BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27/04/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. R.S.RAMANATHAN
A.S. Nos. 321 OF 1997
and
A.S. Nos. 322 OF 1997
The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition)
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Srivilliputhur. .. Appellant in
A.S.No.321 and
322 of 1997
vs.
Jeyamanimadasamy .. Respondent in
A.S.No. 321 of 1997
Kanagaraj .. Respondent in
A.S.No.322 of 1997
Appeal Suits are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
against the judgement and decree dated 29.4.1993 in L.A.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of
1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Srivilliputhur..
!For appellant in
both Appeal Suits .. Mr. S.C. Herald Singh,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
^For Respondents in
both Appeal Suits .. Mr. R. Asokan for
Mr.A.Sivaji
:JUDGMENT
The above appeals were filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputtur against the awards passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.
9 and 10 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputtur.
2. Lands in Survey No.171/1B of an extent of 0.16.0 and 0.81.0 hectares
were acquired under 4(1) Notification dated 18.10.1989 and after complying with
the formalities the Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.2/91-92
dated 20.8.1991, fixing the market value at Rs.120/- per cent. The owners not
being satisfied with the fixation of market value by the Acquisition Officer
filed L.A.O.P.Nos. 9 and 10 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputtur
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.
Before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimants 12 documents were marked and
on the side of the appellant 4 documents were marked. The learned Sub Judge
after considering the exhibits filed by both parties and having regard to the
locational advantage and potentiality of the acquired lands enhanced the
compensation from Rs.120/- to Rs.2000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeals are filed by the appellants.
3. Admittedly, the lands were acquired for providing house sites to the Adi
Dravidar of Inam Chettikulam and therefore it can be presumed that the acquired
land has potentiality of being converted into house sites. The appellant while
fixing the market value considered 91 sale deeds and after rejecting 90 sale
deeds on various grounds has taken into consideration the sale of land in Survey
No.359/1 of an extent of 61 cents which was sold on 3.8.1989 for Rs.7320/- and
accordingly fixed the market value of Rs.12000/- per acre and awarded Rs.120/-
per cent as market value. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contended that the data land selected by the appellant is situate
nearer to the acquired land and it has got the same advantages and disadvantages
of the acquired land and hence the learned Sub Judge ought to have accepted the
value fixed by the Acquisition Officer and ought not to have enhanced the
compensation. He further contended that the land covered under Exs.A1 to A12
were sold as house sites and therefore the value mentioned in those documents
should not be taken into consideration and they are also not having the same
“Tharam” as that of the acquired lands.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
contended that having regard to the lands covered under Exs.A1 to A12 the
compensation fixed by the lower Court is not adequate and the lower Court ought
to have fixed Rs.8000/- per cent and therefore there is no need to interfere
with the market value fixed by the lower Court.
5. Point for consideration in these appeal is whether the enhancement of
compensation made by the lower Court is justified or not ?
6. It is seen from the award proceedings that Item No.5 land in Survey
No.176/1A and Item No.12 land in Survey No.177 were sold at the rate of
Rs.1,09,012/- per acre in January and March, 1989. These lands are adjacent to
the acquired land. Further, lands in Survey No.203 and its Sub Divisions which
are covered under Item Nos. 29, 30, 44 and 45 were sold as house sites at the
rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per acre in June and August, 1989. Similarly, the lands in
Survey No.202 and its Sub Divisions were sold at the rate of Rs.1,76,000/- per
acre in August, 1989 and lands in Survey No. 210 and its Sub Divisions were sold
at the rate of Rs.2,18,000/-, Rs. 1,64,987/-, Rs. 3,92,974/- and Rs.1,49,402/-
vide Item Nos. 10, 19, 20 and 31.The above
documents were considered by the Acquisition Officer but rejected those
documents on various reasons. It is true that the lands in Survey No. 202, 203
and 210 were sold as house sites. These lands are situate on the South East of
the acquired lands and they are nearer to the acquired lands than the data land
which is situate far of on the northern side. Therefore, in my opinion, the
Land Acquisition Officer should not have considered the data land for the
purpose of fixing the market value.
7. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the lands in Survey Nos.177,
176/1A on the ground that they were sold as house sites and the extent covered
under those sale deeds are very small compared with the extent of acquired land.
No doubt the lands in Survey Nos. 176/1A and 177 and the lands in Survey No.202
and its Sub Divisions, Survey No.203 and its Sub Divisions and Survey No.210
were sold as house sites. As stated supra, the land was acquired for providing
house sites and therefore the acquired land has also got the potentiality of
being converted into house sites. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in
comparing the sale deeds wherein the lands were sold as house sites. It has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is nothing wrong in taking
into consideration of sale deeds in
which small extent of land were sold when no other material is available but
subject to same deduction.
8. It is an accepted principle that deductions can be made when small
extent of lands were considered for fixing the market value towards development
charges. The acquired lands are situate in Inam Chettikulam which is nearer to
Rajapalayam and Srivilliputtur and a perusal of Exs. A1 & A12 would lead to an
inference that lands in and around the acquired lands are being sold as house
sites for Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 4360/- per cent, during the relevant period.
Therefore, in my opinion, having regard to the potentiality and locational
advantage of the acquired lands and having regard to the fact that neighbouring
lands were sold as house sites at an exorbitant rate, the market value of the
acquired lands can be fixed at Rs.2000/- per cent and having regard to the
nature of the acquired lands namely undeveloped, 25% can be deducted towards
development charges and if so deducted the market value to be fixed at Rs.1500/-
per cent. Accordingly, the market value fixed by the learned Sub Judge at the
rate of Rs. 2000/- per cent is reduced to Rs. 1500/- per cent in respect of the
acquired lands.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the market value of
the land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per cent. In other aspects, the
decree of the lower Court is confirmed.
It is represented by Mr. R.Asokan the learned counsel for the
respondents that in the Judgement and decree it is stated that 12% interest
shall be added to the market value. According to Section 23 (1-A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Court in every case award an amount calculated at the rate
of 12% per annum on such market value and it is not an interest and it is
wrongly stated as interest in the Judgement and decree. Therefore, it has to be
suitably amended in the decree and Judgement and 12% shall be awarded as per
Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and it is not an interest as found
in the decree and Judgement. In other aspects, the decree of the lower Court is
confirmed.
kr.
To:
The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.