BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18/02/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
A.S.No.690 of 2004
and C.M.P.No.10671 of 2004
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
South Neighbourhood Scheme,
Unit-I,
Madurai - 20. .. Appellant/Referring Officer
vs.
1.R.Saroja .. 1st Respondent/Claimant
2.The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Madurai. .. 2nd Respondent/Beneficiary
PRAYER
Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001, made in L.A.O.P.No.132 of 1994
by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
!For Appellant ... Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Government Advocate
^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.R.Aravindan
For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
:JUDGMENT
The Referring Officer (land Acquisition Officer) under the Land
Acquisition Act has come forward with the present appeal filed under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, against the award passed by the Court below, to
which a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made,
directing payment of enhanced compensation. The said award of the Court below
was passed on 30.04.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.132 of 1994 on the file of the III
Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2. An extent of 1.05 acres of dry land comprised in S.No.44/6 along with
other lands belonging to other persons in Thoppur Village was acquired by the
Government for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Madurai South Neighbourhood
Scheme, Unit-I. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the
acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act at Rs.4,500/- per acre, equivalent to Rs.45/- per cent and
awarded a total sum of Rs.7,831.05, which includes other statutory benefits,
namely 30% solatium and 12% additional market value. Not satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the first
respondent herein, namely the claimant, received the amount under protest and
made a request for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act to the Court for fixing a reasonable amount as compensation.
3. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Court, which was taken on file
as L.A.O.P.No.132 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai. After having the claim statement of the claimant and the objection of
the beneficiary filed into Court, the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge
conducted the trial in which three witnesses were examined as C.Ws.1 to 3 and
three documents were marked as Exs.C1 to C3 on the side of the first respondent
herein/claimant. No witness was examined and no document was marked either on
the side of the appellant herein, namely the referring officer or on behalf of
the second respondent herein, the beneficiary of the land acquisition.
4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned III Additional Subordinate
Judge, Madurai considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the
arguments advanced on either side and upon such consideration, came to the
conclusion that the first respondent/claimant was entitled to enhanced
compensation by calculating the market value at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent,
based on Ex.C.2, a copy of the award passed by the Court in L.A.O.P.No.1 of
1996, relating to an adjacent land acquired under the very same scheme in
respect of S.No.27/3A1B and 27/4B3 of the very same village.
5. The Court below has also calculated other statutory benefits like 30%
solatium under Section 23(2) and additional market value at the rate of 12% p.a.
from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award or taking possession,
which ever was earlier, as per Section 23(1-A) and also directed payment of
interest for the enhanced amount of compensation in accordance with Section 28
of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from
the date of taking possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till the
date of deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation.
6. The said award in L.A.O.P.No.132 of 1994 passed by the learned III
Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is impugned in the present appeal by the
land acquisition officer (referring officer). The beneficiary has been arrayed
as the second respondent in the appeal, whereas the claimant figures as the
first respondent.
7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
1.Whether the market value fixed by the Court below for the acquired land as on
the date of 4(1) notification is excessive? and
2.Whether the amount awarded as enhanced compensation by the Court below is
excessive requiring downward revision?
8. The submissions made by Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal side), Mr.R.Aravindan, learned counsel for the first
respondent/claimant and Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil
Nadu Housing Board for the second respondent/beneficiary were heard. The
materials available on records were also perused.
9. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for
acquiring the property concerned in this appeal was issued on 24.12.1986. But
the award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 01.02.1989. The Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.45/- per cent, which is equivalent to Rs.4,500/- per acre. Not satisfied with
the quantum of compensation thus awarded, the first respondent/claimant seems to
have paved the way for a reference being made to the Court under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act by submitting a requisition to the Land Acquisition
Officer.
10. In a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
Court is not expected to assume jurisdiction of an appellate forum, as the
L.A.O.P. is not an appeal against the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. The amount specified in the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is nothing but an offer made by the State towards payment of
compensation. A claimant, who is not satisfied with the amount that is offered,
is given a right to seek a reference to the Court for fixing the reasonable
compensation. As such, in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the claimant shall take the position equivalent to a plaintiff
and the referring officer and the beneficiary shall take the position equivalent
to the defendants. The claimant, being placed in a position equivalent to the
plaintiff, shall prove by evidence that the market value of the acquired land as
on the date of 4(1) notification was more than the amount fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and that he/she will be entitled to get more amount as
compensation than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
11. In this contest, the first respondent herein/claimant, besides
examining three witnesses on her side as C.Ws.1 to 3, has also produced three
documents marked as Exs.C.1 to C3.
12. Ex.C.1 is the copy of the award passed by the learned I Additional
Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No.258 of 1989 in respect of a neighbouring land,
namely S.No.85/5 of the very same village, which was also acquired for Madurai
South Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the said land was made on 14.08.1985. In
the said L.A.O.P., the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai fixed the
market value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent and awarded enhanced
compensation. The same may provide the basis for finding out the value of the
acquired land concerned in this appeal as on the date of Section 4(1)
notification, because of the proximity of time between the notifications issued
under Section 4(1) in the said case and in the case on hand.
13. Ex.C.2 is the certified copy of another award passed by the very same
Court in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 relating to some other survey numbers in the very
same village that was acquired subsequently. In the said award, the learned I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai has fixed the market value of the land at
the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent and awarded enhanced compensation. Ex.C.3 is the
certified copy of the decretal order passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996.
14. A perusal of the said documents Exs.C.2 and C.3 would show that 4(1)
notification in respect of the lands concerned in those documents came to be
issued five years after the date of 4(1) notification issued in the case on
hand. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that fixing the market
value on par with the market value fixed as on 22.11.1991 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of
1996, which was five years later than the publication of 4(1) notification in
this case, shall not be proper. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that
the fixation of the market value of the acquired on the basis of Exs.C2 and C3
made by the Court below is not proper has got be countenanced. Hence, this Court
deems it fit to prefer the valuation made in Ex.C.1, provided it has not been
modified in appeal.
15. So far as Ex.C.1 is concerned, it is also represented by the learned
Government Advocate that the same was modified subsequently by the High Court in
an appeal. But a copy of the judgment has not been produced. On the other hand,
the learned Government Advocate has produced a copy of a common judgment made by
a Division Bench of the this Court in A.S.No.521 of 1999 and batch cases, in
which a reference was made to the judgment pronounced by this Court in
A.S.No.884 of 1992, wherein for a land acquired for the very same purpose under
the very same scheme, in respect of which notification under Section 4(1) was
issued on 13.11.1985, was valued by this Court at the rate of Rs.825/- per cent.
The date of 4(1) notification concerned in the case dealt with by this Court in
A.S.No.884 of 1992 is in close proximity with the date of 4(1) notification
issued in the case on hand. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to take the said
amount fixed in A.S.No.884 of 1992 as the basis for fixing the market value of
the acquired land in the case on hand as on the date of issue of Section 4(1)
notification. Since there was a time gap of one year 13 months between the date
of 4(1) notification issued in the said case and the case on hand, this Court
has to take into account the escalation in the market value during the said
period. It is pertinent to note that the market value of the land from
13.11.1985 till November, 1991 has increased to Rs.2,000/- per cent from
Rs.825/- per cent, which is evident from the above said judgment of the Division
Bench dated 15.09.2003. The following chart will show the gradual increase in
the market value:
Date of 4(1) Notification Case Number Rate per cent
Rs.
13.11.1985 A.S.No.884 of 1992 Batch 825
November, 1991 A.S.No.521 of 1999 Batch 2,000
16. One should not lose sight of the fact that there had been such a steep
escalation of the market value because of the developments made in the lands
acquired under the Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme, earlier to the
acquisition concerned in the batch cases dealt with by the Division Bench of
this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the increase in the
market value would have gained momentum on pace with the developments made.
Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court deems it fit to fix the
market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification in the
case on hand, namely 24.12.1986, at Rs.1,000/- per cent, which shall be quite
reasonable. Based on the above said fixation of the market value and the total
compensation is worked out as follows:
1.Market value of the acquired land
(1.05 acre) at the rate of Rs.1,000/-
per cent = Rs.1,05,000
2.Solatium at the rate of 30% under
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act. = Rs. 31,500
3.Additional market value under Section
23(1-A) calculated at the rate of 12%
from the date of 4(1) notification
i.e., 24.12.1986 till date of award
i.e., 01.02.1989 as possession was
taken subsequently (2 years one month
and 8 days) = Rs. 26,530
4.Total amount of compensation = Rs.1,63,030
5.The amount awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer = Rs. 7,831
6.The enhanced compensation to which
the first respondent/claimant is
entitled = Rs.1,55,199
Rounded of to = Rs.1,55,200
Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 for determination are answered and the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by the Court below is reduced to Rs.1,55,200/-
(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only), which amount shall
carry interest at 9% p.a. for one year from the date of taking possession and
thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the award of the
learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in L.A.O.P.No.132 of 1994 is
modified by fixing the enhanced compensation at Rs.1,55,200/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only), which amount shall be paid to the
first respondent/claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year from
17.03.1989, the date on which possession was taken by the Government and
thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment. Consequently, connected
C.M.P.No.10671 of 2004 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
To
1. The III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
South Neighbourhood Scheme,
Unit-I,
Madurai – 20.
3. The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Madurai.