IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH
A.S.No.589 of 1999
and
Cross Objection No.115 of 2001
The Land Acquisition Officer .. Appellant in A.S.No.589
Mahe of 1999 and respondent in Cross Objection
No.115 of 2001
Vs.
1. Valiyaveetil Parvathy(died) .. Respondent in A.S.No
589 of 1999
2. Valiyaveettil Savitha .. Respondent in A.S.No
589 of 1999 and
petitioner in Cross Obj.
No.115 of 2001
3. Valiyaveetil Balabhaskaran .. Respondent in A.S.No
589 of 1999 and
Cross Objection No. 115 of 2001
4. Valiyaveetil Vijayaraghavan .. Respondent in A.S.No
589 of 1999 and
Cross Objection No. 115 of 2001
5. Valiyaveetil Haridas .. Respondent in A.S.No
589 of 1999 and
petitioner in Cross.Obj
No.115 of 2001
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition at Mahe in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1993, dated 23.3.1994.
Cross Objection Under order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against AS.No.589 of 1999 and against the judgment and decree made in LAOP.No.20 of 1993 dated 23.3.1994 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition at Mahe.
For Appellants : Mr. Natarajan
Government Advocate
Pondicherry.
For R2, 3 and 5 : Mr.A.Karunakaran for
M/s. G.M.Mani Associates
For R4 : No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 23.3.1994 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition at Mahe in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1993 for enhancement of the compensation for the lands acquired.
2. The claimants have filed the Cross Objection questioning the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court.
3. The lands in question, measuring OH-21A-80Ca in R.S.No.130/14 and OH-06-OOCa in R.S.No.114 /9 at Mahe village at Mahe sub- taluk in the District of Pondicherry Pillaichavadey Taluk belonging to the claimant herein, were acquired for the purpose of distribution of free house sites to the landless labourers by Government through G.O.Ms.No.40 (Revenue Department, Pondicherry) dated 4.4.1983. Originally, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.4.1983 and other procedures were carried out in accordance with the procedure contemplated. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value of the property at Rs.1,17,898/- in respect of the properties acquired and had also fixed 30% solatium and 12% of the additional value from the date of 4(1) notification till the award was passed and accordingly, fixed a sum of Rs.2,03,210.75 for the claimants.
4. Aggrieved upon the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had not accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, they requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the case to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the reference made therein, the case was taken on file by the Court concerned as L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1993. Accordingly, the claimants have examined the fourth claimant Thiru P.V.Vijayaraghavan as P.W.1. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. The Court had come to a conclusion of enhancing the compensation at Rs. 25.86 per sq.ft. along with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value, after appraising the evidence and documents placed before it.
5. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal.
6. Thus the claimants have filed Cross Objections questioning the fixation of market value for the acquired lands made by the Tribunal.
7. Heard Mr.Natarajan, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry), appearing for appellant in A.S.No.589 of 1999 and 1st Respondent in Cross Objection No. 115 of 2001 and Mr. A.Karunakaran, the learned counsel appearing for RR2,3 and 5 in A.S.No.589 of 1999 and the cross objection.
8. Cross Objection No.115/2001:
The respondents 2 and 5 have also preferred cross objection seeking for further enhancement of compensation by stating that the enhancement of compensation made by the lower court is not sufficient and adequate.
9. On perusal of the award proceedings and the records of the Tribunal containing evidence of both parties and judgment and award passed by the lower court and the grounds raised in the appeal memo and in the cross objection and the arguments advanced on either side, this court could see the following points would emerge for consideration in this appeal and cross appeal.
1. Whether the market value fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7586/- per Are is not the market value for the acquired lands on the date of 4(1) notification?
2. Whether the value fixed by the Land Tribunal is excess to the actual market value?
3. Whether value fixed by the Land Tribunal is inadequate to the actual market value?
4. Whether the judgment and award passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside. Whether the appeal is allowable?
5. To what relief the appellant is entitled for?
10. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R. Natarajan, Govt Pleader (Puducherry) would submit in his argument that the Tribunal had not arrived to a correct conclusion on the basis of evidence adduced before it but had grossly erred in relying upon notification. He would further submit in his argument that the market value on the date of 4(1) notification should have been found on the basis of evidence produced before the lower court but had ignored the sale consideration mentioned in data lands. He would further submit in his argument that the lower court had come to a conclusion that no evidence was adduced by the claimant to fix the market value as claimed by them either at Rs.15,000/- or Rs.20,000/- per one cent but had awarded double the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would also draw the attention of the court that the lands acquired were only for the purpose of providing house sites to the landless fisherman on that locality. He would also submit that the acquired lands were in the lower level near the sea and therefore the claim of the claimants is that it would fetch more than Rs.25,000/- and at present Rs.1,00,000/- per one are cannot be accepted. He would further submit that the Land Acquisition Officer had correctly scrutinised the data sales and had come to a conclusion that the acquired lands would fetch a market value of Rs.2762/- per one Are and had awarded statutory benefit along with compensation which has to be confirmed and the market value fixed by the Tribunal therefore has to be set aside. He would further submit that the cross objection filed by the cross objectors have to be subsequently dismissed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross objectors would submit in his argument that the lower court had not considered the potentiality of the lands acquired. He would further submit that the admitted facts would go to show that land is located 100 meters near to N.H.17 Highways and the Office of Sub-Collector, Hospital and important places in Mahe were located 50 meters and therefore, the lands acquired eventhough in lower level would have much potential. Lower court had not discussed the potentiality but had extended the compensation to a smaller extent of Rs.7586/- which is not sufficient compensation. He would further submit in his argument that the Land Acquisition Officer had not considered the potentiality of the lands acquired but had come to a mathematical calculation in order to pay a very low compensation to the claimants. The lands acquired are very much within the vicinity of Mahe town which is a territory with smaller extent and the appreciation of properties are very high. Therefore, the potentiality to be considered would be more than 10 times the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence suitable compensation may be awarded. He would request the court that the appeal preferred by the appellant should be dismissed and at the same time the cross appeal preferred by the respondents may be allowed by enhancing the compensation fixed by the lower court.
11. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
12. The admitted facts in respect of the present case would be that the properties mentioned in S.No.114/9 in Mahe Sub Taluk of Puducherry State measuring an extent of 0.06.0 hectare belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the landless labourers. Land Acquisition Officer in his award had discussed about the valuation of the properties by going through the selected four data sales out of 191 listed out and had come to the conclusion of average value of those four data sales and arrived to a sum of Rs.2762/- per one are. Accordingly he has arrived to a calculation of Rs.16,572/- for those ares with statutory benefits. However, in the reference made u/s. 18, the lower court had recorded evidence of both sides and had come to a conclusion that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not correct and the actual market value of the lands acquired would be at Rs.7586/- per one Are with statutory benefits. In order to arrive to the said calculation, the lower court had mentioned the practice of vendors and vendee to pay lesser registration fee and stamp fee. The market value should have been given where as the lower court had come to the conclusion of enhancing the same. The view of the lower court is unlawful and it cannot be relied upon by the court of law. However, submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the potentiality of the land has to be considered while fixing the market value could not be simply ignored.
13. Admittedly the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that market value of the lands acquired would fetch higher price on the date of 4(1) notification. Therefore, it has to be taken into account that the market value given by the Land Acquisition Officer could be the same on the date of 4(1) notification. When we consider the potentiality of the land it is an admitted fact that it is located very near to the office of Sub-Collector, hospital and other places of Mahe town in the Puducherry Union Territory which is very small town and any place in Mahe is having potentiality for its future valuation. As we go through Ex.B.2 map of the Mahe town, the acquired lands are very near to the road adjacent to it and in between the acquired land and the sea there are number of houses and settlements. Moreover on its east, we could see the important office like office of Sub court, hospitals are located near the roads like national highways are very near to the said lands acquired.
14. Therefore, there is no doubt the lands acquired are located in a very important place which has got much potential. According to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent the property would be fetching a sum of Rs.25,000/- per cent and for that he has not produced any document before the lower court. However, it has been pointed out regarding the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer as to the admission of the evidence regarding its market value. On a careful perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, we could see that the land acquired is 75 metres on the western side of national highways. The land is admittedly in a lower level than that of the lands situated in the eastern side abutting N.H.17 highways. In that circumstances, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have fixed the same value after deducting some percentage considering its lower level distance from national highways. The lower court had also not considered this point but it had notionally enhanced the market value without any basis. Therefore, the fixation of value by the Land Acquisition Officer and the lower court are not depicting the true and correct market value. According to the admission made by R.W.1 we could see that the value of one cent of land abutting N.H.17 road would be at Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000/- on the date of 4(1) notification. Therefore, taking average value of Rs.12,500/- per cent a ratio of 50% can be applied for deduction towards locality at a distant and as the level of the lands acquired were in a lower level it come to a sum of Rs.6250/- per one cent. If it is calculated for one are by multiplying into 2.5 times we could see a correct market value of one
Are of the land acquired would be at Rs.15,625/-. The lower court had not followed any viable method and had fixed the market value at Rs.7586/- per one Are. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the lower court are liable to be interfered and has to be enhanced from Rs.7586/- to Rs.15625/- per one Are with statutory benefits. Accordingly, the points 1 to 3 are decided in favour of the respondents/claimants.
Point 4:
In view of the findings reached in points 1 to 3 when the market value of the lands acquired are fixed at Rs.15625/- per one Are and the judgment and award passed by the lower court has to be set aside and notified to that extent and accordingly the appeal questioning the enhancement of compensation by the lower court is liable to be dismissed and the cross objection raised by the respondents are allowed to the extent of enhancing the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.15625/- per one are with statutory benefits as awarded by the lower court. In the peculiar circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal and cross appeal.
.06.2010
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
kpr
V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
kpr
To
II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry
Pre-delivery Judgment
in A.S.No.589 of 1999
.06.2010