IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S. No.509 of 2010 and M.P.1 of 2010 1.The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore. 2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mordhana Reservoir Project Scheme, Sethuvandai Village, Gudiyatham. ...Appellants Vs. Chinnasami ...Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 24.07.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. For Appellants : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For Respondent : Mr.G.Vandana J U D G M E N T
The Appellants/Referring Officers have projected this Appeal as against the Award dated 24.07.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.
2.The Government have acquired a total extent of land measuring 37.76.5 Hectares of land situated in the village of Mordhana in the Taluk of Gudiyatham in the Registration Sub District of Pernambut in the District of North Arcot Ambedkar and registered in the name of (or) occupied by the persons including the land in S.No.38/2 measuring, 0.32.0 hectares and S.No.194/1-A measuring 0.45.0 hectares for the purpose of construction of dam across the “River Koundanya” under Mordhana Reservoir Project by Public Work Department at Mordhana Village, Gudiyatham Taluk. The Land Acquisition Officer for the true area of the acquired land viz., 37.76.5 Hec. has awarded a sum of Rs.25,32,935/- as compensation in respect of the acquired lands.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award dated 14.08.1994 has awarded a sum of Rs.15,560/- to the Respondent/Claimant in respect of S.No.38/2, 0.32.0 hectares dry land and in respect of S.No.194/1A out of 0.45.0 hectares, has awarded a sum of Rs.17,647/- as compensation and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.33,207/- as compensation to the Respondent/Claimant.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer at the request of the Respondent/Claimant has made a reference before the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham since the land owner, the Respondent/Claimant has not been satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted.
5.The trial Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham in his Award dated 24.07.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1999 has fixed the market value of the land one cent at Rs.240/- and also granted the statutory benefits to the Respondent/Claimant.
6. Before the trial Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant, witness C.W.1 has been examined and documents Ex.A1 has been marked. On behalf of the Appellants/Referring Officers, Witness R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 to B4 have been marked.
7. Being dissatisfied with the Award dated 24.07.2001 in L.A.O.P.52/1999 passed by the trial Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal before this Court.
8.The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is,
Whether the Award passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1999 dated 24.07.2001 is sustainable in the eye of law?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
9.According to the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants/Referring Officers, the trial court has committed an error in enhancing the market value exorbitantly to Rs.240/- per cent from the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.77.60 per cent in respect of the acquisition without taking into account the procedure adumbrated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
10.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the sales statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, who has analysed the land and its Tharam, Quality, Potentiality, etc., and then only, he has arrived at the market value in a fair and just manner and that apart, the S.No.150 mentioned in Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 26.10.1990 executed by M.D.Subramani and Gangammal in favour of Samu and in any event, the trial court has not adverted to the material facultative aspects of the matter in a real perspective which has resulted in an excessive compensation being passed under the impugned Award and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
11.Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimant that the trial court has analysed the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties in the L.A.O.P. Proceedings and on an appreciation of the same, has determined the value of the land per cent at Rs.240/-, which is a fair and just compensation awarded to the Respondent/Claimant and the same need not be disturbed by this Court sitting in Appeal.
12.This Court has head the Learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their contentions.
13.The evidence of C.W.1 is to the effect that the acquired land belongs to Tmt.Jothiammal and the acquired land is situated at a distance of 2 Kms. and that in the acquired land, the ground nut of 40 bags will be cultivated and the price of ground nut per bag will fetch up Rs.400/- and 10 bags of Thuvarai will be cultivated and the price of per bag will be Rs.800/- and the castor of 10 bags will be cultivated and the price of per bag will be Rs.800/- and the other portions are raised in the acquired land and as such, he has been in receipt of an income of Rs.7,000/- per month.
14.It is the further evidence of C.W.1 that Ex.A1 is the Sale Deed dated 26.10.1990 in and by which his Village Man Samu in Survey No.150 has purchased 2 or 3 lands from Subramani and Gangammal at a cost of Rs.240/- per cent and the Land Acquisition Officer atleast should have awarded the compensation based on the value of the land mentioned in Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 26.10.1990 and presently, in village, the price of a land per cent comes upto Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, he requires the enhanced compensation along with legal interest and solatium.
15.The evidence of R.W.1 is to the effect that the total extent of 37.76.5 hectares of land have been acquired for the purpose of constructing Mordhana dam and for the period 13.05.1990 to 13.05.1993, he has collected the Sales Statistics and accordingly, for the Nanja land determined the compensation per cent at 205.40 paise and for the irrigated panchayat per cent, has been fixed at Rs.77.58 paise per cent and the Sales Statistics List is Ex.B1 and the xerox copy of the Sale deed dated 04.03.1993 in respect of data land is Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 is the Chitta Xerox copy in respect of the acquired land and Ex.B4 is combined village map in respect of the data land and the acquired land.
16.R.W.1 in the cross-examination has specifically stated that he has inspected the lands mentioned in Ex.B1 Sales Statistics extracted and the Survey No.4, land mentioned in Ex.B4 document from the acquired land is situated at a distance of one K.m. From the data land and in Ex.B4, combined village map, the measurement have not been situated.
17.It is to be pointed out that the relevant date for fixing the market value of the acquired land is on the date of notification as per Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as per decision JAGATH SINGH V. HARYANA STATE , (1996) LAC 60 (P&H).
18.Also in the decision TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD V. R.KANDHASWAMY, (2003) 2 LACC 396 (MADRAS), it is held that ‘..crucial date for fixing the market value of the acquired land is on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification.”
19.It is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that while awarding the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court has to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is true that there are several methods of valuation such as i) opinion of Expert ii) price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages iii) a number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. Also the potential value whether the land is close to developed or developing colonies, road etc., will also be taken note of by a Court of law’.
20.Admittedly, a market value of a land ought not to be determined based on facts of imagination or flight of fancy. A market value of the land cannot be calculated with mathematical precision. A certain amount of conjecture is quite inevitable but a Court of law must be careful not to go too far in this direction. The acid test is that sitting in the arm chair of willing vendor would offer to a willing purchaser, taking note of all relevant prevailing attendant circumstances and conditions of the normal market, fertility of land, location, suitability of purpose it has been purchased, its existing potentialities and likely to use which in the same condition to pay the price as on date of notification.
21.A owner of the land or a claimant should not be put to loss by means of valuation of his land. Equally, a Court of law has to bear in mind the public exchequer should not be put to undue burden by excess or exorbitant valuation. It is the primordial duty of a Court of law to strike a balance between twice interests, in the considered opinion of this Court.
22.At this stage, this Court aptly codes the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER U.K.PROJECT V. MAHABOOB AND ANOTHER (2009) 4 M.L.J. 137 (S.C.) wherein it is held that ‘ even though the land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings, the Collector is supposed to offer fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account but the land acquisition officers seldom make reasonable offers and they tend to err on the safer side and invariably assess very low compensation.’
23. Be that as it may, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants brings it to the notice of this Court that in A.S.230 of 2002, this Court on 02.03.2010 in respect of the lands acquired by the Government for the purpose of Mordhana Reservoir Scheme in Mordhana Village, Gudiyatham Taluk has confirmed the market value of the land fixed at Rs.240/- per cent by the trial court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham in its Award in L.A.O.P.27/1999 and the said Judgment of this Court in Appeal A.S.230 of 2002 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
24.Inasmuch as the subject matter involved in the present Appeal before this Court is covered by the Judgment of this Court in A.S.230 of 2002 dated 02.03.2010 and also, this Court considering the respective contentions, etc., comes to an inevitable conclusion that the trial court has rightly observed in its Award in paragraph 10 that the value determined for the acquired land based on Exs.B1 and B2 is on the lower side and rightly, it has fixed the compensation per cent at Rs.240/- which does not suffer from any serious infirmity or tainted with any patent illegality and resultantly, this Court dismisses the Appeal filed by the Appellants since it lacks bonafides and devoid of merits without costs.
25.It is useful for this Court to refer to Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners’ Fees Rules, 1973 which runs as follows:
R.12. (1) In the High Court in appeals from original or appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property, or for land or other immovable property of any description, fees are payable on the same scales under Rule 3(2)(b).
Provided that when the appeal is compromised, settled withdrawn or dismissed for default (a) before the appeal gets into the ready board, the fee shall be one-fourth of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) and (c) after the appeal stands on the ready board the fee shall be one-half of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) subject to this, in all the above cases, the minima prescribed in Rule 14 shall apply:
(Provided further that when the appeal is from an award or from any part of an award of a Court in a land acquisition case, as between the collector and the claimant or claimants the maximum fee shall be Rs.2,000.00.)
(2) When the amount or value of the claim in the appeal exceeds Rs.2,000 an additional fee calculated at one-third of the fee allowable under clause (1) shall be payable to junior Practitioner engaged with a senior Practitioner:
Provided that the junior was on record at least from the last of the dates fixed for the appearance of the respondent.
Provided further that in any case, where a juniors’ fee is payable under this rule or under Rule 19, the Court shall have a discretion to fix that fee at half the seniors’ fee instead of one-third.
(3) The fees for the junior legal practitioner for settling of documents for translation and or printing in first appeals shall be a minimum of Rs.25 and a maximum of Rs.50 subject to the discretion of the taxing officer.”
26.Hence, this Court fixes the fees of the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) in terms of Rule 12 of Legal Practitioners Fees Rules 1973, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
27.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Award dated 24.07.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham is affirmed for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.09.2010
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vri
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Gudiyatham.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
VRI
A.S.No.509 of 2010
23.09.2010