IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 14.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.936 of 2001 The Land Acquisition Officer (Special Tahsildar) Adi Dravidar Welfare Krishnagiri. .. Appellant vs 1. Thekkiammal @ Thiruppathiammal 2. Periyappan @ Lakshmana Gounder 3. Chandran 4. Natesan 5. Indirani .. Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1996 in L.A.O.P.No.93 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri. For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Additional Government Pleader (AS) For respondents :: Mr.V.Raghavachari JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in L.A.O.P. No.93 of 1993. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 0.51.5 hectares (1.27 acres) in S.No.171/4A1 B4A in Savalur Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, for the purpose of providing housing sites to Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.238.10p per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.238.10p to Rs.800/- per cent.
6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
Without any basis, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Court.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.238.10p to Rs.800/- per cent.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would contend that the Sub court was not justified in enhancing the compensation without any objective standard.
9. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court would clearly demonstrate that the Reference Court after narrating the facts, simply jumped to the conclusion that the land acquired was having the potentiality of becoming a plot area and that it was a fruitful land etc., and simply awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre, which means Rs.800/- per cent, whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.238.10p per cent, which means, per acre he awarded a sum of Rs.23,810/-.
10. On the side of the land owner, Exs.C1 and C2 were filed. Ex.C1 is the sale deed dated 15.03.1990 which emerged subsequent to the publication of Section 4(1) notification dated 16.10.1989. As such, it cannot be taken into consideration, whereas, Ex.C2 is the sale deed that emerged on 25.10.1988, which is anterior to Section 4(1) notification and the fact also remains that the land relating to Ex.C2 is situated in S.No.149/1A measuring an extent of 1886 sq.ft. of plot area, which means, per cent of land was sold for a sum of 95p. per sq.ft. The land acquired is situated in S.No.171/4 which is nearer to the land contemplated under Ex.C2. As such, there is nothing to indicate that Ex.C2 is a cooked up document or purely brought out for boosting up the valuation. As such, Ex.C2 can be relied upon for assessing the compensation.
11. At this junction, my mind in redolent with the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] (2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] (3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] (4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] (5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others]
12. As per the aforesaid decisions, while taking into consideration a smaller extent of plot area for assessing a larger area of agricultural land, necessary deduction should be made towards development charges and normally it should be one-third. No contrary decision could be cited on the side of the land owner. Accordingly
1.Per square foot 95p and it could be taken as Re.1.
2.For one cent of land or 436 sq.ft., it comes to Rs.436/-.
13. I recollect the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court also in (2004) 6 SCC 533 [Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others] to the effect that for each year 10% increase could be given so as to arrive at a just compensation.
However for one year of gap between Ex.C2 and Section 4(1) Notification, 10% increase could be given and accordingly if worked out, it comes to Rs.436 + 43.60 = Rs.479.60 and it could be rounded to Rs.480/- per cent. Accordingly, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards development charges, as the purpose of the acquisition is for carving out plots for allotting the same to the landless Adi Dravidar community people. Without sacrificing atleast 1/3rd of the extent of land towards the road and drainage facilities and other space for convenience and enjoyment of the habitants, the area cannot be developed as plots. As such, deduction of 1/3rd from Rs.480/-, the 2/3rd comes to Rs.480 160 = Rs.320/-. In the result, the net compensation awardable per cent of land comes to Rs.320/- (Rupees three hundred and twenty only). I make it clear that the land owner is eligible for other statutory benefits. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court stand modified and the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
14.08.2008
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
G.RAJASURIA,J.,
gms
To
The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.
A.S.No.936 of 2001
14.08.2008