BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH A.S. Nos.127 to 134 of 2007 and A.S. Nos.87 to 97 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 3,2, 3,2, 3,2, 3,2, 3,2, 3,2, 3,2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,2 of 2007 A.S.No.127 of 2007 Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. (Now Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani) ... Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.K.S.L.Muthukumara Jeyaveera Pandian ..Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/Respondent No.2
A.S.No.128 of 2007
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Karuppana Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.129 of 2007
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Kaliappa Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.130 of 2007:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Kandasamy .. Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.131 of 207:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani.
(Now) Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.K.Alagiappa Gounder …Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.132 of 2007:
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Kalimuthu …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.133 of 2007
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Kandasamy Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.No.134 of 2007:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani. … Appellant/1st respondent
vs.
1.P.Velusamy …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
A.S.Nos.87 to 97 of 2007
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Nangachiyar Reservoir Project,
Palani.
(Now) Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani … Appellant/1st respondent
in all AS.Nos.87 to 97/07
vs.
1.K.S.Muthukumara Jagaveerapandian …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
in Respondents in AS.No.87/07
1.Kaliappa Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.88/07
1.R.Palanisamy Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.89/07
1.K.Murugesh …1st st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.90/07
1.Maruthaiappa Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.91/07
1.P.Rathinasamy Goundder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.92/07
1.K.Alagammal …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.93/07
1.Karuppana Gounder …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.94/07
1.P.Natarajan …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.P.Dhandapani …2nd Respondent/2nd Claimant
3.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 3rd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.95/07
1.Kandasamy …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.96/07
1.Karuppusamy …1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. W.R.O,
Palani … 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Respondents in AS.No.97/07
PRAYER in the Above Appeals
Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2006 made in
L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 42, 49, 55, 36, 38, 40, 39, 11, 67, 44, 46, 66, 45, 53, 65, 47,
60, 48 of 1996 respectively on the file of Sub Court, Palani.
!For Appellant … Mr.K.M.Viajayakumar
Addl. Govt. Pleader
^For Respondents … Mr.D.Thirumoorthy
:COMMON JUDGMENT
In view of the common issues involved in all the above appeals, they have
been taken up together for disposal.
2. The appeals have been preferred by the appellant challenging the
judgment and decree of the Reference Court, wherein the Reference Court has
fixed the valuation at Rs.750/- per cent in L.A.O.P. No.9 of 1996 and at
Rs.350/- per cent in all other cases.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Lands have been acquired situated in Idayankottai village, Dindigul
District for the purpose of Water spread area of Nangachiyar Reservoir Project
of Idayankottai Village, Palani Taluk Dindigul District. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 16.11.1992.
Thereafter, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.2/94
and Award No.3/94 dated 08.08.1994 and 14.07.1994, thereby fixing the valuation
for the lands acquired in Survey No.244 with an extent of 14.8 acres at Rs.260/-
per cent and in all other cases at Rs.135/- per cent. The said amount has been
fixed on the ground that the lands acquired in Survey NO.244 is a Nanja land and
the lands acquired in other cases are dry punja lands. The Reference Court in
L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 11,36,38,39,40,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,53,55,60,65,66 and 67 of
1996 has enhanced the said amount to Rs.750/- per cent in so far as the Survey
No.244 is concerned and Rs.350/- per cent in so far as the other survey numbers
are concerned. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the Reference Court,
these appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Reference
Court has committed an error in accepting Ex.C1 to C3. According to the learned
Additional Government Pleader, there was no deductions made towards development
charges. It is also submitted that the Court below has committed an error in
not considering the data sale deed relied upon by the appellant. Per contra,
the learned counsel appeared for the respondents/claimants submitted that the
Court below has rejected the data sale deed, since the same is not related to
the village and the lands acquired, in view of the fact the data sale deed
pertains to some other village.
5. It is further submitted that there cannot be any deductions towards the
development charges since the data sale deed, the sale deeds covered under Ex.C1
to C3 and the lands acquired are of agricultural lands. The learned counsel
further submitted that the Court below has given a factual finding about the
potential value of the lands acquired. According to the learned counsel that
the Court while fixing the compensation has to take into consideration of the
sale deed which are beneficial to the claimants. The learned counsel has also
relied upon the judgment of the bonafide benefit reported in CDJ 2003 MHC 751
(The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs.Rathinareddi) in support of his contention with
the sale deeds which are most advantageous to the claimants alone should be
taken into consideration. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 298 (Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (Adi
dravidar Welfare), Krishnagiri vs. Munusamy) to submit that when the data land
as well as the lands relied upon by the claimants for fixing the value are
agricultural lands and on that basis the valuation is fixed, then there cannot
be any deduction towards the development charges. Hence, the learned counsel
prayed that the valuation fixed will have to be confirmed.
6. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and
the counsel for the respondents. Admittedly in the present case the appellant
has not produced any sale deed before the Reference Court. Therefore, in the
absence of any sale deed relied upon by the appellant, the Court below has
correctly taken into account the sale deeds produced by the
respondents/claimants. Admittedly, the sale deeds are pertaining to the
agricultural lands. Similarly, the lands acquired are also agricultural lands.
The lands have been acquired for the purpose of the reservoir scheme. Therefore
this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that in such a situation there
cannot be any deduction towards the developmental charges. This Court finds
that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported
in 2008 (7) MLJ 298 (Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (Adi dravidar
Welfare), Krishnagiri vs. Munusamy) applies to the present case on hand.
7. In so far as the reliance of the Court below on Ex.C1 to C3 it has
correctly taken into account of the sale deeds and fixed the valuation at
Rs.750/- per cent for Survey No.244 and Rs.350/- per cent for the other lands.
The Court has taken into consideration of the comparative value mentioned in all
the three sale deeds. In fact, a perusal of the above said sale deeds would
show that they are pertaining to the year 1989, 1990 and 1991, whereas, the
Notification in the present case has been published on 16.11.1992. Hence, this
Court is of the opinion that the valuation fixed by the Court is just and very
reasonable.
8. The Court below has also taken into consideration about the potential
value of the land. The Court below has given a factual finding about the fact
that there are three revenue villages nearby and there are hospitals, banks and
post office situated near the acquired lands. In fact, a perusal of the
judgment and decree of the Court below would indicate that the amount fixed by
the Court below is very much reasonable. In the judgment reported in CDJ 2003
MHC 751 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs.Rathinareddi), the Hon’ble Division Bench
has held that the market value will have to be fixed by taking into
consideration of the transaction that would fetch maximum price and therefore
the sale deed which is most advantageous to the claimants alone should be taken
into consideration. The Hon’ble Division Bench has also observed that the Court
while fixing the valuation should sit in the arm chair of the willing seller and
then fix the valuation. In so far as the valuation fixed for Survey No.244 is
concerned, it is seen that even the Land Acquisition Officer has made a
distinction between the said land and the other lands on the ground that the
said land is fully an irrigational land, being a Nanja land. Therefore, he
fixed the valuation at Rs.260/- per cent which has been enhanced to Rs.750/- per
cent. Hence, this Court finds that the difference shown for the said land as
against the other lands is justifiable and proper.
9. Hence on a consideration of the above said facts and also on
considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree
of the Reference Court do not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the
appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
cs
To
The Sub Judge, Palani.