IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA A.S.Nos.1109/94, 687/2002 and 1064/94 and C.M.P.No.15054 of 2002 A.S.Nos.1109/94 1. Smt.Phoolvati Dharambir Aggarwal(Died) 2.Thiru Arunkumar Dharambir Aggarwal 3.Thiru Pawankumar Dharambir Aggarwal 4.Executors of the Estate of Late Dharambir Hansraj Aggarwal 5.M/s.Dharambir Manoharlal Limited a company registered under the companies Act 1956 (Appellants 2&3 recognised as Lrs of deceased first appellant vide order of Court dt.06.08.09 made in C.M.P.No.7381/03) ..Appellants Vs. 1. The collector of Madras Ezhilagam, Kamarajar Salai, Madras-9 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 7, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras-34 ... Respondents A.S.No.687/2002 The Collector, Madras ... Appellant Vs. 1.Srimathi Bhoolvathy Tharambeer Agarval. 2.Arunkumar Tharambeer Agarval 3.Bhavankumar Tharambeer Agarval 4.Executors of Estate, Late Tharambeer Hanshraj Agarval 5.Director, Messers Tharambeer Manoharlal Ltd.(Lessi). 6.Bharath Petroleum Corporation, Madras. ...Respondents A.S.No.1064/94 Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 7, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras-34. ..Appellant Vs. 1. Smt.Phoolvathi Dharambir Agarwal 2.Arunkumar Dharambir Agarwal 3.Pawankumar Dharambir Agarwal 4.Executors of Estate of Late Shri Dharambir Hansraj Agarwal 5.Director, M/s.Dharambir Manoharlal Ltd.(Lessee) 6.The Collector of Madras ...Respondents Appeals filed against the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 1994 in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1991 on the file of VIII Asst. Judge City Civil Court at Madras (In charge of the VI Asst. City Civil Court). Mr.M.S.Subramaniam : For Appellants in A.S.No.1109/94 and For Respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No.687/02 & 1064/94. Mr.V.Ravi, Spl. G.P.(A.S) : For Respondent 1 in A.S.No.1109/94 and Respondent 6 in A.S.No.1064/94 and Appellant in A.S.No.684/02. Mr.S.RamaSubramaniam :For Respondent 2 in A.S.No.1109/94 and Respondent 6 for M/s.Ramasubramaniam in A.S.No.687/02 and Appellant in A.S.No.1064/94. & Associates J U D G M E N T
T.Raja, J.
For making expansion in the existing facilities and for additional facilities for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madras at Tondiarpet Village of Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, a proposal to acquire an extent of 227.15 cents of land in S.No.3821/2, 3822/3, 3825/2 in Tondiarpet village was made and the same being approved in G.O.Ms.No.211, Industries (MIA-1) Department, dated 27.3.1987, the section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published on 27.11.1987. Thereafter, 5-A enquiry was also conducted on 17.2.1988.
2. Though affected parties as well as the Officer concerned from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Oil and Natural Gas Commission appeared for enquiry, the land owners have no objection for the acquisition of the above said lands but insisted for the payment of correct compensation to them. After a careful study of the enquiry records, expansion of site and taking into consideration of the objections and remarks of the requisitioning body and the willingness of the owners of the land and interested persons to part with the land in favour of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the Land Acquisition Officer decided that the requisitioning body viz., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has a preferential claim over the lands for the expansion of its plant, in a suitable location for which the real need of the above lands was found. The objections raised by the occupier- Oil and Natural Gas Commission were overruled.
3. After publication of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.1,54.153.00 per ground. The value of the superstructures including electrical works was valued at Rs.95,15,915.37 with statutory benefits totaling to Rs.3,62,01,455.00/-. The details of which is as follows :
1. Land value at Rs.54,153.00 per ground for
C.09-11-0359 sq.ft. or 227 grounds
and 0359 sq.ft. Rs.1,23,00,831-38
2. Structural value including Electrical installations. Rs. 95,15,915.37
----------------------
Rs.2,18,16,746.75
Total Rs. 65,45,024.02
----------------------
30% solatium : Rs.2,83,61,770.77
Or rounded to Rs.2,83,61,771.00
12% Additional Compensation from the last date of
publication of 4(1) notification till the date of
passing of award i.e. from 27.11.87 to
23.11.90 i.e. for 1093 days. Rs.78,39,683.57
----------------------
Rs.3,62,01,454.57
Or rounded to Rs.3,62,01,455.00
----------------------
(Rupees three crores, sixty two lakhs, one thousand, four hundred and fifty five only).
The details of land under the acquisition is also given under:
Details of the land under Acquisition:
Tondiarpet village; Block No.59; Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk.
Sl.No. R.S.NO. Extent
C.G.Sq.Ft.
1 3821-2 0-16-0768
2 3822-3 0-04-459
3 3825-2 8-14-0532
--------------
Total: 9-11-035
--------------
4. Aggrieved by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the land seeking enhanced compensation for their acquired land has got the matter to be referred under Section 18 of the Act before the reference Court in LAOP.No.3/1991 and sought for Rs.4,00,000/- per ground on the ground that the compensation fixed per ground was meagre and insufficient not reflecting the market value of the property belonging to the owners. The reference Court also after taking into account the market value as on the relevant date of notification under Section 4(1), determined the compensation which is as follows:
“The value of the acquired land as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was held inadequate and enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,25,000.00 per ground at the rate of 93.75 per Sq.Ft., and also held that the appellants were entitled to have solatium of 30% of the market value under Section 23(2) of the said Act. That apart it was held that the appellants were entitled to award all additional amount (further compensation) at the rate of 12% per annum of the market value for the period of 1093 days calculated from the date of notification under Section 4(1) (i.e. 27th November, 1987) until the date of the award (i.e., 23rd November, 1990) as per Section 23 (1A) of the said Act. Regarding the improvement for putting a warehouse Industry Complex in the acquired land, it was held that the appellant was entitled to 1,72,500.00 in respect of interest. It was further held that the appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 23rd November, 1990 (i.e. the date of delivery of possession) till 22nd November, 1991 and further at the rate of 15% per annum from 23rd November 1991 till the date of payment of the entire amount of compensation under Section 28 of the said Act.”
5. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Chennai in LAOP.No.3/1991 fixing Rs.2,25,000/- per ground as Compensation along with consequent benefits, the Collector of Madras/the appellant has filed the appeal in AS.No.687/2002. The claimants being not satisfied with the enhancement of compensation made by the reference court filed appeal in A.S.No.1109/1994. The requisitioning body also filed appeal in A.S.No.1064/1994 questioning the enhancement of compensation made by the reference court. The main crux of the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader is that the reference court has erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.54,153/- to Rs.2,25,000/- without any basis or support of any relevant documents and therefore prayed this court to affirm the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as correct in fixing of Compensation to the land owner.
6. On behalf of the claimants it is the contention that the Judgment and decree passed by the reference court in LAOP.3/1991 fixing compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per ground is totally contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in fixing the correct market value of the land under acquisition. Further it is the case of the land owner, that the learned judge failed to see that the land acquired being a vast extent of 227.15 ground of land in S.Nos.3821/2, 3822/3 and 3825/2, the valuation fixed by the reference court cannot be at par with the small extent of land less than a ground.
7. Secondly, it was submitted that the value of the acquired land per ground as fixed by the reference court was inadequate because the learned reference court failed to consider the property provided with high compound walls around the land acquired by the respondent. Further, packa road has been laid to take heavy loads of cargo, culverts, bridges, giant electric lights to facilitate movement of heavy vehicles day and night and even pipelines laid to connect harbour and the oil refinery and all infrastructural facilities for any oil company.
8. Thirdly, It is further submitted by the learned counsel S.Subramanian that the lands under acquisition were already under occupation of ONGC which clearly indicates that the land under acquisition is lying in the industrial area very near to railway line with necessary road frontage. The documents Ex.R4 which indicates that some portion of the land falling in RS.No.3934/18 are coming within 200mts from the acquired land, have got all similar aspects of the acquired land that have been sold for Rs.3,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.feet i.e, 2= ground which worked out to Rs.1,20,000/- per ground. This value reflects the correct value of the land prevailing in the same area as on the date of notification. Further submission of the learned counsel Mr.S.Subramanian is that the land owners have already paid developmental charges at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per year and having paid already the developmental charges, the reference court ought to have increased the market value of the land at Rs.4,00,000/- i.e., Rs.166.67/- per sq.ft.
9. Further it was submitted that none of the following factors have been considered properly by the Land Acquisition Officer namely:
a)Location and situation of the property.
b)Facilities of two important roads.
c)Railway sidings.
d)700 feet frontage.
e)availability of civic facilities like Electricity, Water, Drainage etc., to the acquired land.
f)close accessibility to Madras harbour and Madras Refinery etc., and
g)the acquired property is already with high compound walls with proper road facilities to take heavy loads; underground channel to carry water across a road and also to have electric cable; bridges; joint electric line; pipelines to connect harbour and oil refinery and all such developmental works made at huge cost with all necessary infrastructure facilities for any oil company has not been properly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference court in determining the compensation.
10. Therefore, the reference court ought to have granted further enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.72.92/- per sq.ft. Which works out to Rs.4,00,000/- per ground.
11. Since the property acquired by the respondent is located in North Madras very close to Madras harbour and Madras refinery with all necessary infrastructure the same would attract any business or commercial exploitation with sufficient financial resources for commercial compensation. In a place like this in the year 1987 itself a plot comprising one ground was sold for Rs.10,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.416.67 per sq.ft.
12. Therefore, the reference court by applying the principle in regard to features potentialities of acquired land should have enhanced the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- per ground.
13. In his further submission it was urged that the lower court failed to consider the special adaptability of the land for the reason that the acquired land has been covered by master plan for using the land for Commercial and Industrial purpose. Since, the acquired land has already possessed the infrastructures required for industrial purpose, as it is already hedged two oil companies HPCL and BPCL storing and disturbing the petroleum products to the entire southern region the prayer of the land owner for grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per ground could be easily considered and accordingly, by deducting the amount already paid to the appellant the balance amount of Rs.1,75,000/- per ground should be granted.
14. Mr.S.Ramasubramanian, the learned senior counsel appearing for the company in his reply has stoutly opposed the enhancement of compensation and brought to the notice of this court the document Ex.R4 dated 28.09.1989, wherein land lying in RS.No.3934/18 touching the compound wall of the acquired land has been sold for Rs.1,25,000/- per ground and therefore he has pleaded that the market value cannot be fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- per ground, in any event. Since the developmental charges have not been deducted by the reference court, minimum developmental charges should be reduced from already fixed market value by the reference court.
15. The claim of the land owner that the market value of the land was going up day by day in the area wherein section 4(1) notification has been issued for acquiring cannot considered by the reference court in determining the market value of the land without availability of any data particulars. Inasmuch as the reference court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per ground only on the basis of the market value shown by the relevant sale deed produced by the petitioners as well as respondents.
16. We considered the arguments of the respective counsel. The claimants have made out substantial case before the reference court as well as this court pleading that while fixing the market price of the acquired land, the following factor have not been kept in mind, they are :
a) location and situation of the property
b) facility of two important roads
c) Railway siding
d) 700 feet frontages
e) availability of Electricity, Water, Drainage etc.,
f) nearness to Madras Harbour, Madras Refinery etc.,
g) high compound wall provided by land owner all around the acquired land.
i) Specially laid roads to take heavy loads, culverts, bridges, giant electric lights to facilitate movements of vehicles in both day and night, pipelines laid to connect harbour and oil refinery and all such developments made at huge cost in addition to necessary infrastructure facility for any oil company with this developmental and infrastructural facilities when the landed property of the appellant has been acquired it was pleaded that he market value of the land should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per ground.
17. Before traversing into the merits of case, it is better to note as to how the Apex Court dealt with the issue. The Apex Court in 1984 2 SCC 120 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P.Veerabhadarappa and others) has laid down how to ascertain the valuation of land which is given here under :
“The functions of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the methods of valuation may be : (1) opinion of experts; (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years’ purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired.”
18. Let us see how the learned reference court has considered the various relevant documents adjacent to the acquired land while determining the compensation for the acquired land after the publication of the section 4(1) notification. A land adjacent to the acquired land has been sold by a sale deed mentioned in Ex.C.11 dated 07.09.1988 and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has fixed at the rate of Rs.1,02,000/- for an extent of 210.80sq.mts. Similarly, another property with an extent of 6,000sq.ft mentioned as 5th item in the inspection report of the Land Acquisition Officer indicates that the same has been sold at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.12.1987 as per the Ex.C.37 which further gives an evidence that the price of one ground was sold for Rs.1,20,000/-. Similarly another land with an extent of 3,744sq.ft mentioned in Ex.C.28 had also been sold on 13.04.1987 at the rate of Rs.2,40,384.62ps per ground.
19. Since, the learned counsel appearing for the BPCL had objected not to take up the document on the ground that there was no such schedule given in the sale deed the same could not be properly relied upon. When a valuation report Ex.C.35 had been marked by the land owners, the learned counsel appearing for the BPCL objected not to rely upon the same as there was no schedule of the property given therein. Therefore, the same was also not relied upon.
20. Besides, various copies of sale deeds, Ex.C.30 to C.33 were marked to show the rate of one ground of adjacent land was sold at the rate of Rs.2,21,590.91ps as per Ex.C.30 and as per Ex.C.32 another land was also sold at the rate of Rs.2,59,711.43ps per ground. Yet, another land was also sold at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- and one more sale deed Ex.C.34 shows that another piece of one ground was sold at the rate of Rs.2,66,666.67ps. However, the reference court found them not appropriate to take into consideration these documents Ex.C.29 to C.34 on the ground that the land mentioned in those documents had less measurement. Again another peace of evidence deposed by C.W.1 was recorded which indicated that the claimants let out the acquired land to oil and natural gas corporation from 16.03.1984 for a period of 4 years in the beginning and received a sum of Rs.22,65,816/- per year as rent. When the agreement was extended on 05.11.1986, a sum of Rs.24,81,743/- was received as rent per year. Thereafter, on 16.03.1990 a sum of Rs.26,12,362/- had been received as rent per year by the land owners. When the BPCL has given on lease, one part of the acquired land i.e., 2,07,610sq.ft of land to oil and natural gas corporation, the said Oil and Natural Gas Corporation has paid Rs.1,48,79,028/- loan without any interest. Therefore, it was contended before the reference court, if the claimant gets Rs.3,90,71,485/- for an extent of 5,45,159sq.ft of land and on its deposit, even if interest for the said deposit amount is properly calculated at a minimum rate of 12% interest per year, this will amount to Rs.46,88,585/- and the yearly interest amount of Rs.46,88,585/- has to be multiplied by 16 as per the ordinary procedure and thereupon the value of the property will be computed at Rs.7,50,12,367/- and on this basis, the case of the land owners that if the value of one ground is worked out to Rs.3,30,254.75ps, it then the value of the property acquired should be enhanced more than that amount, but the said contention was found negatived by the learned reference court on the ground that there was no such provision to calculate the value of the property on the basis of interest and finally rejected the case advanced by the claimant. While doing so, the learned reference court chose to adopt the capitalisation method for arriving a proper market value of the land acquired by the respondents.
21. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for appellant the property acquired by the respondents are situated in the heart of the city. Further, as on date of section 4(1) notification there was no piece of land available either for the Madras Port Trust or Oil Refinery for their expansion. The lands acquired by the respondents are no doubt prime land. During the relevant period of time, the lands adjacent to the lands under acquisition was sold for nearly Rs.4,00,000/- is evident from the documents filed by the claimants. Therefore, the market value fixed by the reference court at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per ground may not be a correct fixation of the market value of the property.
22. That apart, the learned reference court while fixing the market value of the land acquired, has not considered certain important and vital aspects namely the location in which the acquired land is situated, the facility of two important roads running by the side of the acquired land, Railway sliding, 700 feet frontages, availability of electricity, water, drainage almost continuously nearness to Madras Harbour, Madras refinery, high compound wall provided by the land owner on all sides of the acquired land. Therefore, this court having seen that the reference court has not correctly borne in mind the above aspects while fixing the market value of the property, in our view to meet the ends of justice by taking into account the prime location of the acquired land which are just closer to Madras Port Trust and Madras Oil Refinery company, and also taking note of several sales of like lands sold at an enhanced rate, this Court is of the view that request of the claimants at the rate of Rs..4,00,000/- per ground, cannot be regarded as on the higher side.
23. The learned reference court though has rightly considered the value of the compensation by adopting a capitalisation method, however, in our view the claim of the land owners to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- appears to be reasonably acceptable, nonetheless, by deducting 15% towards the largeness of the area and 10% towards the developmental charges, the net rate of compensation is coming to Rs.3,00,000/- per ground. (See : KASTURI V. STEATE OF HARYANA, (2003) 1 SCC 354; DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. MALLA ATCHINAIDU, (2006) 12 SCC 87; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEME, ERODE VS. PAVAYAMMAL, (2001) 1 MLJ 352; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEME, ERODE V. MEENAKSHI AMMAL, (2001) 1 MLJ 698; H.P. HOUSING BOARD V. BHARAT S.NEGI, (2004) 2 SCC 184; and VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR V. STATE OF GUJARAT, (2005) 4 SCC 789.
24. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and in the light of the decisions cited supra, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the reference court is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. To that extent the appeal in A.S.No.1109/1994 is allowed. Consequently A.S.No.687/2002 and A.S.No.1064/1994 are dismissed. In respect of other statutory components payable to the claimants the order of the reference court is confirmed. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
tsh
To
1 Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Education Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2 The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road,
Chennai 6.
3 The Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education
Madurai Region, Madurai 625 001.
4. The Management of Pasumpon Thiru. Muthuramalinga
Thevar Memorial College,
Rep. By the Regional
Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai 625 001