BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Appeal Suit No.919 OF 1996 Appeal Suit No.920 OF 1996 Appeal Suit No.921 OF 1996 The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Virudhunagar. ... Appellant in All Appeals Vs 1.Thangamariammal ... Respondent in A.S.No.919/1996 2.K.Chandrasekaran ... Respondent in A.S.No.920/1996 3.Ramasamy ... Respondent in A.S.No.921/1996 :COMMON PRAYER Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur in L.A.O.P.Nos.21 to 23 of 1990, dated 31.12.1995. !For Appellant ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Sivaji ******
:COMMON JUDGMENT
********
The appeals relate to the common judgment dated 31.12.1995 passed in
L.A.O.P.Nos.21 to 23 of 1990.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The lands comprised in Survey Nos.170/5C5B, 170/5C6, 170/5C2,
170/6 and 170/7C1, Vellore Village, Virudhunagar Taluk and District belonging to
the respective respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing
house sites to Adi Dravidars by virtue of Section 4(1) notification dated
12.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the
acquired land at Rs.20/- per cent. On reference to the civil Court, under
Section 18 of the Act, at the instance of the respondents/claimants, the
Tribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,200/- per cent relying on Ex.C.1,
sale deed dated 24.08.1987 which conveyed the property situate at Survey
No.181/1, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale deed dated
05.05.1987 marked as Ex.R.1. The aforesaid Award of the Tribunal dated
31.12.1995, determining the compensation at Rs.1,200/- per cent, is challenged
before this Court by the Government by way of appeal suits.
3. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate attacked the Award
contending that the Tribunal took into consideration the value of smaller extent
of land conveyed under Ex.C.1 to determine larger extent of the acquired area
and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be relied
upon. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Award passed
by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.
4. Secondly, he submitted that no deduction was given towards
development charges, especially when the acquisition is for the purpose of
providing house sites. He further submitted that after analyzing a number of
sale deeds, the Land Acquisition Officer rightly determined the value at Rs.20/-
per cent relying upon Ex.R.1, sale deed dated 05.05.1987. In fine, the learned
Government Advocate pleads for reduction in the compensation and enhancement of
deduction towards development charges.
5. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
submitted that the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.C.1, sale deed dated
24.08.1987. Ex.C.1, sale deed is in respect of housing sites and the purpose of
land acquisition is for providing house sites and, therefore, by comparing all
the documents, the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.C.1, sale deed and determined
the value. Even though Ex.C.1 speaks about the value at Rs.2,400/- per cent, the
Tribunal only fixed Rs.1,200/- per cent, viz., 50% of the sale value per cent.
Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that no interference is called for in
the Award of the Tribunal. He further submitted that as per the Constitution
Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India
reported in 2001(7) SCC 221 = 2002(2) LW 39, the claimants are entitled to
interest on the solatium on par with interest on compensation.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on
records.
7. A perusal of the pleadings, evidence on record and the Award of
the Tribunal would show that the purpose of acquisition was to provide house
sites to Adi Dravidars and Section 4(1) notification was effected on 12.08.1988.
In paragraph-8 of the Award, the Tribunal took into consideration the oral
evidence of claimant, viz., C.W.1 and the location of the land covered by Ex.C.1
and found that the value of Ex.C.1 is relatable to the land acquired. It is
seen that Ex.C.1 property is just 150 feet away from the acquired land and it is
comprised in Survey No.181/1 of the same village. The 4(1) notification was
issued on 12.08.1988, whereas the sale under Ex.C.1 was effected as early as on
24.08.1987, i.e., one year before 4(1) notification and, therefore, no
allegation could be made against the said transaction. In any event, there was
no allegation in this regard. As far as the availability amenities are
concerned, it was noted by the Tribunal that the acquired lands are surrounded
by schools, co-operative banks on the western side of the acquired land and
Panchayat Union School, Middle School, Primary Health Centre also and it is
abutting Sivakasi Main Road on the southern side and Virudhunagar Main Road on
the northern side. Therefore, the Tribunal, noting that the location of Ex.C.1
property as Natham house site, determined the value based on that. Considering
the nature of acquisition, viz., for providing house sites, no interference can
be made with regard to reliance on Ex.C.1 for determining the value.
8. The Tribunal rightly rejected R.W.1’s evidence as well as Ex.R.1.
Though R.W.1 analyzed a number of sale deeds, many sale deeds were discarded
quoting one reason or other and items-10,15,22,31 and 61 of Ex.R.3, sale
statistics were discarded on the ground that they were natham poramboke. The
Land Acquisition Officer failed to note that the acquisition itself is for
housing and in that event, the Land Acquisition Officer should have considered
those documents also. Even R.W.1 himself admitted that the acquired land is
situate on the main road to Sivakasi and the boundary of the acquired land is
Vellore Village.
9. A conjoint reading of C.W.1 and R.W.1 and the documents would
show that the acquired land is surrounded by Schools, hospital, primary health
centre, match factories. Considering those facts only, the Tribunal fixed the
value at Rs.1,200/- per cent, even though Ex.C.1 values the land at Rs.2,400/-
per cent. Though the Tribunal did not make any deduction as per the calculation,
the Tribunal actually deducted 50% of the sale value per cent and determined
the value at Rs.1,200/- per cent. Therefore, there is no scope for interference
with regard to the determination of the value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
number of cases held that value of smaller piece of land can be taken into
consideration for determining the value of the larger extent of land after
making appropriate deductions towards development charges. In Atma Singh (died)
through L.Rs. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 709,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that value of small pieces of land can be taken
as guide to determine the market value and appropriate deductions have to be
made towards development charges. The above dictum was held in the following
cases:-
(1) Bhagwathula Samanna and Others v. Spl. Tahsildar and Land Acquisition
Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam reported in 1991(4) SCC 506.
(2) Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi reported
in AIR 1988 SC 943.
(3) H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi and Others reported in 2004(2) SCC
184.
(4) Basant Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in
1996(11) SCC 542.
Considering the development already available surrounding the adjoining land,
the Tribunal rightly deducted 50% viz., Rs.1,200/- out of Rs.2,400/-. Therefore,
the Award of the Tribunal regarding value of land is confirmed.
10. As far as the other benefits, like solatium and interest are
concerned, they are confirmed. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Sivaji, as per the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder’s case cited
supra, the solatium would attract the interest as that of the compensation. In
view of that, the claimants are entitled to 12% interest on the solatium also.
11. The common Award of the Tribunal covers 3 LAOPs., viz.,
L.A.O.P.Nos. 21 of 1990, 22 of 1990 and 23 of 1990, against which, Appeal Suit
Nos.919 of 1996, 920 of 1996 and 921 of 1996 were filed by the Government. Out
of three, A.S.No.920 of 1996 was dismissed, as the respondent died and the
Government did not take steps to bring the Legal Representatives of the
respondent on record and the appeal got abated and was subsequently dismissed.
12. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants pointed out that the above appeals arise under the common
judgment. The other two appeals (A.S.Nos.919/1996 and 921/1996) are liable to be
dismissed holding that the respondents/claimants are entitled to the Award
amount and interest on the solatium as per the Constitution Bench judgment in
Sunder’s case cited supra.
13. The learned counsel submitted that as per Section 28(A) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the same benefit should be made available to the
persons who are covered by the same 4(1) notification. It is useful to extract
Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as follows:-
“28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Court.-
(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant
any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector
under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the
same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by
the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an
application to the collector under section 18, by written application to the
Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require
that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the
basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section
(1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and
giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award
determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any persons who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may,
by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by
the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections
18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under section 18.”
14. Therefore, even though A.S.No.920 of 1996 was dismissed as
abated, as the acquired land in the above A.S. is covered by the very same
Section 4(1) notification dated 12.08.1988, the beneficiaries under the Award,
which covered A.S.No.920 of 1996, also would be entitled to interest on the
solatium also on par with other A.S.Nos.919 and 921 of 1996 as per judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001(7) SCC 221.
15. In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed
accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
SML
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.