IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:28.04.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
A.S.No.735 of 1997
The Special Tahsildar,(A.D.W.),
Salem. ... Appellant
-Versus-
1.Duraisamy
2.Ponnusamy
3.Chinnakannu
4.Lakshmi
5.Muthan
6.Chinnakannu
7.Palanaiappan
8.Samikannu
9.Palaniappan
10.S.Ponnusamy
11.Ramachandran
12.Ananthayee
13.Minor Santhia
14.Minor Nithianantham
(Minors 13 & 14 rep. by Guardian
and mother Ananthayee) ... Respondents
Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgement and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in LAOP.No.8 of 1992 dated 31.10.1995.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi
Special Govt. Pleader(AS)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Srinivasan
for RR 1 to 4 and RR.6 to14
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree (award) dated 31.10.1995 made by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1992.
2. An extent of 1.25 acres comprised in S.No.3/2E, 3/2F, 3/2G, 3/4A, 3/4B, 3/5A and 3/5B in Ariyagoundampatti village, Salem Taluk, Salem District was acquired by the Government for allotment of house sites to the needy members of Adidravidar community. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was lastly published on 8.8.1990. After hearing the objections, the decision to acquire the land was confirmed and necessary declaration (under Section 6) was published. The Special Tahsildar, ADW, Salem in his capacity as Land Acquisition Officer, conducted award enquiry and passed an award on 30.3.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value on the basis of a sale deed dated 27.2.1989, which was included as item No.9 in the sales statistics prepared by him. The same was relating to an extent of 31 cents of dry land in SF.No.7/16B of the same village. Taking the said sale as the data sale reflecting the correct market value as on the date of 4(1) notification, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.41,935/- per acre. After calculating the market value, the additional market value was calculated from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award as possession was admittedly taken subsequent to the award as per Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The respondents herein/claimants, who were the owners of the lands acquired by the Government for the said public purpose, did not have any objection for the manner in which total compensation was arrived at. But at the same time, they are aggrieved by the fixing of market value of Rs.41,935/- per acre. Therefore, they received the amount under protest and gave statements to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the court under Section 18 of the Act for fixing the reasonable amount of compensation.
3.The court below to which the reference was made, considered the claim made by the respondents herein/claimants and the objections made by the appellant, the Referring Officer. Before the court below, on the side of the respondents herein/claimants, two witnesses were examined as CW1 and CW2 and two documents were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 and on the side of the appellant/Referring Officer, no witness was examined, but three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. Considering the above said evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem came to the conclusion that certified copy of the sale deed dated 5.2.1990 produced and marked on the side of the claimants as Ex.C2, was only the document available to reflect the market value of the acquired property and that taking into consideration the sale under the sale deed as the sample sale, the market value of the acquired property had to be assessed. Taking into account the fact that a small extent of 200 square feet was sold under Ex.C2 for Rs.5000/-, which worked out at Rs.25/- per square feet, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem decided to give some reduction when same had to be compared with the acquired property having a larger extent. Thus the learned Principal Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.15/- per square feet and awarded enhanced compensation with the other consequences like proportionate addition in the market value, increase in solatium etc. The leaned Principal Subordinate Judge has also enhanced the value of yielding palmyrah trees at the rate of Rs.200/- per tree as against Rs.40/- and in respect of young palmyrah trees, at the rate of Rs.75/- per tree as against Rs.40/-. Interest has also been awarded for the excess compensation at the rate of 9% from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% in accordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Aggrieved by the said enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, the State through Referring Officer has come forward with this appeal.
5.The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is “whether the compensation awarded by the court below is excessive requiring reduction?”
6.This court heard the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. The materials available on record were also perused.
7.The short point in controversy is whether the market value of the land fixed by the court below is reasonable? As pointed out supra in the foregoing paragraphs, the Land Acquisition Officer relied on a sale deed dated 27.2.1999 in respect of SF.NO.7/16B and has taken it as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land. As per the said sale, the market value had been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.41,935/- per acre. On the other hand, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, while dealing with the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, relied on a sale deed dated 5.9.1987 in respect of S.No.271/1 of the very same village, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.C2, as the sale deed based on which the market value of the acquired land could be reasonably fixed. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was lastly published on 8.8.1990. To ascertain the market value of the acquired land, sale deeds pertaining to similar lands in the vicinity of the acquired land which came to be registered within three years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification have to be considered. In fact, the document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and the document relied on by the lower court were very well within the said period. In such cases, the normal course adopted by the Reference Court is to adopt the highest value and not to search for documents containing the least value. Yet another aspect to be taken into consideration is the comparability of the land sold under the data sale with the acquired land. When such test is applied to the above said two sale deeds, one relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and the other by the court below, according to the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader the sale deed dated 27.2.1989 pertaining to the S.No.7/16B should have been accepted by the court below as reflecting the correct market value, because apparently the said land was closer to the acquired land than the land sold under Ex.C2 relied on by the court below. It is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the property sold under Ex.C2 was a pucca site, which can be used for building purpose, whereas the acquired land is a vast agricultural land and the comparison made by the court below is not correct.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that though the Land Acquisition Officer has collected so many sale particulars and relied on one such sale as reflecting the market value of the acquired property the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer could not be accepted by the court of Reference unless the said sale is proved to be genuine. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that the appellant herein/Referring Officer did not choose to produce any authenticated copy of sale deed relied on by him and no witness was examined on the side of the Referring Officer. In such circumstances, on the face of the interested testimony of the Referring Officer, that in such circumstances, no reliance can be made on such sale deed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
9.Upon considering the rival submissions made on either side, the court comes to the conclusion that contention made on the side of the appellant could not be sustained, whereas there is force and substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents. No authenticated copy of the sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer has been produced. Therefore there is nothing wrong in relying on the only document exhibited by the claimants as reflecting market value of the acquired land. Yet another aspect showing the reasonableness of the procedure adopted by the court below is that while relying on Ex.C2 to fix the value of the acquired land the court below considered the fact that a small extent of 200 sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.5000/- at the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet under Ex.C2 and the same had to be compared with the acquired property having a larger extent namely 1.25 acres. The court has taken a clear view that some portions are to be left open as open space, and when larger extent is to be developed into house sites and some amount is to be spent for such development. For the above said reason, the court below has chosen to reduce the rate to Rs.15/- per square feet as against Rs.25/- per square feet reflected in Ex.C2. This court finds no defect in the procedure adopted by the court below. The procedure adopted by the court below seems to be quite reasonable and hence there is no scope for interfering with the same.
10.It shall not be out of place to mention here that though the Survey numbers of the acquired lands and data lands selected by the Land Acquisition Officer may, at the outset, suggest that the said data lands could be closed to the acquired land than S.No.27/1 in respect of which Ex.C2 sale had been executed, the topo sketch of the village produced on the side of the claimants and marked as Ex.C1 and the same annexed sales statistics marked on the side of the appellant/Referring Officer as Ex.R2 would show that in fact S.No.27/1 is close to the acquired land than the data land selected by the land acquisition officer comprised in S.No.7/16B as the same is far away from the acquired land. In fact, in between the acquired land and the data lands selected by the land acquisition officer there is a big lake called as Arigounderpatti tank. Under such circumstances, this court does not feel that there is any defect or infirmity in the judgement and decree (award) of the court below in fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/- per square feet. There is no scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the same in this appeal and hence the same has got to be confirmed.
11.As far as the award of compensation for the standing trees is concerned, the Land Acquisition officer had calculated their value uniformly at the rate of Rs.40/- per tree. However, the court below has made reasonable classification between yielding palmyrah trees and young palmyrah trees and fixed their values at the rate of Rs.200/- and Rs.75/- respectively. This court does not find any infirmity in the same also. Of course, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant, has also submitted that the appellant does not have any serious objection regarding the fixing of market value of the palmyrah trees. Therefore, the value of the palmyrah trees fixed by the court below has got to be confirmed. The additional market value calculated under Section 23(1) (a) of the Act, solatium calculated at the rate of 30% on the market value under Sections 23(a) and 23(2) of the Act and interest for the excess compensation awarded by the court below at 9% per annum for one year as per Section 28 of the Act also cannot be assailed. No challenge has also been made in respect of those aspects. There is also no discrepancy in the decree passed by the court below and hence the decree (award) passed by the court below has to be confirmed as it is. However, this court feels that no order need be passed regarding the costs as it is not pressed for.
12.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.4.2008 Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No vk To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J. vk A.S. No.735 of 1997 28.04.2008