BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/04/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 in A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010 and Cross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010 A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer vs 1.N.Sastha 2.Paramasivam 3.N.Kumaraswamy 4.N.Ganesan 5.Vimala 6.Kannan 7.Muthukaruppayee Achi 8.Asharaf Hameed 9.Laila Hameed 10.Rajeswari 11.Thynesimuthu 12.E.Rethinammal 13.Indira 14.Rajkumar 15.Sheela 16.Ramkumar 17.A.R.Kannammai Achi 18.K.Saraswathi Kannappan 19.V.Vasanthal 20.R.Jayalakshmi 21.Deivanai 22.A.Kanna Arumugam ...Respondents/Claimants Cross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010 1.Asharaf Hameed 2.Laila Hameed ... Cross Appellants/ Claimants 8 & 9 Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... 1st Respondent/ Referring Officer 2.N.Sastha 3.Paramasivam 4.N.Kumaraswamy 5.N.Ganesan 6.Vimala 7.Kannan 8.Muthukaruppayee Achi 9.Rajeswari 10.Thynesimuthu 11.E.Rethinammal 12.Indira 13.Rajkumar 14.Sheela 15.Ramkumar 16.A.R.Kannammai Achi 17.K.Saraswathi Kannappan 18.V.Vasanthal 19.R.Jayalakshmi 20.Deivanai 21.A.Kanna Arumugam ... Respondents/ Claimants 1 to 7 and 10 to 22 Prayer in A.S.(MD) No.34 of 2010 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2008, passed in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1984, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagercoil. !For Appellant ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate. ^For 5th Respondent ... Mr.K.SreeKumaran Nair For Respondents 6, 17, 19, 20 and 22 ... Mr.C.Dhanaseelan For Respondents 8 & 9 ... Mr.R.Nandakumar Prayer in Cross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010 Appeal filed under Order XLI, Rule 22 r/w Section 96(1) & (2) of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2008 passed in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1984, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagercoil. !For Cross Appellants ... Mr.R.Nandakumar ^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate. * * * * * :JUDGMENT
The appeal suit has been preferred by the Government against the award of
the Tribunal enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,250/- to Rs.3,000/-. Not
satisfied with the enhancement, the cross appeal has been preferred by the
claimants 8 and 9.
2.The facts of the case are as follows: The lands comprised in
T.S.Nos.A1-15/14 and A1-15/15 measuring about 01.19.70 Hectare situated in
Vadaseri Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District were acquired under
Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.12.1980, for the purpose of expansion of
Nagercoil 66/11 KVSS to 110/1 KVSS at Parvathipuram. The land acquisition
officer relying upon Ex.B.1 sale deed dated 19.04.1980, determined the
compensation of Rs.1,200/- per cent, whereas the Tribunal on reference
determined the compensation of Rs.3,000/- relying upon Exs.A.4 dated 21.10.1981,
A.5 dated 22.10.1981 and A.6 dated 20.11.1981. The said award is being
challenged before this Court in the above appeal suit and in the cross appeal.
3.Mr.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the documents
relied upon by the Tribunal are all post notification sale deeds and the same
cannot be relied upon. Secondly, he submitted that no deduction was given
towards development charges. Therefore, he seeks restoration of the award passed
by Land Acquisition Officer and seeks setting aside of the award passed by the
Tribunal.
4.On the other hand, Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, who led the argument on behalf
of the respondents/ claimants and the cross appellants submitted that the
acquired lands are situated within Nagercoil Municipality and therefore no
deduction is required. Secondly, he submitted that post notification sale deed
could be relied upon, if it is found to be within reasonable time.
5.It is seen from the records that Section 4(1) notification is dated
17.12.1980 and the purpose of acquisition is for expansion of the electricity
sub-station. The Tribunal rejected the value of the Ex.B.1 on the ground that
Ex.B.1 has been executed more than 2 years before Section 4(1) Notification and
the property conveyed under Ex.B.1 is far away from the acquired property as
seen from Ex.B.3 Topo-Plan. The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting
Ex.B.1 is perfectly valid and the same is confirmed.
6.As far as the location of the acquired land is concerned, it is
admittedly situated within the Municipal limits of Nagercoil as it is proved by
very nomenclature of the survey number as T.S.Nos.A1/15-14 and A1/15-15. If the
property is situated within the municipal limits, town survey numbers would be
given. Ex.B.3 Topo-plan shows the acquired land is situated abutting Nagercoil
National Highways and the surrounding lands are developed as residential area.
The Tribunal considered C.W.1’s evidence that the acquired lands are situated
very closer to Nagammal Mill, Ganesh Nagendra Mills, Indian Oil Bunk, Pioneer
Kumaraswamy College, Akash School, Bank of Baroda and apart from that close to
Railway Station and Bus Stop. Therefore, it is easy for this Court to conclude
that the acquired property is situated in the Nagercoil Town and it is in
developed area and it has many locational advantages.
7.As far as claimant documents are concerned, Ex.A.4 is dated 21.10.1981,
Ex.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has already held in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and
others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 382 that post notification sale deeds also could
be looked into for the purpose of determining the value of the property. In
Karan Singh and others vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 8 SCC 186, it has
been held that the onus is on the claimant to prove that there was no raise in
price of land after the issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification. Section 4(1)
notification is dated 17.12.1980. Ex.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and the land
conveyed is 8. cents. Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981 and the land conveyed is 2.5
cents. The Tribunal relied upon Exs.A4 to A.6 to determine the market value as
they are closer to the acquired property and it is found to be similar in
character with all amenities. As Ex.A.5 conveyed the lands along with building,
the same is not relied by this Court. As far as Ex.A.6 is concerned it was
executed on 20.11.1981 and the sale value per cent is Rs.3,200/- and therefore,
the value of the land is determined as Rs.3,200/- per cent.
8.Considering the time gap between Section 4(1) notification dated
17.12.1980 and Ex.A6 dated 20.11.1981, this Court deducts 10% towards
depreciation. In the interregnum period the value of the land would have
appreciated and the same has to be deducted from the value of Ex.A.6.
Value per cent as per Ex.P.6 = Rs.3,200/-
10% deduction towards
depreciation Rs.3,200 – Rs.320 = Rs.2,880/-
The said amount is rounded of to= Rs.3,000/-
Therefore, the market value of the acquired land is determined by this Court as
Rs.3,000/- per cent.
9.As far as deduction is concerned, the learned Government Advocate
submitted that 60% is required to be deducted towards amenities charges and he
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavva (Smt) & others
vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 640.
However, the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board etc., vs. K.S.Gangadharappa & Another reported
in 2010 (1) LW 1001 held that there is no straight jacket formula towards
deductions to be made for development charges. In view of the said judgment, no
deduction is required to be made for the following reasons:
1.The land acquired has been given survey numbers as Town survey Numbers.
2.It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated within the
municipal limits.
3.It is situated abutting Nagercoil – Trivandrum National Highways.
4.It is surrounded by Educational Institutions, Bank, Petrol Bunk, Church,
Textile Mills, Bus Stop and Railway Station.
That is to say it has all the amenities of the municipality. Therefore, no
deduction is required to be made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tenneti Kamesam
v. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC) held as follows:
“5.In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no
dispute with regard to the fact that the land in question with regard to the
fact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded
by several structures, residential buildings and other commercial
establishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other
facilities. It is, therefore, evident that the land was already situated in a
developed area and the question of deduction of development charges did not,
therefore, arise.”
In this case also, the development and amenities are similar in nature. Relying
upon the same, no deduction is made by this Court towards development charges.
10.As far as compensation given for super structure, coconut trees etc.,
are concerned, they are found to be reasonable and hence, they are confirmed.
However, the award of the Tribunal determining the compensation at Rs.3,000/- is
determined but in a different way. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is
confirmed.
11.Therefore, the appeal suit is dismissed. Consequently, connected
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is dismissed. In view of the above judgment passed in the
appeal suit, the Cross Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
sj
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Nagercoil.