BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27/11/2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Appeal Suit No.999 of 2003
Appeal Suit No.1000 of 2003
Appeal Suit No.1002 of 2003
and
Cross Objections Nos.12 to 14 of 2007
The Special Tahsildar,
Master Plan Complex,
Virudhunagar. .. Appellant in all appeals and
respondents in all cross objections
Vs.
1.Vijayaraman (Died)
2.V.Rajalakshmi
3.V.Rajaram
4.V.Ganesh
(R2 to R4 brought on record as Lrs.
of the dead 1st respondent vide
Order dated 20.09.2005 made in
CMP(MD)5613 to 5617/2005 by
PSJ & ZHJ) .. Respondents in A.S.999/2003 and
Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.12/2007
1.V.Alagarsami Naicker (Died)
2.A.Subbulakshmi
3.A.Perumalsamy
4.A.Solaisamy
5.A.Sellatha
6.A.Jamunarani
(R2 to R6 brought on record as Lrs.
of the dead 1st respondent vide
Order dated 20.09.2005 made in
CMP(MD)5613 to 5617/2005 by
PSJ & ZHJ) .. Respondents in A.S.1000/2003
and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.13/2007
P.Poochiammal .. Respondent in A.S.1002/2003 and
Cross Objector in Cross objection No.14/2007
Common Prayer
These appeal suits have been filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1987 made in
L.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.
Common Prayer
These Cross Objections have been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1987 made in
L.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.
!For Appellant ... Mr.So.Paramasivan
Special Government Pleader
^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Sivaji
:JUDGMENT
These appeals and cross objections are focussed as against the judgment
and decree dated 10.04.1987 made in L.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file
of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of these appeals and cross objections would run thus:
Section 4(1) Notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, dated
24.04.1985, published for acquiring a large tract of land including the land
involved in these three appeals, in connection with setting up of a Master Plan
Complex in the newly formed district viz. Virudhunagar District. After complying
with the procedural formalities, the land acquisition officer passed awards
fixing the compensation amount in favour of the land owners. Being aggrieved by
such awarding of compensation, the land owners got the matter referred under
Section 18 of the land acquisition Act. The Sub Court awarded compensation
enhancing the compensation in various matters.
4. Earlier the Government preferred appeal in A.S.No.1306 of 1989 in
respect of the land of some other owners before this Court and the learned
Single Judge of this Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at Rs.1,200/-
per cent considering various aspects. Subsequently several sets of appeals were
filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this court which was seized of
the matter by its judgment dated 29.04.2002 passed orders confirming the
valuation arrived at by the single Judge and awarded Rs.1,200/- per cent at
flat rate in respect of land covered under all the 4(1) notifications ranging
from 28.03.1985 to 31.08.1985. The present appeals are relating to the Section
4(1) notification dated 24.04.1985 relating to the part of that large tract of
land. The Subordinate Court on reference relating to these three matters,
enhanced the compensation amount from RS.30/- per cent to Rs.200/- per cent
relying on Ex.A1 the sale deed dated 17.06.1983 ignoring the other sale deeds
Ex.A2 to A5 which refer to higher value.
5. The land acquisition officer preferred these three appeals aggrieved by
the enhancement of compensation from Rs.30/- per cent to Rs.200/- per cent.
Where as the land owners filed cross objections expressing their grievance that
on par with the earlier Division Judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2002, the
compensation should be enhanced and fixed at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per cent.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation of
Rs.200/- per cent has to reduced or it has to be enhanced to a tune of
Rs.1,200/- per cent?
7. Point: The learned counsel for the land owners placing reliance on the
decision of this Court dated 29.04.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court would highlight that even though the Sub Court awarded a compensation
ranging from Rs.200/- per cent to Rs.1,600/- per cent, the Division Bench of
this Court held that there should not be any discrimination in awarding
compensation to the land owners and it could be at the flat rate of Rs.1,200/-
per cent, irrespective of the fact that whether the land is nearer to the
National Highway or away from the National Highway. I am of the considered view
that when a vast tract of land is acquired and that too for a common purpose,
discrimination need not be there. In these circumstances, the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR v. The State of West
Bengal reported in Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition (1994-2004)
Volume II page No.2053. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
“5. We are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for application of
the belting method. The acquisition was of land on which a film studio stood.
The acquisition was for the purposes of the film studio. It was a compact block
of land which was acquired for a specific purposes. The land was not acquired
for development into small plots where the value of plots near the road would
have a higher value whilst those further away from may have a compact blocks is
acquired the belting method would not be correct method.”
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would agree with the facts
highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the
applicability of the previous judgment of this Court pronounced on 29.04.2002
for this case also. An excerpt from it could rightly be extracted hereunder for
ready reference.
“4. Now let us proceed to decide the value of the lands with reference to
category no.1 referred to supra.
These lands are more or less similar and similarly placed when compared to
S.No.23 which was the subject matter in A.S.No.1306 of 89 etc. A.S.No.1306 of 89
etc., came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated
12.11.1998 fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,200/- per cent after deducting
1/3rd of Rs.1,800/- on the ground that the area acquired is large when compared
to four sale transactions. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as
against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.1998, none of
the parties have approached the higher forum. In fact, this Bench disposed of
another batch of appeals i.e., A.S.Nos.187 to 189 of 1992 and in those appeals,
this bench referred and placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in A.S.No.1306 of 89 etc.
In A.S.No.1306 of 89, the learned Single Judge has referred to four sale
transactions. On 25.7.84, two sales were effected in respect of an area of 4.96
cents in each case in S.No.53/3A for a consideration of Rs.9,000/-. The average
price per cent works out to Rs.1,800/-. The third sale transaction was on
27.7.84 under which an extent of 5.97 cents in S.No.53/1 was sold for a price of
Rs.10,800/-, which would also work out to Rs.1,800/- per cent. On 8.8.94, yet
another sale transaction was concluded, wherein an extent of 5 1/2 cents in
S.No.60/1 was sold for Rs.8,500/- (i.e.) at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per cent.
Considering all these four sale transactions, the learned Single Judge thought
it fit to fix the value of the land per cent at Rs.1,800/- with reference to
Survey No.23 and out of which deducted 1/3rd on the ground that the area
acquired is larger in the respective cases when compared to the said data sales.
We are in entire agreement with the reasons given and the conclusions arrived at
by the learned Single Judge. In other words, we are of the view that for the
lands which would come under category no.1, the compensation payable can be
fixed at Rs.1,200/- per cent. The following appeals would come under category
no.1.
A.S.Nos.327/88, 330/88, 858/88, 859/88, 1280/88, 1312/88, 169/89, 170/89,
171/89, 172/89, 173/89, 174/89, 354/90, 423/90, 498/96, 500/96, 503/96, 855/96,
87/97 & 280/97.
5. With reference to category no.2, the lands that are acquired are rather
smaller in extent, in fact much less than one hectare. Learned counsel for the
claimants/land owners contended that in view of the fact that the land owners
purchased the property for their personal use probably for construction of
residential houses, more compensation may be awarded. Learned counsel would
further elaborately submit that it is an accepted fact that smaller extent will
fetch proportionately more price. We do see some substance in the said
submission. But at the same time, it has to be remembered that the properties
concerned in all the above appeals, referred to in this category, are situated
not close to the National Highway. To put differently, these lands are situated
away from the National Highway No.7 when compared to the lands which would come
under category no.1. The supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 1576 (Bhag Singh v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh) and AIR 1988 SC 1652 (Chimanlal v. Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona) has ruled that the Court while fixing compensation
has to necessarily has to do some guess work and strike at a balance and for
that purpose, it has to draw a balance sheet to consider plus and minus factors.
As far as the present case is concerned, it is true that the area concerned in
each of the appeals is smaller in extent. But it has to be borne in mind that
there is a minus factor i.e., the lands are away from the National Highway, when
compared to the lands referred to in category no.1. This minus factor
neutralises the plus factor. Or in other words, the Court has to fix the
compensation payable at the same rate (i.e.) Rs.1,200/- per cent in respect of
lands under this category as well. The lands that would fall under this
category are the subject matter in the appeals i.e., A.S.Nos.840 to 844/87,
143/88, 1191/89, 328/88, 329/88, 331/88 to 335/88, 724/88, 725/88, 776/88 to
785/88, 787/88, 857/88, 941/88 to 943/88, 945/88 to 952/88, 530/99, 985/88 to
992/88, 1025/88 to 1038/88, 1281/88 to 1287/88, 1313/88, 1314/88, 167/89,
168/89, 223/89 to 228/89, 233/89, 274/89 to 285/89, 477/89, 481/89, 272/90,
273/90, 280/90 to 288/90, 332/90 to 338/90, 342/90, 343/90, 353/90, 375/90 to
393/90, 421/90, 422/90, 424/90 to 426/90, 595/90 to 604/90, 1240/90, 1283/90,
1349/90, 221/91, 79/92, 508 to 510/96.
At this juncture, we have to mention that we are rejecting the contention
of the learned counsel that with reference to the lands concerned in A.S.Nos.64
to 67 of 94, higher value has to be fixed for the reason that those lands are in
Kottaipatti village, which is comparatively nearer to Virudhunagar town and on
the ground that no evidence has been let in by the land owners about the exact
location as to whether they are nearer to the National Highway or situated
interior. Hence, these appeals A.S.64 to 67/94 also will come under the second
category.”
It is therefore crystal clear that in respect of vast track of land covered by
those notifications, the Division Bench of this Court awarded at the flat rate
of Rs.1,200/- per cent.
9. Hence, I am of the considered view that the appeals are liable to be
dismissed and the cross objections are liable to be allowed by fixing the quantum at the rate of
Rs.1,200/- per cent. I would like to make it clear that Rs.1,200/- was arrived
at after deducting 1/3rd from the original value of Rs.1,800/- fixed by the
Division Bench towards development charges. All other statutory entitlements
shall follow.
10. In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the cross objections
are allowed and the respective awards of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur,
shall stand modified by reassessing the land value at the net rate of Rs.1,200/-
per cent. All other statutory entitlements shall follow. In other aspects the
award shall hold good. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.