IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.08.2010 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Appeal Suit Nos.137 and 807 of 2005, 1001 of 2007 and 712 of 2009 & CMP Nos.13744 of 2005 and 1 of 2009 G.Balambal .. Appellant in A.S.137/2005/ Respondent in A.S.807/2005 The Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar ..Appellant in A.S.807/2005 Respondent in A.S.137/2005 The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar ..Appellant in A.S.1001/2007 The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Cheyyar Thiruvannamalai District ..Appellant in A.S.712/2009 vs. Leenarani .. Respondent in A.S.1001/2007 M.Vedapuri .. Respondent in A.S.712/2009 Prayer in A.S.No.137/2005 & 807/2005: Appeal suits filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cheyyar dated 3.9.2004 in LAOP No.22 of 2002. Prayer in A.S.No.1001/2007: Appeal suits filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cheyyar dated 20.4.2006 in LAOP No.12 of 2003. Prayer in A.S.No.712/2009: Appeal suits filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cheyyar dated 1.3.2007 in LAOP No.35 of 2002. For Appellant in A.S.137/2005 & For respondent in A.S.807/2005 & A.S.712 of 2009 : Mr.P.Mani For appellant in A.S.Nos.807/2005, 1001/2007 & 712/2009 : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P For respondent in A.S.1001/2007 : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar ***
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.S.Nos.807/2005, 1001/2007 and 712/2009 are filed by the Acquiring Authority. A.S.No.137 of 2005 is filed by a claimant/land owner.
2. A.S.No.807 of 2005 is directed against LAOP No.22 of 2002. As against the same LAOP, the claimant has field A.S.No.137 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation. A.S.No.712 of 2009 is filed against LAOP No.35/2002. Likewise, A.S.No.1001 of 2007 is filed against LAOP No.12 of 2003.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the acquiring authority in all the appeals and for the respondent in A.S.No.137 of 2005, Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal Nos.807 of 2005 and 712 of 2009 as well as for the appellant in A.S.No.137 of 2005 and Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal No.1001 of 2007.
4. In all these appeals, the lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing a bye-pass road in Kodanagar and Thiruvathur Villages, Cheyyar Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District. The acquiring authority Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department requested for acquisition of wet and dry lands in the two villages for the formation of the bye-pass road in Kodanagar and Thiruvathur Villages. Subsequently the Government sanctioned the said scheme by G.O.Ms.No.1155, Public Works Department (H&I) Department dated 1.6.1990.
5. Section 4(1) Notification was approved in G.O.Ms.No.90, Highways and Rural Works Department dated 6.4.1998. After following due procedure, an award came to be passed in Award No.Rc.a2/13299/93 dated 16.7.2001 by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar. The acquiring authority fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs.15/- per Sq.ft. The aggrieved land owners objected to lower rates of compensation. Therefore, separate references were made for determination of the market value under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the jurisdictional Reference Court, which in the present case is Sub Court, Cheyyar.
6. In LAOP No.22 of 2002, in which both the acquiring authority and the claimant have come up on appeal respectively in A.S.Nos.807 of 2005 and 137 of 2005. The claimant in that case is one Balambal. In LAOP No.22 of 2002, the claimant had examined herself as C.W.1. On her side, two documents were filed, namely Exs.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, the Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition Radhakrishnan was examined as R.W.1 and 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.8.
7. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence passed the judgment dated 3.9.2004 and found that the compensation awarded by the acquiring authority is on a lower side. It fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/- per Sq.ft. It is against this judgment and decree dated 3.9.2004, the appeal by the acquiring authority and the claimant came to be filed.
8. In respect of the land owner Vedapuri, the reference was registered as LAOP No.35 of 2002 and in that case, the claimant Vedapuri examined himself as C.W.1 and filed 2 documents, which are marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, no evidence either documentary or oral was let in. In that case, the Reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.86/- per Sq.ft. It is against the said judgment dated 1.3.2007, A.S.No.712 of 2009 came to be filed by the State.
9. In respect of the claimant Veenarani, the reference was registered as LAOP No.12 of 2003. Before the Reference Court, the claimant examined herself as C.W.1. On her side, 2 documents were filed and marked as Ex.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, no evidence was let in. The Reference Court by judgment dated 20.4.2006 found that the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq.ft was not valid and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per Sq.ft. It is against this judgment, A.S.No.1001 of 2007 came to be filed.
10. In all these appeals, the challenge by the acquiring authority was that the acquiring authority took note of sale transactions made for a three year period before the issuance of Notification under Section 4(1), namely from 8.8.1995 to 7.8.1998. The sale details with reference to 740 sales in Kodanagar Village and 154 sales in Thiruvathur Village were considered by the acquiring authority. The lands were classified in 4 categories, namely, ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. For the purpose of granting compensation, the data land was identified in Document No.272, wherein in the sale deed dated 25.2.1998, the land was sold for Rs.44,400/- and it works out to Rs.15/- per Sq.ft. It is also contended that the said land is a representative of the land which was acquired. The acquiring authority in his award found some of the lands were converted as house sites even 15 years before. Similar exercise was carried out for awarding compensation for the lands taken over from Thiruvathur Village.
11. However, in LAOP No.22 of 2002, the land owner relied upon the document Ex.C.1 dated 6.1.1995 and the document dated 9.1.1995 as Ex.C.2, in which the lands were sold admittedly at the rate of Rs.62 and Rs.75 per Sq.ft. The Court below on going through the evidence of C.W.1 held that she had not spoken about the quality and Tharam and whether they were comparable to the lands covered by Exs.C.1 and C.2. Therefore, it was held, the value of the sale cannot be accepted. It also held that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were admittedly three years before the Section 4(1) Notification. In normal practice, the sale transactions that took place within three years before alone will be considered as relevant data in order to avoid fluctuation in the land cost. While rejecting the contention of the acquiring authority in fixing the compensation at Rs.15/- per Sq.ft, the court below enhanced the compensation and fixed at the rate of Rs.45/- per Sq.ft. A deduction was made in the value found in Exs.C.1 and C.2 though they are also belonging to the same area.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.137 of 2005 also circulated certified copies of the evidence of C.W.1 and R.W.1 recorded by the court below. R.W.1 in his evidence during cross-examination admitted that the lands in question are situated next to the Arts College and nearer to the Revenue Divisional Officer’s office and that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were purchased for Rs.62/- and Rs.75/- per sq.ft. He also refuted the stand that the data land is no different from the lands which are acquired. In any event, the court below having found that the market rate fixed by the acquiring authority is on the lower side. At the same time, Exs.C.1 and C.2 were comparable sale that had taken place three years before fixing the compensation at Rs.45/-. This court does not think that the judgment of the court below in A.S.No.137 of 2005 and 807 of 2005 calls for interference. Hence, both the Appeal Suits stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
13. In respect of A.S.No.712 of 2009 and 1001 of 2007, for curious reasons, the acquiring authority had not let in any evidence (either oral or documentary). But the claimants/land owners have deposed and have also filed two sale documents, which were accepted by the court below, which were accepted by the court below in fixing the market rate for the land.
14. In A.S.No.712 of 2009 relating to LAOP No.35 of 2002, the land owner one Vedapuri had his lands in Survey No.16/4A in Kodanagar village. Likewise, A.S.1001 of 2007 (the land owner is Veenarani), which is directed against LAOP No.12 of 2003 relates to Survey No.15A/6A in Kodanagar Village to the extent of 1620 Sq.ft. In both the cases, the acquiring authority had to blame himself in not leading any evidence.
15. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, after laying out certain guidelines for fixing the market rate of compensation, in paragraphs 4 (1) and 4(3) had observed as follows:
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
16. Though Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) contended that this Court in A.S.Nos.807 of 2005 and 137 of 2005 confirmed the market value of the land at Rs.45/- per Sq.ft and he is willing to reduce the compensation by any ground as ordered in the other two cases, it must be noted that the Reference Court is not an appellate court and the land acquisition officer will have to satisfy the Reference Court with reference to the mode and method by which the compensation was arrived at. In the present cases, the court below considered the evidence of the claimant and came to decide the rate of compensation and since those lands were situated in different survey numbers, it is not proper for this Court to reduce the compensation on the ground that the same ratio should be fixed as found in A.S.Nos.807 and 137 of 2005 on the very same ground. Under the circumstances, both appeals, namely A.S.Nos.1001 of 2007 and 712 of 2009 stand dismissed.
17. In the result, all the Appeal Suits stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
19.08.2010
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
ajr
To
Sub Court, Cheyyar
K.CHANDRU, J.
ajr
A.S.Nos.137 and 807 of 2005,
1001 of 2007 and 712 of 2009
19.08.2010