IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.1223 of 2001 The Additional Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Officer Adi Dravidar Welfare Harur .. Appellant Vs. P.Ranganathan .. Respondent Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1992. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (A.S) For Respondent : Mr.R.Mahalingam JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri vide judgment dated 03.11.1999 in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. A ‘resume’ of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.06.1989 intending to acquire the lands in Survey No.31/2A totalling an extent of 1.36.5 hectares in Bandarachettipatti Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complying with the procedure, the land acquisition officer passed the award dated 18.03.1991 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.150/- per cent. The land owner being aggrieved by it got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, on the claimant’s side C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the respondent RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.150/- per cent to Rs.400/- per cent.
5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
The Sub Court without adhering to the established procedure simply enhanced the compensation by choosing only Ex.A5.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court’s enhancement of compensation from Rs.150/- per cent to Rs.400/- per cent is just and proper.
7. A mere perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would highlight that even though as many as five documents, viz., Exs.A1 to A5 were marked, the Sub Court relied on only Ex.A5 on the sole ground that PW2 the purchaser under Ex.A5 was examined. In my opinion, the said procedure adhered to by the trial Court was not correct.
8. Now, it has become a trite proposition of law that mere production of the certified copy of the sale deeds would be sufficient evidence and those deeds need not be proved by examining the necessary party concerned so as to prove the genuineness of those sales. Further more, in this case, the land owner did choose to place reliance only on Ex.A5 leaving other documents, obviously on the ground that in Ex.A5 alone, higher valuation is contemplated. Hence, I proceed to analyse all the documents, viz., Exs.A1 to A5 to find out as to which deed among those documents would be a proper one for being taken as the sample deed.
The tabulation of the deeds concerned runs thus:
————————————————————————————————————
S.No. Exhibits Date of Sale Extent of land Amount
————————————————————————————————————
1. Ex.A1 05.02.1988 0.25 cents Rs. 8,000/- 2. Ex.A2 10.04.1989 0.33 cents Rs. 4,400/- 3. Ex.A3 10.04.1989 0.22 cents Rs. 8,800/- 4. Ex.A4 22.05.1989 0.13 cents Rs. 5,200/- 5. Ex.A5 31.05.1989 0.59 cents Rs.30,000/- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above tabulation would at once unambiguously and unequivocally highlight that Ex.A1 is the proper document, which would be of guidance to this Court to assess the correct valuation. Ex.A1 emerged on 05.02.1988, so to say, one year and four months anterior to the publication of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 25.06.1989, whereas the other documents emerged only shortly before the publication of Section 4 (1) Notification. Further more, the lands contemplated in Exs.A2 to A5 are not proved to be situated near the land acquired; whereas a perusal of the sketch Ex.B3 would reveal that land in Survey No.81/3 contemplated under Ex.A1 is situated very near to the land acquired in Survey No.31/2A. As such, Ex.A1 could be taken as the criterion for assessing the compensation.
9. Accordingly, a perusal of Ex.A1 would demonstrate that an extent of 25 cents of agricultural land was sold for a sum of Rs.8000/- which connotes that per cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.320/-. Accordingly, for the land acquired, a sum of Rs.320/- per cent could be awarded as compensation. The sale in Ex.A1 took place one year and four months before the Section 4 (1) Notification. Hence, 10% increase in the value could rightly be given as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in (2004) 6 SCC 533 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others). An excerpt from it would run thus:
“6. The lands which are the subject-matter of these appeals are acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of prices in regard to these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5% increase in the market value in respect of the lands in these appeals. In the result these appeals are also allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 per bigha + 5% escalation. The respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.
Civil Appeal No.4157 of 2003
7. The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the result this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,550 per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.”
Hence for the land acquired, the rate per cent could be assessed at
Rs.320 + 10% = Rs.320 + 32 = 352/-.
10. The question of deduction towards development charges in this case would not arise for the reason that the sale deed is relating to agricultural land and the land acquired now is also an agricultural land. It is not the case where the sample land is having the potentiality of becoming plot and in the Ex.A1 sale deed, the potential value is found incorporated and the notional beneficial value is also not given in this case. In such a case, the question of effecting any deduction towards development charges would not arise. In this connection, I would like to cite the following decisions:
(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]
The question of deduction comes only if the potential plot value of the land is taken into account. But, in this case, the sample deed, refers to only agricultural land and its value is taken as such, for assessing the compensation relating to the land acquired. Only 10% increase is given because of one year duration between the emergence of the sale deed Ex.A1 and the Section 4 (1) Notification.
G.RAJASURIA,J.
vj2
11. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified to the effect that the rate per cent of the land acquired shall be Rs.352/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
30.07.2008
vj2
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Dharmapuri
A.S.No.1223 of 2001