IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
A.S.No.62 of 2004
The Land Acquisition Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankagiri. ...Appellant
V.
1.S.Subramaniyam
2.R.Muthu
3.B.Periyasamy
4.Kandhappa Gounder (Died)
5.Chengodan
6.Rajalakshmi
7.Kangavenkatraman
8.Jayalakshmi
9.Palaniyappan
10.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,
Div.I, Salem.
11.Thangammal
12.K.Sengodan
13.K.Subramani
(RR11 to 13 brought on record as L.Rs. Of
the Deceased 4th Respondent vide order of
Court dated 26.06.2007 in CMP No.5390/05) ...Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 28.04.2003 made in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari.
For Appellant : Mr. V.Ravi
Special Government Pleader (AS)
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
for RR1 to 3, 5 to 9,11 to 13
Mr.J.Chandrasekaran for R10
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant/Referring Officer has filed this Appeal as against the Award dated 28.04.2003 made in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1988 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari.
2.The Government have acquired an extent of lands measuring 1.68 acres situated in Sankari village and 1.92 acres situated in Chinnagoundanur Village totalling 3.60 acres in the Taluk of Sankari, in the Registration of Sub District of Sankari in the District of Salem and registered in the name of or occupied by the persons mentioned in the Government Gazette including the Respondent/Claimant’s lands. The Government have acquired true area land measuring 3 acres and 60 cents have awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,98,060.25 as compensation in respect of the acquired land. Section 4(1) Notification has been issued on 04.12.1985. Section 5(A) Enquiry has taken place on 08.05.1986 at R.D.O. Office, Sankari. Section 6(1) Declaration has been published on 06.12.1987. The necessary procedures to be followed have been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officers. The Respondents/Claimants (Land Owners) have been paid the respective compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest. Since they were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari and because of their objection, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter before the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Before the trial Court/the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari on behalf of the Respondents/claimants, C.Ws.1 to 7 have been examined and Exs.C1 to C4 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant, R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B1 to B5 have been marked. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,92,400/- per acre and out of the said sum of Rs.3,92,400/-, it has deducted 33% towards development charges. It has arrived at a sum of Rs.2,61,600/-. Out of the said sum of Rs.2,61,600/-, the Respondents/Claimants have received a sum of Rs.34,000/- per acre and if the said sum of Rs.34,000/- is deducted then the balance comes to Rs.2,27,600/-. Finally, the trial Court has determined the compensation payable to the claimants per acre at Rs.2,27,600/-.
4. Being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in L.A.O.P.87 of 1988 dated 28.04.2003, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before this Court.
5.The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is,
Whether the Award dated 28.04.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1988 passed by the trial Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari is an excessive or exorbitant one in the eye of law?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
6. According to the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant/Referring Officer, the trial court has not appreciated the stand of the Land Acquisition Officer clearly in the Award proceedings as to how he has arrived at the market value by taking into consideration of the relevant sale deeds, which are prior to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification of the Act and moreover, the Survey Number of the acquired land 144/3 and Survey Number of the Data Land 132/3A are nearer to each other and the Sale date of the Data land is 17.6.1985, but the Section 4(1) Notification is 04.02.1985, which is 6 months prior to the date of Section 4(1) Notification which reflects the real market value of the land acquired.
7. Further, the stand of the Learned Special Government Pleader is that the Data land which is relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is 55 cents of land in S.No.132/3A with pumpset and structure in that and value of which has been assessed by the competent person and the same has been deducted from the land value and lastly, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the value of the acquired land per cent is Rs.340/-, but these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the trial court in a proper legal perspective which has resulted in erroneous Award being passed against the Appellant.
8. A legal plea is raised on the side of the Appellant/Referring Officer that the acquired land is vast in extent, whereas the trial court has relied on 3 sale Deeds which have been produced by the claimants, sold on square feet basis and the trial court placing reliance on the documents sold on square feet basis is not correct in the eye of law.
9. In short, the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant is that the trial court has not considered the material attendant relevant circumstances in a conspectus fashion and in any event, the Award passed by the trial court is an excessive, arbitrary and not a reasonable one and therefore prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice.
10.In response, the Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Claimants contends that the trial court has placed reliance on Ex.C2 Sale Deed dated 02.11.1981 wherein a square feet of land has been sold for Rs.11/- and determine the market value of the land payable as compensation at Rs.9/- per square feet and it has also deducted 33% towards Development Charges and also deducted the amount of Rs.34,000/- per acre received already by the Claimants and finally, has arrived at Rs.2,27,600/- per acre which is a fair and just and an equitable sum and at this stage, the same need not be upset by this Court sitting in Appeal.
11.This Court has head the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant and also the Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Claimants and noticed their contentions.
12. It is to be noted that the lands in Sankari Village and Chinnagoundanur Village under Acquisition has been classified as Government Dry in the village accounts and the Tahsildar, Sankari has gathered Sales Statistics for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification i.e., from 11.02.1985 to 10.02.1986 from the Sub Registrar Office, Sankari. It appears that there have been 65 Sale Deeds and after scrutiny, the Sale Deed in Serial No.28 dated 13.06.1985 has been considered for fixing the value of the land. The said Sale Deed refers to an extent of 0.55 acres of land in S.No.132/3A of Sankari Village which has been sold for Rs.18,700/- (after deducting the value of well and pumpset) in Document No.502/1985 dated 17.06.1985, which has been sub divided as 132/3A-12, 132/3A-6, 132/3A-9 under the UDR Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the lands in Sankari and Chinnagoundanur under acquisition at Rs.34,000/- per acre.
13. When a Court of law deals with the Land acquisition matters, it is to be borne in mind that the person from whom the land has been acquired for the purpose of acquisition by the Government body, etc., has to be paid the fair, just and equitable compensation by fixing the market value. While fixing the market value in respect of the acquired land, a Court of law is not supposed to act on imagination. But it has to take into account the factors like potential value of the land, future prospects, the location, advantages of the land to be acquired, etc., Equally, one should bear in mind that when a Court of law awards a compensation to a litigant then the same should not be a burden to the public exchequer, it is the primordial duty of a Court of law to strike a balance between the two and to fix a sensible and fair amount of compensation, which is reasonable and in short, the compensation to be fixed by a Court of law should not be an extravagant one or a bonanza or windfall to a particular claimant.
14. 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).
15.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.”
16.This Court pertinently points out the decision THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE V. ADI NARAYAN SHETTY, AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 429, wherein it is held 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’.
17.At this stage, this Court aptly quotes 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.’
18.It cannot be gain said that the Respondents/Claimants’ land have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Anna Transport Corporation at Sankari (Now called as Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation).
19.The evidence of CW1 (First Respondent/First Claimant) is to the effect that his land has been acquired for the formation of Anna Transport Bus Depo and his land acquired is 15 cents which he has purchased from Nallagounder on 2.11.1981for a sum of Rs.30,000/- as per Ex.C1 Sale Deed and has purchased the said land for the purpose of house site and that the acquired land is situated at Salem-Bhavani National Highway and the acquired land is situated on the north of National highway.
20. It is the further evidence of CW1 is that near the acquired land, there are tyre companies, Petrol Bunk and Lorry Workshop and that the Government has paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- for 15 cents and the acquired land is at a distance of 1 km. from the Sankari Town and that Sankari Town is a fast developing city and the value of one square feet of land in the acquired place goes at Rs.125/-.
21. CW1 also proceeds to state in his evidence that on the upper side and southern side of the acquired land, there are houses and near the acquired land at a distance of 100 feet, there are several houses and prior to his purchase of the acquired land through a Sale Deed, the tyre Companies have been in existence.
22.The evidence of CW2 (Second Claimant’s son) is to the effect that their land of one acre 22 cents have been acquired by the Government out of 3 acres belonging to them and in the acquired land, there are two irrigation wells and in each well, he has 1/4th share and out of the two wells, one well is situated in the acquired land and at the time of acquisition of the land, the value per cent is Rs.30,000/- in the year 1983, they have sold per cent for Rs.3,000/- to Mani @ Muniappan and the said Sale Deed dated 30.03.1988 is Ex.C2 and in the acquired land, 5 coconut and 7 palm trees are there.
23.C.W3 (Fourth Claimant) in his evidence has deposed that out of 1 = acre belonging to him, the Government has acquired 58 cents and the land acquired is situated at Sankari-Bhavani National highway and situated at a distance of 1 km from the Sankari Busstand and around the acquired land, the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation has constructed a compound wall at a height of 12 feet and that he has been in receipt of a compensation of Rs.31,671/- as compensation and at the time of acquisition of the land, the acquired land has been selling at Rs.40/- per square feet and in the acquired land, there has been a well at the depth of 50 feet and the well’s breadth in 15 feet and length in 15 feet and he has 1/8th share in the well and for digging a well, an expense of Rs.12 lakhs will have to be incurred.
24.It is the further evidence of CW3 that he claims a sum of Rs.40 per square feet for the acquired land and Rs.1000/- per coconut tree and for 50 palm trees, he claims Rs.500 for each and therefore, he claims Rs.2,500/- for 50 palm trees besides claiming statutory benefits under the Act.
25.It is the evidence of C.W.4 (8th Claimant) that the Government has acquired 1 = acres of land belonging to them and they have been paid with the compensation of Rs.55,000/- and in the acquired land, there is one well in each he has 1/6th share and the acquired land also belongs to him and the 7th Claimant and further that he claims Rs.40 per square feet and for the acquired land, he also claims sum of Rs.50/- and he values the well at Rs.2 lakhs and also he claims his share.
26.The evidence of CW5 is that he is the 10th Claimant and that his 2 cents of land with well have been acquired by the Government. In the well, he has 1/3rd right and one has to incur an expense of Rs.2 lakhs for digging a well and a sum of Rs.1,650/- has been paid as compensation for the acquired land along with six coconut trees, is on the lower side.
27. That apart, the evidence of CW6/5th Claimant is to the effect that the Government has acquired 58 cents of land from and out of 1 = acres belonging to him and in the acquired land, there has been one well in which he has 1/8th right and petrol bunk is on the western side of the acquired land, tyre company and bricklyn are on the eastern side and around the acquired land, the house sites are earmarked and a there are houses and the Government has paid a compensation for a sum of Rs.30,000 for the acquired land and he has claimed a sum of Rs.40/- per cent for the acquired land and for the trees, he claims a compensation of Rs.300/- per tree.
28. The evidence of CW7 (Engineer) is to the effect that he has given an estimate Ex.C4 for the well.
29. The Appellant has examined RW1 and RW2 on his side. The evidence of RW1 is to the effect that at the time of acquiring the land, the value per acre has been fixed at Rs.34,000/- and accordingly, they have granted the said sum of Rs.34,000/- together with statutory benefits and has taken into account the sales statistics details from 11.02.1985 till 10.02.1986 and the Data land in Sankari village in S.No.132/3A an extent of 0.55 cents has been sold at Rs.20,000/- and after deducting the well, pumpset, 0.55 cents of land has been sold at Rs.18,700/- and the Date land and the acquired land are situated at a near place only viz., at a distance of = k.m.
30. Added further, RW1 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the First Claimant as per Ex.B1 has purchased 15 cents of land for Rs.30,000/- in the year 1981.
31.RW2 has deposed that in Sankari village in S.No.144/2 and 144/3, 1.68 acres of land in Chinnakoundanur village and in S.No.552/1B, 1 acre 92 cents totalling in all 3 acres 60 cents have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Bus Depo for Sankari Branch and that he has not seen the Data land.
32. It is the further evidence of RW2 (in his cross-examination) that he does not know the distance of the Data land situated from the acquired land and the bus depo from Sankari Town is abutting the national highway at a distance of two furlong and that near that place, a petrol bunk, 4 or 5 tyre companies, 15 lorry sheds and big houses are situated.
33. As far as the present case is concerned, it is candidly clear that the Government has acquired the lands in acquisition for the purpose of creation/formation of Anna Bus Depo for Sankari branch and the potential value of the land and the acquired land is situated abutting/adjoining the Sankari-Bhavani national highway are added factors which go to pinpointedly establish that the potential value of the acquired land is at a high level and therefore the acquired lands do have a higher/potential value and therefore, a proper compensation is to be determined to meet the ends of justice.
34.It is seen that as per Ex.C1 Sale Deed dated 30.10.1981, 15 cents of land have been sold for Rs.30,000/- and per cent, it works out to Rs.2,000/- and per square feet, it comes to Rs.4,58p. As per Ex.C2 Sale Deed dated 30.08.1983, an extent of 3311 Sq.ft. Of land has been sold at Rs.13,240/- and the value per cent comes to Rs.1,744/- and per square feet, the same comes to Rs.4/-. As per Ex.C3 Sale Deed dated 16.09.1982, an extent of land 3,060 square feet has been sold for Rs.36,000/- and per cent, it comes to Rs.5,014/- and per square feet, it works out to Rs.11.76p. The trial court has at last fixed the market value of the land per square feet at Rs.9/- and per acre, is equal to 43,600 square feet, it has arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,92,400/- (43,600Sq.ft X 9). Towards 33% of Development charges, it has deducted a sum of Rs.1,30,800/- and the balance comes to Rs.2,61,600/- and from this, the trial court has deducted a sum of Rs.34,000/- already received as compensation per acre by the Respondents/Claimants and consequently, fixed the market value of the acquired land per acre at Rs.2,27,600/- and has granted the statutory benefits.
35. Suffice it for this Court, the trial court placing reliance on Ex.C3 Sale Deed dated 16.09.1982 and finally determining the compensation per square feet at Rs.9/- in respect of the acquired land on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the detailed discussions mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered view that the Award passed by the trial court does not suffer from any patent illegality or serious infirmity in the eye of law and looking at from any angle, the Appeal filed by the Appellant sans merits and the same fails.
36.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.”
37.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.
38.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Award dated 28.04.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1988 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari is affirmed for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. The Appellant/Referring Officer is directed to deposit the balance 50% Award amount, etc., within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, the Respondents/Claimants has already withdrawn 50% of the Award amount from the trial Court. It is open to the Respondents/Claimants to project the necessary payment out application as per Rule 166 of the Civil Practice Rules before the trial court and to receive the balance money standing to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1988 in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.
24.09.2010
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vri
To
The Sub Court,
Sankagiri.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
VRI
A.S.62 OF 2004
24.09.2010