IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.No.1106 of 2004 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Naval Air Station Project, Arakkonam, Unit-III, Arakkonam. ....Appellant Vs 1.Venugopal 2.The Defence Estate Officer, Chennai Circle, 306, Anna Salai, Chennai-9. ....Respondents Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in L.A.O.P. No.710 of 1991 dated 25.02.1999. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganeshan for R1 Mr.K.Ravindranath for R2 Senior Central Government Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T
The Appellant/Referring Officer has projected this Appeal as against the Award dated 25.02.1999 in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.
2.The Tribunal/Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet while passing the Award in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991 dated 25.02.1999 in respect of the acquired lands has determined the compensation in respect of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.450/- per cent from Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.08.1987 till date of taking possession on 13.10.1987 along with interest at 12% p.a. and has also granted 30% solatium to the enhanced compensation per cent at Rs.450/-. Moreover, it has also granted 9% interest for the difference in compensation amount from the date of taking possession viz., from 13.10.1987 till 12.10.1988 with interest at 9% p.a. and for the period from 12.10.1988 for the difference in compensation amount, interest at 15% has also been awarded.
3.The Government have acquired the lands belonging to the Respondent/Claimant in S.No.131/1 measuring an extent of 0.04 Hectares, 131/2A measuring an extent of 0.07.5 Hectares, 131/2B measuring an extent of 0.06.5 Hectares, 131/3A measuring an extent of 0.12.5 Hectares, 131/6A measuring an extent of 0.13.5 Hectares, 131/8A measuring an extent of 0.05.0 Hectares totalling an extent of 0.59.5 Hectares at Sugapuram Village, hamlet of Mosur Village, Arakkonam Taluk for the purpose of establishment of Naval Air Station nearby Arakkonam, on behalf of the Defence (Navy Department) Government of India.
4.The Government has complied with all the requisite procedural formalities to be followed in respect of the acquisition of the land. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been published on 17.08.1987. In the instant case, the Enquiry under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act has been dispensed with. Section 6 Draft Declaration has been approved by the Government as per G.O.No.1374 Public (Military) Department dated 26.08.1987 and the same was published as Notification No.III (2)/PUM/5063/b-2/87 at pages 3 and 4 of Part-II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27.08.1987. Also, the Draft Declaration has been published in Tamil Dailies viz., Dinamalar and Makkal Kural on 07.09.1987. Further more, the substance of the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has also been published on 08.09.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a sum of Rs.160/- per cent while determining the market value of the land and granted statutory benefits as per the Act in his Award No.2/88 dated 11.04.1988. The Respondent/Claimant has objected to the Award of compensation of Rs.32,409.05. Hence at his instance, the Appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter before the Tribunal viz., the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet for enhancement of compensation.
5.Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant, the witness Claimant C.W.1 has been examined and Exs.C1 to C4 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Referring Officer, RW1 has been examined and Exs.R1 to R6 have been marked.
6.The Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Ranipet on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has determined the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land at Rs.450/- per cent while granting other statutory benefits (less the amount already withdrawn).
7.Feeling aggrieved against the Award passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, the Appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has projected this Appeal as an aggrieved person before this Court.
8.The point that arises for rumination in this Appeal is:
Whether the Award dated 25.02.1999 in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991 passed by the Tribunal/Learned Sub Judge, Ranipet in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.450/- per cent is a valid and sustainable one in the eye of law?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
9.According to the Learned Special Government Pleader(AS), the Award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case and as a matter of fact, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly at Rs.450/- per cent in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
10.It is the further contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) that the burden of proof is on the Respondent/Claimant and in the instant case on hand, the Tribunal has failed to consider the location, Tharam and undevelopedness of the acquired lands on the date of Section 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
11.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) submits that the Tribunal is not correct in increasing the value of structures.
12.The core contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) is that the trial Court has fixed the market value of the land per cent at Rs.450/- per cent which is unreasonable and an excessive one and in this regard, the trial court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence let in the case in the proper manner which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice.
13.At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that fixing of compensation is not an exact science. Indeed, the Tribunal in order to determine the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land has to take note of two things i) what is to be valued? ii) the measure of value?
14.The potentialities of the land like Advantages which the land has, present or future in the hands of an owner will have to be taken into account as per decision CEDARS RAPIDS MANUFACTURING AND POWER COMPANY V. LACOSTE, 1914 AC 569.
15.One cannot brush aside an important fact that a land is to be valued not merely by reference to the use to which it is being put but also by reference to the use which it is reasonably capable of being put in future subject of course to the limitation provided under Section 24 of the Act as per decision V.S.SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR V. STATE OF MADRAS, AIR 1953 Madras 943.
16.While determining the quantum of compensation, an essential duty is cast upon a Court of law but award a just, fair and equitable compensation. The compensation/price to be determined is what a willing vendor or a purchaser would offer to buy or sale the property at a particular price.
17.On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991 dated 25.02.1999, it transpires that the Learned Government Advocate has informed the Tribunal that in the irrigated punja land situated at Puliyamangalam, already in L.A.O.P. No.729 of 1991, per cent a sum of Rs.450/- has been awarded. The acquired lands of the Respondent/Claimant are situated in Sugapuram village, hamlet of Mosur Village, Arakkonam Taluk as made mention of by the Respondent/Claimant in his claim statement.
18.The Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would submit that already this Court in A.S.No.193 of 2001 by the Judgment dated 18.07.2008 has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Referring Officer and thereby confirmed the Award passed by the Tribunal.
19.At this stage, the Learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) cites the Judgment of this Court in A.S.No.193/2001 dated 18.07.2008 in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 wherein it is observed as follows:
“..6.The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court’s assessment of compensation from Rs.170/- per cent to Rs.510/- per cent is justifiable and proper.
7.At the outset itself, the Learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) would submit that already this Court vide Judgment dated 13.08.2007 passed in A.S.No.881 of 2006 and etc., batch, disposed of similar matters fixing the compensation at Rs.750/- per cent.
8.Perused the Judgment dated 13.08.2007 and it reveals that already in similar matters the Division Bench of this Court assessed the value per cent in a sum of Rs.750/-. Here, the Reference Court assessed the compensation only in a sum of Rs.510/-, which warrants no interference. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.”
20.As far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal/the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet has taken note of the Award passed in L.A.O.P.No.729 of 1991 wherein the market value of the land per cent has been fixed at Rs.450/- in respect of the irrigated punja land and accordingly, in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991, the Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ranipet has determined the compensation at Rs.450/- per cent with statutory benefits, etc.,
21.It is pertinent for this Court to make a significant mention that the Respondent/Claimant has preferred A.S.No.1228 of 2004 before this Court as against the Award in L.A.O.P.No.710 of 1991 dated 25.02.1999 praying for an enhanced compensation and this Court in its Judgment on 23.07.2010 has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent/Claimant without costs holding that the Appellant/ Claimant (Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.1106 of 2004) is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.750/- per cent (in respect of the acquired lands) together with all statutory dues calculated on the said amount.
22.At this stage, this Court refers to Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners’ Fees Rules, 1973 which enjoins as follows:
R.12. (1) In the High Court in appeals from original or appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property, or for land or other immovable property of any description, fees are payable on the same scales under Rule 3(2)(b).
Provided that when the appeal is compromised, settled withdrawn or dismissed for default (a) before the appeal gets into the ready board, the fee shall be one-fourth of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) and (c) after the appeal stands on the ready board the fee shall be one-half of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) subject to this, in all the above cases, the minima prescribed in Rule 14 shall apply:
(Provided further that when the appeal is from an award or from any part of an award of a Court in a land acquisition case, as between the collector and the claimant or claimants the maximum fee shall be Rs.2,000.00.)
(2) When the amount or value of the claim in the appeal exceeds Rs.2,000 an additional fee calculated at one-third of the fee allowable under clause (1) shall be payable to junior Practitioner engaged with a senior Practitioner:
Provided that the junior was on record at least from the last of the dates fixed for the appearance of the respondent.
Provided further that in any case, where a juniors’ fee is payable under this rule or under Rule 19, the Court shall have a discretion to fix that fee at half the seniors’ fee instead of one-third.
(3) The fees for the junior legal practitioner for settling of documents for translation and or printing in first appeals shall be a minimum of Rs.25 and a maximum of Rs.50 subject to the discretion of the taxing officer.”
23.On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court fixes the fees of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) as per Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners’ Fees Rules, 1973.
24.In view of the fact that the Appeal A.S.No.1228 of 2004 filed by the Respondent/Claimant as an Appellant claiming enhancement of compensation other than the one fixed by the Tribunal in L.A.O.P.N.710 of 1991 as per Award dated 25.02.1999 has been allowed by this Court by the Judgment on 23.07.2010 increasing the market value of the acquired land per cent from Rs.450/- to Rs.750/- along with statutory benefits, as a logical corollary this Court dismisses the Appeal A.S.No.1106 of 2004 filed by the Appellant/Referring Officer as devoid of merits.
25.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.11.2010 INDEX :YES/NO INTERNET:YES/NO VRI To The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. M.VENUGOPAL,J. vri PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN A.S.No.1106 of 2004 11.11.2010