The Special Tahsildhar vs Ibrahim Kalifullah …Claimant/ on 16 April, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 16/04/2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

A.S.(MD)No.73 of 2003
A.S.(MD)No.74 of 2003
A.S.(MD)No.75 of 2003
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2003
&
C.M.P.(MD)No.1073 of 2003
C.M.P.(MD)No.1074 of 2003
C.M.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2003
C.M.P.(MD)No.1076 of 2003

A.S.No.73 of 2003

The Special Tahsildhar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Pudukkottai.			        ...Referring Officer/
					     Appellant	
Vs

Ibrahim Kalifullah			...Claimant/ 			
					   Respondent


Prayer in A.S.No.73 of 2003

Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.79 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate
Judge,Pudukkottai.

A.S.No.74 of 2003

The Special Tahsildhar,
Adi Dravidar Welfar,
Pudukkottai.			        ...Referring Officer/
						      Appellant	
Vs

Raj Mohammed				...Claimant/ 				
				           Respondent


Prayer in A.S.No.74 of 2003

Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.80 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate
Judge,Pudukkottai.

A.S.No.75 of 2002

The Special Tahsildhar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Pudukkottai.				  ...Referring Officer/
					      Appellant	
Vs

Ashokkumar				...Claimant/ 					
				           Respondent

Prayer in A.S.No.75 of 2003

Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate
Judge,Pudukkottai.

A.S.No.76 of 2003

The Special Tahsildhar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Pudukkottai.			        ...Referring Officer/
						      Appellant	
-Vs-

Karuppaiah Mazhavarar			...Claimant/ 				
					   Respondent

Prayer in A.S.No.76 of 2003

Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.82 of 2000 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate
Judge,Pudukkottai.

!For Appellant
in all Appeals	... Mr.M.Rajarajan,
		   Government Advocate.
^For Respondent
in all Appeals	... No Appearance
		
		* * * * *

:COMMON JUDGMENT


	These appeals have been preferred against the  award of the Tribunal
fixing the compensation at Rs.3,564/- per cent.
	2.The facts of the case, are as follows:
	The lands comprised in Survey No.36/1 situated at Punginipatti, Illuppur
Taluk, Pudukottai District were sought to be acquired under Section 4(1)
notification dated 02-12-1999, for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi
Dravidars.  The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.600/- per cent
and it was enhanced to Rs.3,564/- per cent by the impugned award.  The said
award is being challenged before this Court by the Government.

	3.Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the
acquisition is under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Act, 1978,
by which, only 15% is required to be granted as solatium whereas, the Tribunal
awarded 30% as solatium.  Secondly, he submitted that there is no reduction
given for development charges.  In fine, he submitted that more deduction
towards development charges is warranted and 15% deduction has to be made from
30% solatium granted by the Tribunal.
	4. The respondents who were served, did not choose to appear either in
person or through their counsel.  Therefore, based on the evidence and the
materials available on record, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on
merits.
	5.Section 4(1) notification is dated 02-12-1999 and the purpose of
acquisition of land  is to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars.  The Tribunal
relied upon the admission of RW.1 that Punginipatti Village is situated in the
border of Iluppur village.  Therefore, the acquired land as well as the lands in
the Iluppur village have got same potential and advantages.  Moreover, the
Tribunal noted that the lands which are situated on the western side of the
acquired land, were already plotted out and sold to various persons.  The data
land relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is situated about half
kilometres away from the acquired land and moreover, no document with regard to
the land comprised in Survey No.46/6, data land, was produced before the
Tribunal.  Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the value of data land.
	6.Ex.P1 is the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.51/92 dated 02-01-1995 in
respect of the land comprised in Survey No.187/11. By the said award, a
compensation of Rs.1,980/- per cent was awarded.  Subsequently, for the land
comprised in Survey No.51/96, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
awarding a sum of Rs.700/- per cent as compensation and against which, an appeal
suit was filed before this Court. By order dated 26-04-2001, in A.S.No.362 of
2000 this Court determined the value at Rs.3,300/- per cent relying upon Ex.P5
dated 11.12.1991 and Ex.P7 dated 02-08-1992, filed therein  and after deducting
40% towards development charges a sum of Rs.2,000/- per cent was awarded as
compensation.  The land which is a subject matter of the above said appeal suit,
is also situated in Iluppur village which is situated closer to the land
acquired.
	7.As far as the other documents viz., Exs.P3, P4 and P5 to P10 are
concerned, they are in respect of Survey Nos.186/12,181/10, 131/13,185/12,
188/6, 181/5, 25/4 and 171/9 and they are situated in Punginipatti village.  The
Tribunal rejected Exs.P3 to P11 on the ground that they conveyed only a smaller
extent of land.  Therefore, the Tribunal relied upon Ex.P1, the award passed in
L.A.O.P.No. 51/92  dated 02-01-1995, and fixed the value.
	8.The Tribunal committed a grave error in taking the compensation of
Rs.1,980/- per cent as per Ex.P1 especially when Ex.P2  judgment passed by this
Court  in A.S.No.362 of 2004 on 26-04-2001 is available and it relates to
acquisition of land comprised in Survey Nos.159/2 and 160/4 Iluppur village.  As
per the said judgment, this Court determined the value at Rs.3,300/-.  As
already noted DW.1 himself admitted that Iluppur village and Punginipatti are
situated side by side.  Therefore, considering the location of the villages side
by side, this Court has to follow the judgment passed in A.S.No.362 of 2000
dated 26-04-2001, marked as Ex.P2.
	9.The Compensation determined by this Court in A.S.No.362 of 2000 for the
lands acquired under Section 4(1) notification dated 12-11-1994, is Rs.3,300/-
per cent relying upon Ex.P5 dated 11.12.1991 and Ex.P7 dated 02-08-1992 filed in
A.S.No.362 of 2004. After eight years, Section 4(1) notification was issued on
02-12-1999 in this case.  Therefore for the interregnum period between
11.12.1991 (date of Ex.P5 in A.S.No.362 of 2004) and Section 4(1) notification
dated 02-12-1999 viz., eight years, appreciation is required to be added to
value of Ex.P5. As per the judgment of this Court and the Honourable Supreme
Court in  V.R.Venkatesalu and others -Vs- Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme-II, Coimbatore-18 and another reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 153 each
15% has to be added as appreciation.  However, considering the nature of the
case, this Court awards 10% appreciation for eight years 80%.

	Value as per Exs.P1,P5 and
	P7 in Appeal Suit No.362 of 2000                        =Rs.3,300.00
	
	Add:Appreciation @ 10% for	)
		8 years 		)	                = Rs.2,640.00
								============

=Rs. 5,940.00
============

Therefore, the value per cent is Rs.5,940/-. Since the purpose is for providing
house sites, 30% deduction is made for development charges.

	Value determined by this Court	                        Rs.5,940.00
		Less:30% deduction  			        Rs.1,782.00
								===========
		Compensation fixed		               Rs.4,158.00
								===========

10.As rightly pointed out by Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate,
the acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars.
Therefore, as per Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan
Act, 1978, only 15% is required to be given as solatium, whereas, the Tribunal
granted 30%. Hence, the solatium is reduced to 15%.

11.The Tribunal did not award any interest on solatium. A Constitution
Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunder -Vs- Union of India reported in
2001 (7) SCC 211 granted interest on solatium on par with compensation.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium also. Except the
above modification, in all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed
and the
appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. The appellant is
directed to deposit the entire award amount before the Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter,
the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire award amount to the appellants within
a period of two weeks. Consequently, connected C.M.P.Nos.1073 TO 1076 of 2003
are dismissed.

gsr

To
The Subordinate Judge,
Pudukkottai.