BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN A.S.(MD)No.569 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.570 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.571 of 2003 A.S.(MD)No.572 of 2003 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer), Sivakasi. 2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Virudhunagar. ... Appellants in all A.S. vs Karuppasamy ... Respondent in
A.S.No.569 of 2003
Ramar … Respondent in
A.S.No.570 of 2003
V.Govindan
… Respondent in
A.S.No.571 of 2003
Ramaiya Thevar
… Respondent in
A.S.No.572 of 2003
COMMON PRAYER
Appeal Suits filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
against the Judgments and Decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge of
Srivilliputhur in L.A.O.P.Nos.239, 236, 242 and 243 of 1992 dated 27.09.2001
respectively.
!For Appellants … Mr.M.Rajarajan
Govt. Advocate
^For Respondents … No appearance
:COMMON JUDGMENT
The above appeals arise against the judgment passed on 27.09.2001 in
L.A.O.P.Nos.235 of 1992, 236 of 1992, 242 of 1992 and 243 of 1992, on the file
of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The lands comprised various survey Nos. of W.Pudupatti and Watrap
Village of Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, to an extent of 0.22.5
Hectares were acquired by virtue of section 4(1) notification dated 14.07.1988.
The purpose of acquisition is for formation of road from Pudupatti to
Arjunapuram.
(ii) The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.90/-
and Rs.110/- per cent based on the classification of unirrigated dry lands and
irrigated dry lands respectively, relying upon the item No.37(Ex.R-4) and item
No.50 (Ex.R-5) of the sales statistics namely Ex.R-3. Reference, under 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act was made and the Tribunal fixed the compensation at
Rs.1090/- per cent based on Ex.P-1, dated 04.04.1988.
3. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the value of
the smaller extent of the land namely Ex.P-1 was relied upon to determine vast
extent of land. The learned counsel submitted that it is well settled law that
sale of smaller extent of land cannot be the basis for determining the value of
vast extent of land. The learned counsel further submitted that only 50% was
deducted towards development charges and needs to be enhanced to 65%. He relied
upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, vs. Smt.L.Kamalamma (dead) by Lrs. and
others and Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, vs.
K.Krishnamachari and others reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 781.
4. A perusal of the pleadings, evidence and the award would show that 4(1)
notification was issued on 14.07.1988 and the lands were acquired for the
purpose of formation of road from Puduppatti to Arjunapuram. The Land
Acquisition Officer relied upon Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents for fixing the
compensation at Rs.90/- and Rs.110/- respectively. However, the Tribunal
rejected Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents stating that the properties mentioned in
Exs.R-4 and R-5 were situate far away from the acquired land and that it was not
proved that the land covered by Ex.R-5 was cultivable land. Moreover, the
Tribunal observed that R.W.1 did not have direct knowledge about the lands in
question and Exs.P-4 and P-5 lands and it was not proved that the data land and
acquired lands were of same nature and potential. Therefore, the Tribunal
rightly rejected Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents.
5. R.W-1 himself admitted in his evidence that the value of the land is
common for Puduppatti, Watrap villages as they are adjoining villages and that
the acquired land had thatched houses, and the tamarind trees. P.W.1 proved
that the acquired land is surrounded by banks, panchayat union, co-operative
mills society, sarvadhoya store, brick-lins and surrounded by housing colonies.
Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the acquired land
has potential of becoming house sites.
6. Ex.P.1, is dated 04.04.1988. It was admitted by R.W-1 officer himself
that the acquired land was situated in the residential area got potential of
becoming house sites. Therefore, the Tribunal relied upon the Ex.P-1 document
to determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,180/- per cent.
7. As Ex.P.1 conveyed smaller extent of land, the Tribunal deducted 50%
towards development charges. As per Ex.P.1 the value per cent is Rs.2180/-.
After deducting 50% out of Rs.2180/-, the compensation was fixed at Rs.1090/-.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court Atmasingh (died) through L.Rs and others vs. State
of Hariyana and anothers reported in AIR 2008 SC 709, held that value smaller
extent of land could be relied upon for determining the value of vast extent of
land and what is required is appropriate deduction towards development charges.
In that case 10% was deducted towards development charges. The above judgment
proves that there is no prohibition for the Court or the Tribunal to rely upon
value of the smaller extent of land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mummidi
Apparav (D) through LRs. vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals limited,
reported in 2008(72)AIC 58, confirmed 50% deduction made by the Hon’ble High
Court for relying upon the value of sale deed which conveyed smaller extent of
land. In this case also the Tribunal deducted 50% towards development charges
and therefore this Court confirms the compensation determined at Rs.1090/- per
cent.
8. Though 30% was awarded towards solatium no interest was granted for the
said amount. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs.
Union of India, reported in 2001(7) SCC 211, held that the claimant is entitled
to interest on solatium on par with compensation. As the award passed by the
Tribunal is before the judgment in Sunder case, this Court awards interest on
the solatium also on par with the interest on compensation.
9. In other aspects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed but for the
modification made above and accordingly appeals are dismissed. There is no
order as to cost.
10. The Government is permitted to deposit the entire amount before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and the Tribunal is further directed to pay the entire amount to the
claimants within a period of two weeks thereof, provided the claimants make an
application in this regard. If no application is made, the Tribunal is directed
to deposit the entire amount in the fixed deposit and the Tribunal has to pay to
the amount, whenever the claimants approach for payment.
SKN
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.