Madras High Court
Sri Venkatachalapathi Annachathiram ... vs The Special Tahsildar on 3 December, 2020
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
A.S.No.114 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 03.12.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
A.S.No.114 of 2005
Sri Venkatachalapathi Annachathiram Trust,
rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Kabisthalam (Post),
Thanjavur District. : Appellant
vs.
The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Kumbakonam. : Respondent
PRAYER :-
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2003 made in L.A.O.P.No.35 of
1996 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah,
Additional Government Pleader
*******
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.114 of 2005
JUDGMENT
The Government acquired the lands for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidar people. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 19.12.1990. The respondent fixed the market value of the land at Rs.120/- per cent. Aggrieved over the fixation of lesser market rate, the appellant has raised objections and the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined two witnesses and marked two documents vide Exs.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the respondent, the Special Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and two documents vide Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. After considering the documents, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of appellant. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the rejection order passed by the Tribunal is without reasons and contrary to various judgments. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following judgments:
(i) Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [1988 AIR (SC) 1652];2/10
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005
(ii) Special Tahsildar (LA) Krishna Water Supply Project Scheme v. Natesan [2000(IV) CTC 440];
(iii) The Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Rathinareddi [2003(2) LW 267];
(iv) The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Tirupattur, N.A.A.District vs. J.P.Kannan [2011(4) TLNJ 490 (Civil)]; and
(v) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. State of Punjab [2012 SAR (Civil) 441].
and claimed that a sum of Rs.751/- per cent shall be awarded as compensation along with other statutory benefits.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would contend that the Tribunal has set out valid reasons for confirming the market value fixed by the Referring Officer and, therefore, the Award shall not be interfered with.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel on either side.
5. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired for providing house sites to the Adi Dravidar people. A perusal of evidence of R.W.1 would 3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 show that an admission has been made during cross-examination that the land acquired is abutting the road and that there are residential houses adjacent to the acquired land. It is also admitted that even though the acquired land was classified as 'punja land', it is only a house site. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the acquired land is a well developed land fit for housing purposes.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.120/- per cent for the acquired land. In his evidence, he would also depose that the document marked as Ex.C.2 by the claimant was also considered as serial No.9 of data documents.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. State of Punjab [2012 SAR (Civil) 441], has held that when there are different sale transactions, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred.
8. In the instant case, of all the documents, Ex.C.2, which is item No.9 of the data documents, represents higher value. Land measuring 13 cents was sold for Rs.4,000/-. If that higher value is taken into consideration, the land value works out to Rs.308/- per cent. Whereas the 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 Land Acquisition Officer has fixed only Rs.120/- per cent relying on some other documents, which is obviously very meagre. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement. The Tribunal, without considering this aspect, has rejected the claim petition.
9. Insofar as fixation of market value is concerned, Ex.C.2 is a sale deed for sale of 13 cents of punja land for Rs.4,000/-. As per the evidence of R.W.1, exemplar situate in an interior area and the acquired land is adjacent to the main road. Therefore, the sale value will be much higher than the exemplar viz., Ex.C.2. Therefore, Ex.C.2 can be taken for fixing the market value.
10. It is pertinent to note that the vendor of the property was examined as P.W.2 on the side of the appellant/claimant. He being the author of the document, his evidence gains more weightage. He would depose that even though he sold the land for Rs.4,000/-, it was referred to the District Collector for re-determination of market value on the ground it is undervalued. After enquiry, land value was fixed at Rs.9,700/- for 13 cents and the purchaser has paid an additional stamp duty of Rs.5,700/-. He would also depose that the distance between the acquired land and Ex.C.2 is only half a kilometre. It is also relevant to note that R.W.1, in his cross- 5/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 examination, would admit that the excess stamp duty was collected against Ex.C.2 by the concerned Sub Registrar. From the above evidence, it is crystal clear that Ex.C.2 represents the highest value among the exemplar and as per re-determination of market value of the land under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the market value was fixed at Rs.9,700/- for 13 cents, which works out to approximately Rs.746/- per cent.
11. We have already discussed that the land sold under Ex.C.2 is situate in an interior area, whereas, the acquired land is situate on the road and that the acquired land is fit for housing. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the value of the acquired land would be much higher than the value of the land sold under Ex.C.2. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same value can be adopted considering the other developments required for developing the houses.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [1988 AIR (SC) 1652] has laid down the parametres for fixing the market value of the land. In that judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for fixing the market value, proximity of the land to the road, extent, frontage on the road, nearness to the developed area, regular shape and its potentialities, have to be taken into consideration.
6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005
13. We have already observed that the land is a well developed residential area and the house is situate in the acquired land. In that view of the matter, fixing Rs.750/- per cent as a market value will not be excessive. In fact, it is lesser as the lands acquired on the opposite side of the road were given compensation of around Rs.951/- to Rs.1,100/- per cent. Therefore, I deem it fit to enhance the market value of the acquired land at Rs.750/- per cent.
14. In the judgment relied on by the appellant in Special Tahsildar (LA) Krishna Water Supply Project Scheme v. Natesan [2000(IV) CTC 440], it is categorically held that the enhancement can be made not only on the basis of the documents relied on by the claimant but also from the documents of the respondent's side. Further, the claimant is entitled to claim higher amount even if it is not claimed earlier before the Reference Court.
15. In The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Tirupattur, N.A.A.District vs. J.P.Kannan [2011(4) TLNJ 490 (Civil)], a Division Bench of this Court has held that for the enhanced compensation, the claimants can be permitted to pay necessary Court fee within the time 7/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 prescribed by the Court and on the compliance, they could be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation.
16. In that view of the matter, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to enhance the compensation and permit the appellant to pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation.
17. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1996, dated 20.08.2003, is set aside and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.750/- per cent. The appellant/claimant is entitled to 30% solatium, 12% additional value and also appropriate interest and other benefits as provided in the Statute. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellant/claimant will be entitled to interest, as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant is permitted to pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation and on such payment, the appellant is entitled to disbursement of award amount. No costs.
03.12.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No SML 8/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.
2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Kumbakonam.
3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.114 of 2005 M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
SML Judgment made in A.S.No.114 of 2005 Dated:
03.12.2020 (1/2) 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in