BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Appeal Suit No.692 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.11449 of 2003 The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ramanathapuram. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) 2.Avudaiyappan 3.Govindan 4.Radhakrishnan 5.Raghupathi 6.Jeeva 7.Chandira 8.Shanmughasundari 9.Bala 10.Karpagavalli 11.Sankari ... Respondents Prayer This appeal suit has been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2002 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram. !For Appellant ... Mr.So.Paramasivan Special Government Pleader ^For Respondents ... Mr.Alagu Balakrishnan :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
03.01.2002 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2. Heard both sides.
3. This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed as against the
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned II Additional Subordinate
Judge, Ramanathapuram, vide. order dated 03.01.2002.
4. During the pendency of the L.A.O.P. before the Subordinate Judge,
Ramanathapuram, the land owner died and hence his Legal heirs were impleaded and
during the pendency of the matter before this Court among the Legal heirs the
wife of the original land owner viz. Seethalakshmi Ammal, first respondent
herein also died. The remaining legal heirs are the Legal Heirs of the deceased
Seethalakshmi and they already on record. No impleadment of fresh parties are
required and necessary changes in the cause title has to be effected.
5. The facts in nutshell would run thus:
Section 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the
Gazette by the Government dated 02.03.1994 after complying with the procedures.
The land acquisition officer assessed the value of one cent at Rs.412/- taking
into consideration of the sale deed dated 02.06.1992, bearing No.432, in Survey
No.353(A). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such award of compensation,
the land owner asked for reference and accordingly the Subordinate Court who was
seized seized of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act decided
to enhance the compensation from Rs.412/- per cent to Rs.3,000/- per cent.
Aggrieved by such enhancement the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal
before this Court.
6. The point for consideration is to whether the learned Subordinate Judge
is justified in assessing the value of the land from Rs.412/- per cent to
Rs.3,000/- per cent?
7. The learned Special Government Pleader would argue that the Land
Acquisition Officer relied upon the document bearing No.432 relating to the land
in Survey No.353(A) and assessed the value. Whereas the learned Subordinate
Judge took into account the sale deed which emerged on the same date ie.
02.06.1992 in other part of the Survey No.353 and assessed the quantum at
Rs.3,000/- per cent. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader prays
for modification.
8. Whereas the learned counsel for the claimants would convincingly and
correctly highlights the fact to the effect that the sale deed taken by the Land
Acquisition Officer relates to the land situated near the burial ground and the
acquired land situated far away from it and it had the potentiality of housing
plots.
9. Read the map concerned and also perused the relevant records. The
document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer refers to an extent of 30
cents and which was valued at the rate of Rs.412/- per cent approximately and
that itself will clearly show the 30 cents were related to agricultural land
near the burial ground which did not have the potentiality of becoming the house
sites in the near future. The acquired land is also situated in the big survey
number 353 and it is situated in the municipal limits, however the sale deed
relied on by the claimants refers to 5 cents of land so as to say approximately
a plot size which was valued in a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/-
per cent and accordingly the Subordinate Judge took the value of one cent as
Rs.3,000/-. Whereas the Land Acquisition Officer took into account only the
agricultural land value and that land taken as sample had certain drawbacks as
already highlighted supra. It could broadly be taken that the plot value per
cent is Rs.3,000/- in a developed area which is municipality. In such a case I
could see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Subordinate
Judge. Further more the learned Subordinate Judge in para No.14 elaborately
dealt with the matter by discussing that normally as per the guideline value
also once in five years the value of the immovable land gets doubled and
accordingly he took into account the guideline value in the year 1980 and
visualised during the year 1994, that per cent, the value of land would be
Rs.3,000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge resorted that to such reasoning and I
am not incline to intervene and it seems to be a reasonable amount. The learned
Additional Government Pleader could not point out as to how the reasons set out
by the Sub Court is wrong. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the the
learned Subordinate judge was right in assessing the value of one cent at
Rs.3,000/- in that area.
10. However, the contention of the Government Pleader is that 1/3rd amount
towards development charges has not been deducted after assessing the plot value
and he prays for deducting 1/3rd amount by placing reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006(2) C.T.C. 733 (The Special
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) v. Valliammal).
11. The perusal of the Judgment cited would clearly demonstrate that
there should be deduction towards development charges when the acquired land is
not a developed land. The core question arises as to what should be the quantum
of deduction relating to the agricultural land. If the agricultural land is a
stripe of land abetting the main road, then the question of development charge
would not arise at all for the reason that the person who may have the house
built there would have ingress and egress by using the available road which is
adjacent to the land, but on the other hand in case of vast extent of land,
there is bound to be lot of house sites in the interior portion of it and
necessarily there should be roads and other amenities. An excerpt from the
decision of the said Division Bench cited supra would run thus:
“12. The Apex Court in the judgment Karan Singh v. Union of India 1998(1)
MLJ 35 SC, has held that “it is only the previous judgment of a Court or an
award which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the
acquired land subject to the party relying on such judgment, to adduce evidence
for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts, it could from
the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land”. In this case,
admittedly the order dated 12.12.1997 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 10 and 11 of
1995 has not been produced before the Court and no evidence has been adduced
and therefore the Reference Court erred in relying on the same. The Apex Court
in the decision Padma Uppal and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1977(1)
SCC 330, has held that “it is the settled proposition that price fetched for
small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large extent
and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate
at which small plots are sold”. In the case Gulzara Singh and others v. State
of Punjab and others, 1993 (4) SCC 245, the Apex Court has upheld the deduction
of 1/3rd land towards the developmental charges. In K. Vasundara Devi v.
Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), 1995(5)SCC 426, the Apex Court reiterated that
when genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to
determine the market value, the same will not form the sole basis to determine
the market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made
to arrive at the just and fair market value for large tracts of land. In
Special Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T. Velu, 1996(2) SCC 538, the Apex Court
has held that at least 1/3rd of the land acquired is to be set apart for road
purpose, developmental purpose and other civil amenities. In U.P. Avas Evam
vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another, 1998 (2) SCC 467, the Apex Court
upheld the deduction of 1/3rd price towards the cost of development for the
housing scheme. It has been held in Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of
India, 2003(4) SCC 481:
“It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the
rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate.
For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be
open to the adjudicating Court to make comparision of the price paid for small
plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to
be made while determining the prices”.
In the same judgment, it has been laid down that while determining the market
value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that
there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue
deprivation on the part of the owner. The compensation must be determined by
reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive
from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value, disinclination
of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser
to buy it must alike to be dis-regarded neither must be considered as acting
under any compulsion. The value of the land is not be estimated as its value to
the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some
particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be
disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may
always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act
enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first
criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the
date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section
24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into
consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in
Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court
shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available
and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of
determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is
bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the
potentiality. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is
reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value
with reference to comparable sales are made:
(i) The sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under
Section 4(1).
(ii) It should be a bona fide transaction.
(iii) It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the
land acquired; and
(iv) It should possess similar advantages.
It is only when these facts are present, it can merit a consideration as a
comparable case.”
12. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that there is no
hard and past rule that 1/3rd amount should be deducted towards development
charges and placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2001(3)
C.T.C. 69 (The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)(Adi Dravidar Welfare) v. S.M. Seigu
Jalaiudeen) would submit that 20% might be deducted towards development
charges. While justifying the stand taken by the Subordinate Judge the learned
counsel for the respondents would highlight that the sum of Rs.3,000/- per cent,
was fixed considering it as a developed area.
13. But here the area is 5.52 acres and necessarily as contemplated in the
above cited decision of the Division Bench of this Court various amenities such
as road and other civil amenities should be provided and in such a case I am of
the considered view that 1/3rd amount has to be deducted towards development
charges. Hence, after deducting 1/3 value of the land towards developmental
charges the value of land for one cent comes to Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, the
award amount is modified as under:
(i) Value of 5 acre 52 cents at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent .. Rs.11,04,000.00 (ii) 30% Solatium .. Rs. 3,31,200.00 --------------- Total .. Rs.14,35,200.00 ---------------
14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the
Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is reduced from Rs.21,52,800/-(Rupees
Twentyone Lakhs Fiftytwo Thousand and eight hundred only) to Rs.14,35,200/-
(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand and two hundred only). In other
aspects the award shall hold good. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.11449 of
2003 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Ramanathapuram.