JUDGMENT
A.S. Venkatachlamoorthy, J.
1. A.S. No.422 of 1995 has been filed by the claimant/land owner in LAOP No.112 of 1989, claiming enhanced compensation at Rs.5000/- per cent as against Rs.500/- awarded by the Reference Court. The State of Tamil Nadu, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court viz., the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, in LAOP No.112 of 1989 etc., has preferred the above remaining Appeals ie., A.S.637 of 1996 etc.
2. An extent of about 79.30 acres of land was acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in this regard was published on 19.2.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted the award enquiry in compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Award No.2/89-90 dated 15.3.1989 was passed by him, fixing the compensation at Rs.200/- per cent.
3. Being aggrieved by such fixation, the respondents/land owners sought for a reference before a Civil Court, exercising their option under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference court (ie) Sub Court, Tirunelveli, took the references on file as LAOP Nos.112 of 1989 etc. Before the said Court, both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence. The Reference Court considered the materials available on record and came to the conclusion that the market value of the land has to be enhanced and the same varied from Rs.500 to Rs.1000/- depending upon the property and its location.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu has preferred the above appeals, questioning the correctness of the fixation of the market value by the Reference Court.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contended that among the documents filed by the claimants, Ex.A.7 in LAOP No.110 of 1989 and Ex.C-2 in LAOP No.112 of 1989 are transactions in respect of parts of the acquired land itself, and that being so, those transactions are the best evidence as ruled by the Supreme Court and the market value of the acquired lands have to be fixed only on the basis of those documents. According to the Additional Advocate General, under Ex.C.2, an extent of 10 cents comprised in S. No.730/3 was sold for a sum of Rs.8,000/-, which would work out to Rs.800/- per cent and out of this amount, about 40% has to be deducted towards development charges and for the reason that the acquired lands are larger in extent when compared to Ex.C-2, and hence, at the maximum, a sum of Rs.450/- can be fixed as the market value in respect of the lands not abutting the road and in respect of the lands abutting the road (road on the east of the acquired lands) a sum of Rs.600/- per cent may be fixed. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General pointing out the judgment of the Reference Court, where the court arrived at Rs.900/- as the market value and thereafter, deducted Rs.100/- out of that and arrived at Rs.800/-, would contend that even on the basis of the finding of the Reference Court that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.900/-, at least Rs.300/- has to be deducted towards the development charges and for the reason that the acquired lands are larger in extent and not just a sum of Rs.100/- and may arrive at Rs.600/- in respect of the lands abutting the road and with regard to the other lands, at the rate of Rs.450/-.
6. With regard to the other document viz., Ex.A-1, wherein, an extent of 7 cents comprised in S. No.722/1 was sold at Rs.25,500/-, which would work out to Rs.3,400/- per cent, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the said transaction was in respect of an approved plot and that further more, on the face of it, it is evident that the said property should have been sold for a fancy price.
7. With reference to the document Ex.C-1 whereunder an extent of 11.5 cents comprised in S. No.751/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.16,777.65, which would work out to Rs.1458/- per cent, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that it was a sale in respect of an approved plot. According to him, it is common knowledge that approved plots will fetch a very high price compared to unapproved plots, like the acquired lands.
Learned Additional Advocate General would conclude by submitting that in respect of the acquired lands abutting the road on the east, the market value can be fixed at Rs.600/- per cent and in respect of the other lands, a sum of Rs.450/- per cent can be fixed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/land owners inter alia would contend that the acquired land are situated in a very important area within the city limits of Palayamkottai. Very close to the acquired lands, there are important land marks like Naval Establishment, Milk Chilling Unit etc., and the Government Engineering College is just 2 furlongs away from the acquired lands. According to the learned counsel, the acquired lands are in a fully developed area and they are fit for construction purposes and deduction of 40% need not be made as claimed by the learned additional Advocate General towards development charges.
9. According to the leaned counsel for the claimants, even way back in the year 1983, under Ex.A-1, an extent of 7 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.25,500/-, which would work out to Rs.3400/- per cent, and these lands abut the acquired land on the north. In the absence of any claim made by the Revenue that the said property was sold for a fancy price, the Court may not ignore that sale simply because what was sold was an approved plot. When an unapproved plot is sold, at best, it may fetch some amount less than what an approved plot would fetch. Similarly, it is contended that the Court cannot just brush aside Ex.C-1, wherein an extent of 11.5 cents comprised in S. No.751/2, which is also a land in an adjoining Survey Number on the west, on the ground that it is an approved plot. In fact, according to the learned counsel, the Reference Court ought to have awarded more compensation and that being so, no interference is called for by this Court.
10. Ex.B-1 is the topo sketch. With the help of the said sketch, we could notice the location of the various survey numbers. We particularly noted certain Survey Numbers viz., 719/3, 722/1, 751/2, 730/3 and 734/4 for the purpose of appreciating the claims of the respective parties. Out of the above Survey Numbers, S. Nos.730/3 and 734/4 are among the acquired lands. The acquired area is more or less rectangular in shape. On the east of it, there is a road.
The National High Way is about a couple of furlongs away from the acquired lands. Immediately on the north of S. No.721, which is a part of the acquired lands, is S. No.722. On the west of S. No.730, which is a part of the acquired lands, is S. No.751 (there are two Survey Numbers in between 730 and 751)
11. As this Court has to decide the market value of the acquired lands, taking into consideration certain sale transactions which relate to the adjoining lands and lands situated very close-by, much emphasis and discussion with regard to the location of the acquired lands is unnecessary, since what applies to the acquired lands would equally apply to the comparable sale transactions in respect of (i) the land adjoining S.No.722/1 on the north ; and (ii) the other survey number (ie) S. No.751 which is situated very close to the acquired lands on the west.
12. It is true that on 01.12.1985, an extent of 27 cents comprised in S. No.734/4 was sold for a sum of Rs.10,800/-, which would work out to Rs.400/- per cent and that this Survey Number is a part of the acquired lands. Similarly it is true that under the original of Ex.C-2, an extent of 10 cents comprised in S. No.730/3 was sold for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and that transaction was in December, 1985, just two months prior to the 4(1) Notification. Both the above transactions were in respect of a part of the acquired lands.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General would strongly rely on two decisions of the Supreme Court (DOLLAR CO. Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS) and (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, VISHAKAPATNAM vs. A.MANGALA GOWRI) and contend that the proper and safe way for the Court to fix the market value is by taking those documents alone for consideration.
14. It has to be pointed out that the Supreme Court has only ruled that the earlier transactions in respect of the acquired lands or part of the acquired lands would be the best evidence and has not ruled that the court should not take into consideration any other piece of evidence however relevant and useful they are. Coming to the present case, we have two very useful comparable sale transactions, one is Ex.A-1 under the original of which, on 1.7.1983, an extent of 7 cents comprised in S. No.722/1 was sold for a sum of Rs.25,500/- which would work out to Rs.3400/- per cent. This Survey Number, as we have already pointed out, just abuts the acquired land on the north.
15. We perused the evidence and the oral testimony of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants so also the testimony of the Revenue Official. In the cross examination, no question has been put or suggestion made to the claimants’ witness that the sale under the original of Ex.A-1 was for a fancy price. Similarly, the witness, who has been examined on behalf of the Revenue, has not deposed before Court that Ex.A-1 sale cannot be taken into consideration because it does not reflect the true value of the land and for certain reasons that property was sold at an inflated rate. We have to also point out that no evidence has been let in by the Revenue and not even a suggestion made that S. No.722 is far superior for some reason or the other when compared to S. No.721 and other acquired lands. Of course, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that even though such a plea has not been taken before the Reference Court at any stage, the fact that the property fetched such a price would show that it was not a normal transaction. We looked into the grounds of the Appeal and we find that one of the grounds raised is as under:-
” The court failed to see that one or two land owners, due to necessity and urgency, might have purchased small extents of adjoining lands at high prices and that such high price value cannot reflect the true value of the acquired lands.”
Two things are evident. One is, a vague ground is taken only before this Court in the grounds of appeal and again, the same has been raised in a half-hearted way. Secondly, there are absolutely no materials available to substantiate even such a vague ground. In this context, one paragraph in the decision (Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah) would be relevant and we quote the same hereunder:-
” In the case of S. 51A of the LA Act also the position cannot be different, as it is open to the Court to act on the documents regarding the transaction recorded in such documents. However, this will not prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the transaction recorded therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand regarding such transactions. But it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of S. 51A the position would remain the same as before.”
For the above reasons, there can be no justification for this Court to completely ignore the said document on the simple ground that it is in respect of an approved plot and the consideration was at the rate of Rs.3400/- per cent. May be, an approved plot would fetch a higher price. But, in such an event, the Court has to only deduct some amount, say one-fourth of the amount and calculate the market value and not ignore it completely.
16. The second document to be considered is Ex.C-1, which is the certified copy of a sale transaction that took place on 24.1.1986. Here, an extent of 11.5 cents comprised in S. No.751/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.16777.65, which would work out to Rs.1458/- per cent. This property is situated two survey numbers away on the west of the acquired lands. Here again, it is not the case of the Revenue that this land is in any way superior to the acquired lands and because of which alone it fetched a higher price. As already mentioned, all that is mentioned is, that the purchaser might have purchased because of urgency and necessity. Certainly, such a vague ground without any material whatsoever to substantiate the same would not advance the case of the Revenue any further. All the reasons we have stated with reference to Ex.A-1 would equally apply to this transaction as well. Here again, a point is raised that the sale was in respect of an approved plot. On that ground, all that has to be done is that certain amount has to be deducted, but the document cannot be eschewed from consideration.
17. To sum up the value as reflected in Ex.C-2 in LAOP No.112 of 1989 and Ex.A-7 in LAOP No.110 of 1989 is Rs.800/- per cent and in both the cases, the subject matter is part of the acquired land.
The value as could be gathered from Ex.A.1 is Rs.3,400/- per cent in respect of the land adjoining the acquired land. The land that was sold under Ex.A-1 is also of small extent. Even if 50% is deducted for the reasons viz.,
(i) this is an approved plot;
(ii) largeness of the area, development charges etc.,
one can arrive at the figure of Rs.1,700/- per cent.
As per Ex.C-1, the value would work out to Rs.1,458/- per cent and the subject matter is an extent of 11 cents in a survey number close to the acquired land. Here again, if we deduct 50% as done in the earlier case, we arrive at a figure of Rs.730/- per cent. It has to be noted that this land does not abut the road.
18. Now, let us proceed to refer to certain rulings.
In the decision reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur vs. Collector of Madras), the Supreme Court has observed thus:-
“Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case.”
19. In the decision (State v. P. Seetharamammal and another (Division Bench), a contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue that there are certain comparable sale transactions which fetched a lesser price and the Division Bench, after referring to the decision reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45, ruled that in the absence of any strong circumstance justifying the course of not adopting the highest value in the comparable sale, such a contention cannot be accepted.
20. As far as the present case is concerned, as referred above, in three sale transactions, the sale consideration was Rs.800/- per cent. But however, in one transaction in respect of an adjoining land, the consideration was Rs.1700/- per cent. The State has not raised a plea before the Reference Court that it was a fancy price or that the transaction was brought into existence by claimants and others to get an inflated compensation. But at the same time, the Court is of the view that to blindly adopt the price as reflected in Ex.A-1 is not a safe course in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason ie., (1) sale transaction is 3 years prior to 4 (1) Notification and subsequent sale transactions in respect of the acquired land itself are available. We are of the view that in this case, the Court has to adopt a different course (ie) taking an average of the above from sale transactions and in which event, we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,000/- per cent.
The Reference Court has fixed the market value of the land abutting the road at Rs.1000/- per cent and the other lands at Rs.800/- per cent. Certainly, the fixation of market value by the Reference Court cannot be said to be on the higher side.
21. In the result, A.S. No.422 of 1995 is allowed in part and the market value is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per cent. The Appeals preferred by the State are dismissed. No costs.