IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.422 of 2002 and Cross Objection No.67 of 2002 The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Wallajha .. Appellant/referring Officer/respondent in cross objection -vs- Jayaramachandra Reddy .. Respondent/claimant/ Cross objector This appeal as well as the cross objection are filed against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipettai dated 14.9.2001. For appellant/ respondent : : Mr. V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader For respondent/ Cross objector : : Mr.G.Jermiah Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of an award passed in L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipettai dated 14.9.2001.
The Government have acquired 0.81.5 Hectares of land in Survey No. 149/3,in Melpakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk for the purpose of allotting house plots for the people belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community who does not have possess any house site.
2. After following the procedures and formalities , the learned Land Acquisition Officer has published Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamill Nadu Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter referred to Act) in the Government gazette on 20.4.1988 and also published the notice in the vernacular dailies on 23.4.1988 and on the same date by way of affixture and also by beat of tom tom in the public places of the concerned village. On the basis of the data lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed and awarded the compensation as Rs.100/- per cent for the lands acquired. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
3. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal,the claimant has examined himself as C.W.1 besides one S.Duraisamy, the vendor under Ex C1 sale deed dated 4.5.1987 as C.W.2 . On the side of the claimant, Exs C1 and C2 were marked. On the side of the referring Officer, one Devadoss, an Assistant of the Department of Adi Dravidar was examined as D.W1 and exhibited Exs R1 to R5.
4.The learned Tribunal on the basis of Ex C1, sale deed dated 4.5.1987 executed by C.W.2 in favour of one Jayapaul in respect of S.No.152/34 measuring 6 cents has not fixed the compensation as Rs.1526/- per cent even though the land sold under Ex C1 is about 100 feet away from the data lands taking into consideration for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. Ex C1 was rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that there was no material placed by the claimants to show that both the lands sold under Ex C1 and the lands acquired by the Government are of same nature having some potentiality. The sale deed relating to the land was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that the lands acquired by the Government are near the residential area but the lands sold under Ex R2 is near a tank by name Ariyankottai. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has accepted in its Judgment that the land sold under Ex C1 is in all respects similar to the lands acquired and is also fit for construction. Even R.W.1 has accepted in his evidence that the data land is near a tank by name Ariyankottai and it is not fit for construction. So under such circumstances, the appeal preferred by the Government for deduction of the compensation from Rs 710/- per cent cannot be sustainable. Even though the land sold under Ex C1 is nearer to the lands acquired by the Government and also having same potentiality to the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Officer has not fixed the compensation adopting the value fixed under Ex C1 for the lands sold under the said sale deed. The classification of the land sold under Ex C1 is the Punja Land. So even if 1/3rd deduction is given from the value for the land sold under Ex C1, the compensation for the land acquired is to be fixed as Rs.1000/- per cent. Even though, the claimants have claimed Rs.2000/- per cent in their claim petition in the cross objection, they restricted the same to Rs.1000/- per cent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/cross objector relying on a decision reported in Sunder-vs- Union of India(2001(4) CTC 434 would contend that while awarding the compensation, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has failed to award interest on solatium and also for the additional compensation which is against the ratio decidenti cited above wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable Supreme Court runs as follows:
” We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S.Sandhawalia of the Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana-v- Smt.Kailashwati and Others AIR 1980 P & H 117.Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms and integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then, from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of 9.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well”In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.”
6. In fine, the appeal preferred by the Government is dismissed
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J
sg
and cross objection preferred by the claimant is allowed and the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1000/- per cent for the entire lands acquired by the Government under L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1994 and also the claimant is entitled to solatium, interest on solatium and additional compensation as permissible under law. No costs. Time for payment of award amount is eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire award amount without furnishing any security.
19.9.2008
Index:yes
Internet:yes
sg
To
Note:Issue order copy on 22.9.2008
1. The Subordinate Judge,Ranipettai
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
A.S.NO.422/2002 &
Cross Objection No.67/2002
A.S.No.422 of 2002
and
Cross Objection No.67 of 2002
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J In fine, the appeal preferred by the Government is dismissed and cross objection preferred by the claimant is allowed and the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1000/- per cent for the entire lands acquired by the Government under L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1994 and also the claimant is entitled to solatium, interest on solatium and additional compensation as permissible under law. No costs. Time for payment of award amount is eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire award amount without furnishing any security.
19.9.2008
sg
17.6.2008
A.S.NO 501/1996
12.10.2006