and another]. Referring to various decisions, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"12.2. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 : 1988 (3) SCC 751, this Court held:
" ..... a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an enterpreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately, between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will, to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards."
It should be noted that deduction of 20% to 50% referred to therein is only in regard to the land to be earmarked for roads, community areas, etc. and does not refer to the further deduction towards the expenses of development.
12.3. In K.S.Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1966 SC 2886 : 1996 (2) SCC 62, this Court held:
"It is then contended that 54% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court was not illegal."
64. In (1996) 2 SCC 62 [K.S.Shivadevamma v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer], the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"It is then contended that 54% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken lace, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3% as ordered by the High Court was not illegal."
65. Summarising the above principles, we deem it appropriate to issue the following guidelines to the Subordinate Courts while fixing the market value and determining the compensation:-
Court is enjoined upon the bounden duty of performing public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value guided by objective assessment.
For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to the various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:-
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size
(i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road distance
(ii) situation in the interior at a from the road
(iii) frontage on a road
(iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area
(iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape
(v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under
(vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage While taking comparable instances, Courts will have to carefully analyse the documents whether they are proximate in time and having proximity in situation angle.
When other sale deeds are produced as comparable instances, Courts will have to carefully examine whether any willing purchaser would pay the same amount. Comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as from proximity from situation angle.
Courts will have to carefully examine whether the sale deed produced by the Claimants falls in the line with steady increase or whether there is a sudden spurt in increase of the value.
Courts will have to carefully examine the sale deed to ascertain whether the sale deed is for a fancy price. It is a matter of common knowledge that before the lands are acquired for public purpose/scheme, steps are taken well in advance i.e. Officials visiting the locality, measuring the property, testing the quality of the soil and other relevant factors. The news of acquisition spreads like wild fire.
Reference Court to assess reasonable compensation and it is the duty of the Court to avoid burden on public exchequer.
Courts cannot be oblivious of the tendency of land owners / claimants to create documents at a fancy price so as to derive maximum benefit of compensation. Courts will have to see that there is neither unjust enrichment nor there is any undue deprivation of the lands.
Any document executed in respect of the lands situated prior to issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act is to be taken into consideration.
Courts will have to carefully examine particularly the sale deed of small extent as to whether the sale deed was brought into existence for a fancy price.
When the sale deed referring to smaller tract is produced as comparable instance, Court will have to bear in mind that a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers, deduction of 20% to 50% is to be made and in appropriate case even higher percentage of deduction has to be made. The Supreme Court has laid down a general rule that for laying roads, water supply mains, electricity and other amenities, 33 1/3% required to be deducted.
Courts will have to make suitable deduction for development charges like laying down roads, drain, sewers, water and electricity lines.
There cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges, but it varies from place to place, area to area and amount of development which are required to be carried out. [See (2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC) Atma Singh v. State of Haryana; (1991) 4 SCC 506 Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer].
Reference Court should ensure that apart from the Land Acquisition Officer, the Requisitioning Body/Requisitioning Department has to be impleaded as party [AIR 1995 SC 1004] and opportunity has to be given to the Beneficiary who has to bear the burden of paying compensation.
66. Though, LAOP.No.27/2002 was disposed of by Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal and all other LAOPs were disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, as the common Award was passed in respect of the subject lands , we are of the view that LAOP No.27/2002 also has to be heard and disposed of afresh by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
67. CONCLUSIONS:-
In the result, the Judgments of the Reference Court in LAOP Nos.3,4,6,9,10,11,12,13/1996 dated 28.04.2000 and LAOP.Nos.15,11,12,13,14/1997 dated 30.09.2002 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal and LAOP No.27/2002 dated 02.04.2004 on the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal respectively are set aside and these Appeals are allowed and all the LAOPs are ordered to be remitted back to the Reference Court [Sub-Court, Namakkal] for fresh disposal.
Reference Court Sub-Court, Namakkal is directed to implead the Project Director and General Manager, National Highways Authorities of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, No.10, Kamadhenu Nagar, Karur-639 001 as Respondent in LAOP.Nos.3,4,6,9,10,11,12,13/1996 and LAOP.Nos. 11,12,13,14,15/1997 and LAOP.No.27/2002. Reference Court is directed to receive the documents filed by National Highways Authorities of India filed in these Appeals as well as any other documents to be filed by National Highways Authorities of India. Reference Court is further directed to afford sufficient opportunity to National Highways Authorities of India and also to Appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Reference Court is directed to receive the additional documents filed by NHAI and other documents to be filed by NHAI and afford opportunity to adduce oral evidence. The Reference Court shall also afford opportunity to the Land Acquisition Officer and to the Respondents/Claimants who are already on record to adduce oral and documentary evidence if they so desire and consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
As per the interim order of the Court, part of the compensation amount was deposited to the credit of respective LAOPs. From out of the deposited amount, Claimants have withdrawn part of the amount of compensation with security/without security. The amount so withdrawn by the Claimants/Land owners varies in the Petitions. The amount so withdrawn by the Claimants/Land owners with security/without security shall be subject to the result of the final order to be passed by the Reference Court. The balance compensation amount shall continue to remain in the fixed deposits on reinvestment plan. The security furnished by the Claimants is also ordered to be retained.
All the parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 19.04.2010.
A.S.No.416/2002:- In view of the conclusions supra, the Appeal preferred by Claimant-Jawahar is dismissed.
Since Reference Court is enjoined upon the public function and judicial dispensation in determining the market value of the acquired lands by objective assessment, we direct the Registry to place this Judgment before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for obtaining necessary orders for circulating the copy of this Judgment to all the Courts including Civil Judges [Jr Division] in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for their guidance.
In view of the remand of the matter and permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence, all CMPs including Petitions filed for reception of additional documents are closed.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals.
The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) shall be entitled to legal fee as per Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners Fee Rules.
[R.B.I.,J] [M.V.,J] 06.04.2010 bbr Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Note:-
(i) Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment and records to the Reference court Sub-Court, Namakkal forthwith.
(ii) Office is directed to return the additional documents filed by National Highways Authorities of India in CMP Nos.1686, 1713, 1714, 1684, 1692, 1712, 1693, 1680, 1685, 1683 and 1681 of 2009 to enable them to file before the Reference Court.
(iii) Issue order copy on : 12.04.2010.
To The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
The Registrar-Judicial, High Court, Madras to report compliance.
R.BANUMATHI, J.
and M.VENUGOPAL, J.
bbr Common Judgment in A.S.Nos. 751, 752, 753, 937, 938, 939, 955, 956 of 2001; A.S.Nos.722, 723, 724, 725, 726 of 2004 & A.S.No.7 of 2006 06.04.2010