THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 02.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.341 of 1997 The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) National High Ways Scheme, Madras-90. .. Appellant / Referring Officer Vs. Rani Ammal .. Respondent / Claimant Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the decree and judgment dated 20.07.1994 in LAOP.No.24 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.M.S.Subramani, Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.24 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu (Land Acquisition Tribunal).
2.The Government has acquired 0.11 acre land along with rice will 3/4th building with drying yard in S.No.94/6A2A, for the purpose of extending the NH-45 road at Guduvancherry village. The Land Acquisition Officer after issuance of Notification dated 22.12.1986, lastly notified in the Villages on 20.1.1987, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), and after following the formalities contemplated under law, on the basis of Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 data lands, had fixed the compensation for wet land at Rs.2,360/- per cent and for the dry land at the rate of Rs.1,191/- per cent along with the compensation for the superstructure, well, trees etc and also awarded solatium with interest. Aggrieved by the said compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
3.Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge / Land Acquisition Tribunal, C.W.1 to C.W.9 were examined and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the Government R.W.1 to R.W.4 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13 were marked. The claimant had based his claim for enhancement of compensation on the basis of Ex.C.4-sale deed dated 14.5.1986 under which S.No.121/A/1B one cent of land was sold for Rs.6,453/- and on that basis the claimant claimed that for the wet land the compensation may be enhanced to atleast Rs.7,000/- per cent. The claimant had also relied on Ex.C.2- sale deed dated 08.12.1986, under which once cent of land in S.No.94/5 was sold for Rs.7,905/- and also Ex.C.3-sale deed dated 27.8.1986 under which one cent of land in S.No.94/4/9 was sold for Rs.7,347/-. So on that basis the claimant had claimed that for punja land the compensation may be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per cent and contended that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.R.1 sale deed dated 29.8.1986 as Rs.2,360/- per cent for punga land and Rs.1,091 per cent for nanja land are inadequate and shall be enhanced.
4.After taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary adduced, the Land Acquisition Tribunal taking into consideration the potentiality of the lands acquired and also on the basis of Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 has fixed the compensation for the punja land as Rs.8,000/- per cent and on the basis of Ex.C.4 had enhanced and fixed the compensation for the acquired nanja land as Rs.6,000/- per cent, besides fixing the reasonable compensation for the superstructure in the acquired land.
5.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that if there are two values shown in two different sale deeds, which were taking into consideration as data lands by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Tribunal then, the highest value shown in the document is to be taken for fixing the compensation for the land acquired. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the respondent would rely on 1969(1) MLJ (SC) 45 (Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Renee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector of Madras). In the said case by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government has decided to acquire 1,145 grounds of land comprised in an area roughly bounded by St.Mary’s Road on the north, by the Buckingham Canal in the east and south and by Chamier’s Road and Pugh’s Road on the west in the city of Madras. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands to be acquired into five groups Group I to Group V according to what he considered to be the best lands, the next best land and so on. For fixing the compensation, the sale prices in two sale deeds were taken into consideration, which were marked before the Tribunal as Ex.R.19 and Ex.R.27 respectively. Ex.R.19 was few months prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Under the said sale deed 11 grounds were sold at Rs.1,961/- per ground. Ex.R.27 is another sale deed, which was also executed before Section 4(1) Notification, but after the execution of Ex.R.19-sale deed, under which one ground of land was sold for Rs.1,096/-. But the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Tribunal have without considering the higher value contained in Ex.R.19-sale deed, fixed the compensation as Rs.1,450/- per ground for Group-I land, Rs.1,400 per ground for Group-III land and Rs.1,660/- per ground for Group-IV land etc. When the matter was taken before the Apex Court by the claimant on the ground that the compensation fixed by the High Court as well as the Land Acquisition Tribunal are not reasonable, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:-
“Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to be rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course.”
The same view was confirmed in 1972(1) MLJ 58 (V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) By LRS Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer).
7.Relying on a ratio (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 584 (Thakarshibhal Devjibhai Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another) the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the quantum of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be reduced without any just cause and would contend that if the quality including potentiality of two areas of land is similar then distance between the two would not by itself lead to a change in their respective market value, and where holding of each landholder in the acquired area is small, there is no justification for clubbing together the individual holdings, treating them as a large area, differentiating them from similar land thereby and then applying a lower market value to such holdings. The exact observation in the said dictum at para 11 runs as follows:-
“As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one, that the present acquisition is of larger area and second, the distance between the land under acquisition and in Ext.16 is about 5 k.m. with reference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of each landowner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder’s land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowner’s holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, visioning in line with the submission for the State we find Ext.16 is about two hectares of land which cannot be said to be of a small piece of land. So far as the other question of distance between the two classes of lands is concerned, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such others materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior.”
8.The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would further contend that taking into consideration the potential value of the land only the Government had acquired the land which is appurtenant to the existing GHT road for the purpose of extending the GHT road and that the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.3 and Ex.C.4 has fixed the compensation for the wet land as Rs.6,000/- per cent and dry land as Rs.8,000/- per cent and that in the absence of any material placed by the Government for any other data land, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal shall not be reduced. In support his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent would rely on (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 642 (V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer), wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows:-
“It is contended by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the land so acquired has high potentialities. National Highway 7 is being intervened by the petrol bunk and the premises of State Bank of India. There are houses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of the acquired land. The developmental activities are towards Kurnool where the land at Survey No.386 has been acquired. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court. We are unable to sustain this submission of the counsel. The land may be having high potentialities or it may be proximate to the developed land, but that itself would be no ground for not deducting the developmental charges. This Court in Kasturi v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 720:1997 SCC (Cri) 283 held that it is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land do as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. This Court also pointed out that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. It was further pointed out that the fact that the land is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot. The facts of the present case are exactly the same as the situation in which this Court has made the above observation. In the present case, the undisputed facts on record would show that the acquired land with National Highway 7 is intervened by a petrol bunk and the premises of State Bank of India. There are also houses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of the acquired land. The acquired land is also about 100 yards away from National Highway 7. No doubt, the acquired land may be having high potential value but that itself per se cannot be claimed to be a developed land. Lots of developmental activities are to be undertaken like laying of roads, sewerage facility, water supply, etc. so that the land would be made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, which would require enormous emount of expenditure.”
In the case on hand also there are houses, shops, compound walls, well and rice mills in the acquired land itself. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the land acquired by the Government are lacking potentiality. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.24 of 1993 need not be interfered with, and the same is hereby confirmed.
9. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
02.07.2008
Index :Yes/No
Web :Yes/No
ssv
To,
The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu.
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J.
ssv
A.S.No.341 of 1997
02.07.2008