IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.No.703 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.The Special Tahsildar (L.A) Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Unit-2, Tiruvallur. ....1st Appellant/Referring Officer 2.The Executive Engineer (PWD), Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Division-I, Tiruvallur. ....2nd Appellant/Beneficiary Vs G.Prabhakaran ....Respondent/Claimant Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.377 of 1994 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee. For Appellants :Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For Respondent : Mr.G.K.Sekar J U D G M E N T
The Appellants have preferred this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.377 of 1994 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu have sanctioned a scheme of excavation of canal from Tamil Nadu State Border to Poondi Reservoir for bringing drinking water to Madras city from Krishna River in Andhra Pradesh. To complete the public purpose, an extent of 13.86 Hectares of land has been acquired in numerous Survey Numbers in No.38, Vellanur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Poonamalle District, standing in the name of different persons under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 4(1) Notification as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been published in Issue No.22A dated 22.07.1992 of the Government Gazette on 22.07.1992. The Notification has been published in the local papers Tamil Daily, Namadhu M.G.R., and Dina Thoothu on 16.07.1992 and 15.07.1992 respectively. The publication has been effected in the locality on 10.08.1992. The objections have been called for and the same have been published in the Village and other places on 12.08.1992. The Notices in Form 3A to the intending land owners and interested persons informing the proposed acquisition as per Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act have been served on 11.09.1992 and 12.09.1992 duly informing them about the date, hour and venue of Section 5A Enquiry to be conducted on 28.09.1992 and 01.10.199. Section 6 Draft Declaration has been approved in G.O.Ms.No.573 P.W.D. Dated 06.04.1993 in respect of 13.86.0 Hectares and published in the Government Gazette Part II Section 2 of the T.N. Government Gazette dated 28.04.1993 Issue No.16C. The local publications have been made on 22.04.1993. The local publication has been effected on 20.05.1993.
3.After complying with the necessary formalities and following the due procedures thereto, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award No.4/93-94 in Unit No.II on 31.12.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the acquired land per cent at Rs.500/- in respect of wet lands, in respect of dry lands the value per cent is determined at Rs.450/- and fixed the value at Rs.300/- in respect of manavari lands.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer by his Award No.4/93-94 dated 31.12.1993 in respect of the acquired land belonging to the Respondent/Claimant measuring an extent of 0.56.0 Hectares has determined the market value at Rs.450/- per cent and on that basis awarded a total compensation of Rs.91,325/- (including 30% solatium of Rs.18,673.20p and 12 % value at Rs.10,408.01p.
5.The Respondent/Claimant, feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer as referred to supra and in lieu of his objection, the Land Acquisition Officer has been perforced to refer the matter before the Tribunal as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6.The Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamalle on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has passed an Award determining the compensation at Rs.5,300/- per cent and also granted the statutory benefits thereto.
7.The Appellants being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Learned Additional District Judge in L.A.O.P.No.377 of 1994 have preferred this Appeal before this Court.
8.The point that arise for consideration in this Appeal is:
Whether the Award dated 22.01.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.377 of 1994 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee is sustainable one in law?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
9.According to the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the Appellants, the trial court has committed an error in increasing the market value exorbitantly from Rs.450/- per cent determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.5,300/- per cent and that the trial court has not taken note of the data land, which has taken note of by the Land Acquisition Officer which is very nearer .. and also part of the acquired lands which reflects the real market value, as per tharam, classification of the land.
10.It is the further contention on the side of the Learned Special Government Pleader that the trial court has not appreciated the fact that Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 Sale Deeds marked on the side of the Claimants are all house sites sales which are developed for residential purpose, etc., and in short, the trial court has passed an Award restricting its conclusion based on frame, supposition and conjectures.
11.The pith and substance of the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants is that the trial court has not taken note of the sales statistics mentioned in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and indeed, the Sales Statistics will squarely prove that the market value of the land has not been so high as claimed on the other side at the relevant point of time and in any event, the market value of Rs.5,300/- per cent determined by the trial court is an excessive and exorbitant one and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice.
12.At this juncture, it is pertinent for this Court to point out in Appeal Suit A.S.Nos.280 to 295, 337 to 352, 483 to 508, 538 to 553, 554 to 580, 789 to 804 and 820 to 833 of 2004, this Court (DB) on 30.04.2008 has passed the Judgment wherein an enhanced compensation at Rs.3,710/- per cent is fixed (i.e., 70% of Rs.5,300/-) and also granted statutory benefits.
13.It is not out of place for this Court to refer to the following portions of the Judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.280 to 295, 337 to 352, 483 to 508, 538 to 553, 554 to 580, 789 to 804 and 820 to 833 of 2004 dated 30.04.2008, wherein at paragraphs 10 to 18, it is observed as follows:
…10.The Learned Government Pleader assailed the order of the Reference Court on the ground that the Reference Court has taken into consideration Ex.C5, a sale deed dated 15.10.1990 in which an extent of 1800 sq.ft., has been sold for Rs.21,600/-. The said sale deed pertains to a pucka developed house plot and sold for a fancy price and cannot be compared with the land under acquisition. Alternatively, he contended that Ex.C5 is a created document boosting the value for the purpose of claiming higher rate of compensation. The data land considered by the Land Acquisition Officer is very nearer and also a part of the acquired land which reflects the correct market value. In any event, atleast 50% of deduction is to be given having regard to the extent of the land sold under Ex.C5.The Learned Government Pleader also contended that the Reference Court miserably failed in considering the lands on some terms totally disregarding the classification made by the Land Acquisition Officer.
11.Per contra, the Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants contended that it is an admitted fact that the acquired lands were laid out as plots and it is apparent from the inspection report of the Appellants themselves that 4(1) Notification itself was published in the Government Gazette only on July 1992 whereas Ex.C5 is dated 15.10.1990, which is well prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification. Hence, the contention that Ex.C5 is a created document for the purpose of boosting the value has to be rejected.
12.He further contended that Ex.C5 is of the year 1990. It is admitted fact that every year the value of the land increases atleast by 10%. Being a house site, that too, situated near the Chennai Metropolitan city, enhancement at the rate of 15% per annum over and above the value of Ex.C5 ought to have been granted by the Reference Court.
13.Heard the Learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
14.On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the respective parties with reference to documents relied on, we are not able to concur that the compensation awarded by the trial court is in accordance with Sections 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(3) and 25(8) of the Land Acquisition Act. While deciding the market value, Section 23(1) lays down what the Court should take into consideration and Section 24 lays down what should not be taken into consideration and have to be rejected. It is also well established that the market value has to be determined with due regard to its existing conditions and its potential value.
15.If the statutory provisions are applied to the facts of the present case, with reference to the document Ex.C5, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the higher side. At the same time, we are not able to accept that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in a sum of Rs.450/- for manavari dry land, Rs.500/- for irrigatable dry land and Rs.300/- for dry land is in accordance with the statutory provision. Thus, the matter requires to be remitted to the Reference Court for reconsideration.
16.Admittedly 4(1) notification was published on 25.09.1991 and the award was made in the year 1992. All along the matter was pending before the Reference Court and before this Court. In that way two decades have already been rolled on. The persons who have been deprived of their valuable property from the year 1991 have not received their due compensation yet and they are having the legal battle in the Court. Likewise, even for the marginal enhancement of the compensation awarded over and above the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% after the expiry of the first year of acquisition, which is statutory requirement. Further, if the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court even with the direction to dispose of it of within a specific period, a first Appellate remedy is available to the Government to put in issue the enhanced compensation. In that process, atleast another 5 years will be lapsed in litigation. So, in order to balance the interest of both the parties, we suggested that it would be better to arrive at a reasonable compensation by parties themselves so as to avoid litigation which causes the delay. If the parties agree, the claimants will get the compensation amount immediately. It is always better to have one in hand than two in the bush. Likewise, the Government can also avoid payment of interest for the enhanced compensation for such a long period of time. The Supreme Court, by proceedings dated 25.01.2008 in Reference F.No.TS/LA/SC1/2008, has directed to consider settlement of cases pertaining compensation awarded for the land acquisition, pending before it, through Lok Adalats. Taking cue from it, instead of sending the matter to the Lok Adalat or Mediation Centre, we directed the parties to arrive at a settlement.
17.The Appellant after consulting the appropriate officer of the State has come forward to pay compensation at the rate of 60% of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, whereas the Claimants came forward with the claim of 80%. After some deliberation, the parties settled their case at 70% of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. This has been done after a considerable deliberation between the parties through their counsel and they agreed to file a joint memo to that effect. However, it is argued across the Bar that the Claimants are innumerable in number and it would take some to obtain the signatures of all the claimants in the proper format, though they have accepted the amount. Learned counsel on either side assured to file the joint memo on the reopening day, i.e., on 09.06.2008.
18.The Appeals are disposed of in terms of the consensus reached between the parties, i.e., by fixing the enhanced compensation at Rs.3,710/- per cent (i.e., 70% of Rs.5,300/-). In respect of solatium and interest on solatium, the order of the Reference Court stands confirmed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 Suppl.(3) SCR 176. On the enhanced compensation the claimants are entitled to 12% of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification till the date of the Award. The claimants are entitled to the statutory interest at 9% for the first year and thereafter 15% per year. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
These appeals having been set down on Wednesday the 11th day of June 2008 for reporting compliance of the undertaking given by the counsels appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Respondent, the Court made the following order:
On 30.04.2008, the Appeals were finally disposed of, on the basis of consensus reached between the parties to the effect that the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court be reduced by 30%. The parties undertook to file the joint memo in the proper format on the adjourned date as the Court was being closed for summer vacation from 01.05.2008 onwards. The respective counsel made an endorsement to that effect.
Accordingly, today when the matter is listed for reporting compliance of the undertaking given by the counsel on either side on 30.04.2008, the parties filed their joint memo signed by the parties and their counsel. The said memo is taken on record. The Appellant is directed to deposit the compensation as determined by this Court after deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Having regard to the efforts put in by the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant, in getting the matter settled amicably, he will be entitled to a fee of Rs.1,000/- in each of the case.”
14.As far as the present case is concerned, the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimant also informs this Court that the Division Bench in A.S.Nos.280 to 295, 337 to 352, etc., batch dated 30.04.2008 has determined the compensation in respect of the acquired land at Rs.3,710/- per cent granting statutory benefits thereto.
15.Inasmuch as this Court in the Judgment dated 30.04.2008 in A.S.Nos.280 to 295, 337 to 352, 483 to 508, 538 to 553, 554 to 580, 789 to 804 and 820 to 833 of 2004 has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,710/- per cent, (i.e., 70% of Rs.5,300/-) granting other statutory benefits, this Court is of the considered view the aforesaid Judgment in A.S.Nos.280 to 295, 337 to 352, 483 to 508, 538 to 553, 554 to 580, 789 to 804 and 820 to 833 of 2004 dated 30.04.2008 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and applying the same, this Court determines the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land to the Respondent/Claimant at Rs.3,710/- per cent. As regards the solatium and interest thereto, the order of the Tribunal/Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.4), Poonamalle is affirmed. The Respondent/Claimant, on the enhanced compensation is entitled to claim 12% of the additional market value of the amount as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the date of Section 4(1) Notification till the date of passing of the Award. Also, the Respondent/Claimant is entitled to statutory interest at 9% for the first year and thereafter at 15% p.a. Thus, this Court allows the Appeal in part without costs.
16.At this stage, this Court refers to Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners’ Fees Rules, 1973 which enjoins as follows:
R.12. (1) In the High Court in appeals from original or appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property, or for land or other immovable property of any description, fees are payable on the same scales under Rule 3(2)(b).
Provided that when the appeal is compromised, settled withdrawn or dismissed for default (a) before the appeal gets into the ready board, the fee shall be one-fourth of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) and (c) after the appeal stands on the ready board the fee shall be one-half of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) subject to this, in all the above cases, the minima prescribed in Rule 14 shall apply:
(Provided further that when the appeal is from an award or from any part of an award of a Court in a land acquisition case, as between the collector and the claimant or claimants the maximum fee shall be Rs.2,000.00.)
(2) When the amount or value of the claim in the appeal exceeds Rs.2,000 an additional fee calculated at one-third of the fee allowable under clause (1) shall be payable to junior Practitioner engaged with a senior Practitioner:
Provided that the junior was on record at least from the last of the dates fixed for the appearance of the respondent.
Provided further that in any case, where a juniors’ fee is payable under this rule or under Rule 19, the Court shall have a discretion to fix that fee at half the seniors’ fee instead of one-third.
(3) The fees for the junior legal practitioner for settling of documents for translation and or printing in first appeals shall be a minimum of Rs.25 and a maximum of Rs.50 subject to the discretion of the taxing officer.”
17.On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court fixes the fees of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) as per Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners’ Fees Rules, 1973.
18.In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Award passed in L.A.O.P.No.377 of 1994 by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court NO.IV, Poonamalle dated 22.01.2003 stands modified. The Appellant/Land Acquisition Officer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount awarded by this Court (less amount
already drawn) with statutory benefits within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the Judgment. On such deposit being made, it is open to the Respondent/Claimant to file necessary payment out application as per Rule 166 of Civil Rules of Practice before the trial court which in turn is directed to dispose of the said application as early as possible (in any event within a period of two weeks) in the manner known to law. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.11.2010 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No vri To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court NO.IV, Poonamalle. M.VENUGOPAL,J. vri A.S.No.703 of 2010 10.11.2010