BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.75 of 2008 A.S.Nos.76 to 86 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2 of 2008 in A.S.Nos.75 to 86 of 2008 A.S.No.75 of 2008 The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition, Air Force Station, Thanjavur. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs 1.Pavunammal ... Respondent No.1/
Claimants
2.The Defence Estate Officer,
Madras Circle,
306, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018 … Respondent No.2/
Beneficiary
Prayer in A.S.No.75 of 2008
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment
and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.229 of 1997 dated 22.11.2006 by the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur.
!For Appellant … Mr.So.Paramasivam,
Additional Govt. Pleader
^For Respondent No.1 … Mr.G.Karnan
For Respondent No.2 … Mr.M.K.Ramakrishnan
:COMMON JUDGMENT
A.S.No.75 of 2008 has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree
passed in L.A.O.P.No.229 of 1997 dated 22.11.2006 by the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur and accordingly, other appeals
have also been filed with the prayers respectively.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run
thus:
The publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act were made as under:
Sl.No.
A.S.Nos.
R.C.No.
Date of 4(1) Notification
Award No.& Dated
Land Value Fixed by the FTC-1, Thanjavur.
(Per Cent)
1.
75 to 78/08
65/91
12.08.1992
5/91 – 05.10.1994
Rs.1,000/-
2.
79 & 80/08
37/91
08.07.1992
5/2004 – 15.07.1994
Rs.1,000/-
3.
81 to 86/07
72/91
09.09.1992-
11/1994 – 21.10.1994
Rs.1,000/-
for acquiring a vast tract of a land for setting up Air Force Station at
Thanjavur. Consequently, necessary steps were taken as per law for acquiring
the lands and ultimately, the relevant awards emerged.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such passing of awards,
quantifying the compensation various references under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, have been made to the learned Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Court No.I, Thanjavur. Consequently, the learned Additional District
Judge assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the compensation
to the tune of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per cent in L.A.O.P.No.229
to 231, 244, 336, 344, 363 to 365, 367, 368 and 376 of 1997 from the one
assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals
before this Court and this Court vide judgments dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519
and 520 of 1999 and in A.S.Nos.416 to 418 of 1999, confirmed the judgment of the
learned Sub Judge in assessing the value of the land at Rs.1,176/- per cent
ultimately. The Government preferred Special Leave Petitions vide Nos.24578-
24579 of 2004 before the Honourable Apex Court and in that the Honourable Apex
Court passed order as under:
” … Mr.N.N.Goswamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge
the statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make
it apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by
consent, there are large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum
awarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court. Those
matters are still pending before the High court and if the same principle of
valuation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. His
contention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before
the High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which sale deed
had been produced as Annexure A-9, as an exemplar as well as the lands subject
matter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the Court
must value the land acquired having regard to its value applying the statutory
guidelines. Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed
is produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value. The value of such
lands may be more or less depending upon their potentiality and location and
having regard to other relevant considerations which the court has to keep in
mind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
We appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and,
therefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court,
it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the Award of the Reference Court
of such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned
judgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent.”
5. These appeals pending before this Court were not the subject matter of
the Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Apex Court. The Government by
way of precaution made representation before the Honourable Apex Court and got
direction as aforesaid that what the High Court decided on the earlier cited
judgments need not be followed as precedents for deciding the present appeals.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents/land owners would submit that
the present appeals cannot be treated as a separate group from that of the
appeals decided as per the aforesaid cited judgments of the High Court and that
there should not be any discrimination among the equals.
7. The perusal of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would
demonstrate that it is not a mere decision of the Honourable Apex Court on facts
concerning a different type of case, but specifically in relation to existing
appeals now under consideration before this Court, such directions were issued
to the effect that these appeals shall be dealt with independently de hors the
judgments passed by this Court earlier as cited supra. Hence, in such a case,
this Court has to make an independent approach in these appeals.
8. Accordingly, heard both sides.
9. The Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals on the following main
grounds:
The lower Court committed an error in fixing the market value on Sq. ft
basis, even though, the lands acquired are situated at Panchayat limit. The
land value should not be assessed on cent basis also. The lower Court relied on
sample sale deeds relating to smaller extent of lands sold for exorbitant price.
There is nothing to show that the house plots sold under the sale deeds were
relied on by the claimants. Those sale deeds were not proved by examining the
vendor and the vendee concerning those sale deeds. The Reference Court has not
properly made deductions towards development charges. The charge has not
followed the belt system also. A mere reading of grounds of appeal would
clearly demonstrate that the Land Acquisition Officer never adverted to the fact
that the property is situated in a developing area.
10. At this juncture, I would like to highlight that the grounds of appeal
are one sided as they are oblivious to the existing facts and situations which
prevailed at the time of the Land Acquisition in this case and the fact that the
large mass of land was acquired en block for setting up Air Force Station.
11. The gist and kernel of the earlier approach by this Court was to the
effect that the Court took into account Ex.C.14, the sale deed dated 01.03.1991
executed by one Balusamy in favour of Dhanalakshmi, in R.S.No.168/8 tranferring
an extent of 2,400 sq.ft as a plot for a sum of Rs.10,800/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
and Eight Hundred only). In other words as per Ex.C.14, the land to an extent
of one cent was valued at Rs.1,960/- and out of that 40% was deducted towards
development charges and the land value was arrived at Rs.1,176/- per cent and
consequently, the awards were passed with usual statutory entitlements.
12. The topo sketch relating to the entire land concerned marked in
different colours, was relied on by both sides to highlight the location and
other features. In fact, Ex.C.14, which was taken as a basic document for
assessing the value and passing the award, is situated in S.No.168 just some
what nearer to the Thanjavur – Pudukkottai State Public Highway. The said
Ex.C.14, is obviously dated 01.03.1991 whereas in the same year, Section 4(1)
notifications were made as aforesaid. As such, there is some force in the
contention of the learned Government Pleader that Ex.C.14 might have been
emerged for such smaller extent purely for the purpose of getting higher
compensation.
13. Furthermore, I am of the view that Ex.C.14 is referred to a smaller
extent referring as plot, but the area intended to be acquired is a vast piece
of agricultural land for Air Force Station at Thanjavur. Hence, in such a case,
the normal rule is that when a sale deed referring to a similar extent of plot
is taken as sample one with regard to the vast agricultural land, some reduction
should be made from that sample value. Since there is weighty objections put
forth on the Government side as against Ex.C.14, I am of the considered opinion
that Ex.C.13, the sale deed dated 13.03.1989 which emerged almost two years
anterior to such Section 4(1) notifications, could be relied on. Keeping these
factors in mind, on scrutiny of records, it is found that among the documents
already marked, Ex.C.13 dated 13.03.1989 appears to be a document which would be
beyond controversy for the reason that it emerged almost two years anterior to
Section 4(1) notifications. Hence, on the side of the Government, there cannot
be any objection to it as though it is a cooked up document for getting higher
compensation.
14. Ex.C.13, relates to the sale of a plot of 2,400 sq.feet for a sum of
Rs.9,600/- so to say, at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft in the S.No.168/1 which
forms part of the vast land acquired and accordingly, if worked out as per
Ex.C.13, the value per cent of land would come to Rs.1,744/- (Rupees One
Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Four only). As such two years had elapsed after
the emergence of Ex.C.13 and then only, Section 4(1) notifications emerged. It
is therefore clear that during the year 1991, the value of the land in all
probabilities might have got escalated. A mere perusal of the sketch and the
relevant available records speaks that it is a fast developing area.
Considering the purpose of acquisition for setting up the Air Force Station,
having the entire land as the one block, there need not be any discrimination
relating to the various portions of the same one block of land. It is also
evident and obvious that the land acquired had the potentiality of becoming
plots as the sample sale deeds filed on the side of the claimants itself would
demonstrate the same. The fact also remains that Tamil University is already
existing in the vicinity and the National Highway namely Thanjavur – Pudukkottai
road is cutting across the huge mass of land acquired by the Government under
these land acquisition proceedings.
15. The Sub Court in its common judgment relied on the earlier judgment of
this Court dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519 and 520 of 1999, in fixing the value
at Rs.1,17,000/- per acre in connection with the appeals filed by some land
owners relating to the same area which happened to be the subject matter of one
and the same set of notification.
16. The Sub Court relied on Ex.C.3, the copy of the judgment of this Court
dated 23.03.2001. De hors that, independently the Sub Court also gave its
finding that the land acquired is in a developing area as the State Highway is
running across the said land; Tamil University is situated very near to it and
the Tamil Nadu Paddy Research Institute are all situated. This Court in the
judment dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519 and 520 of 1999, at paragraph No.7 held
as under:
“7. It is evident from a perusal of the records that Tamil University,
Paddy Processing Research Centre, Thanjavur Textiles, Tantex, Kamala Subramaniam
Matriculation School and the present Air Force Station, apart from other
residential areas are very nearer to the acquired lands which situate in the
main road referred to above. The said facts would lead to conclude that there
is potentiality for the acquired lands from the claimants, by the Government of
Tamil Nadu. The market value has to be arrived at not only taking into
consideration of the potentiality of the land but also the purpose for which the
said lands were acquired. As already pointed out, the piece of land sold under
Ex.A.9 dated 01.03.1991 had fetched Rs.4.50 per square foot.”
17. The Land Acquisition Officer also in the counter filed before the Sub
Court would state that the aforesaid Institutions along with Matriculation
Schools and Industrial Workers Quarters are all situated about 2 – 3 Kms away
from the land acquired and that the land acquired is situated 5 Kms from the
Thanjavur Municipal area. Even assuming for argument sake, what the Land
Acquisition Officer has stated is true, a distinction is sought to be made by
the Land Acquisition Officer relating to the land acquired from the developed
area cannot be treated as adverse factors. The land acquired is a vast tract of
land and in such a case, the developed areas which are allegedly 2 – 3 Kms away
from the land acquired, cannot be taken as adverse factors. Thanjavur
Municipality is situated with 5 Kms and that should be taken as a plus point in
favour of the appellant and not an adverse one.
18. The Sub Court as well as the High Court clearly and categorically
pointed out that the sample deeds relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for
assessing the market value are having no proximity to the land acquired and that
the fixation of Rs.220/- per cent was totally without any basis. The alleged
thirty sample sale deeds which emerged within three years anterior to Section
4(1) notifications, as per the findings of the Sub Court as well as the High
Court were not reflecting the true market value. Those thirty sale deeds as
per the earlier findings were ignored. Even during arguments before me, on the
Government side, it has not been shown as to how the value arrived at by the
Land Acquisition Officer was in order and that too ignoring the sale deeds
relied on by the claimants. As such, the increase in the value of land would
have been more during the year 1991 from that of the year 1989 to which Ex.C.13
relates. Robust common sense warrants to take the value for smaller extent in
the year 1989, as to yardstick for assessing larger extent in the year 1991 in
the same vicinity. If in the year 1989, the yardstick must be lesser than what
is contemplated in Ex.C.13 for assessing larger extent, but for choosing the
yardstick in the year 1991, for larger extent, no lesser amount need be taken in
view of increase in value of smaller extent. As such, accordingly if worked out,
per cent it comes to the same value of Rs.1,744/- for assessing the larger
extent in the year 1991 during which Section 4(1) notifications were published.
19. Both sides are not in a position to point out that there are other
sale deeds in the same vicinity which would reflect the true market value of the
land before the publication of Section 4(1) notifications. Even though there is
larger extent of land situated to the east of the said Public Highway, clinching
documents are not available and documents relating to S.No.168 situated to the
west side of the road alone are available and among those documents, Ex.C.13 is
chosen, whereas earlier Ex.C.14, was chosen by this Court while delivering
jugments as aforesaid and that turned out to be no more precedent in view of the
direction of the Honourable Apex Court as set out supra.
20. This Court is fully aware of the fact that normally sample sale deed
should relate to a land in the same vicinity and near the place where the lands
are acquired. Here, all the aforesaid notifications were published relating to
one block of land for setting up Air Force Station and in such a case, taking
into account the purposes of acquisition, i.e., only one purpose, one of the
same type of valuation can be taken up and there need not be any discrimination.
In fact, the land in S.No.168 forms part of the aforesaid Section 4(1)
notifications. Hence, in such a big mass of land, when the area covered under
the sample sale deed Ex.C.13 has also been acquired as part of the larger area,
then there cannot be any plausible objection.
21. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the claimants would cite
the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in K.Periasami v. Sub Tehsildar (Land
Acquisition) reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 180 and develop his
argument to the effect that there should not be any discrimination in awarding
the compensation between two Benches of the same High Court. Such an argument
cannot be countenanced in view of the order of the Honourable Apex Court in
Special Leave Petition Nos.24578-24579 of 2004, referred to supra.
22. The learned Counsel for the claimants could cite 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 the correct method.”
As such, it is clear that the aforesaid observations made by the Honourable Apex
Court is squarely applicable to this case also.
23. The catena of decisions relating to the compensation in land
acquisition cases would mandate that the sales relating to small pieces of
lands, if they are genuine and reliable and comparable to the land acquired, the
same could be relied on. In this regard, the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1996) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 640, could rightly be relied on as cited by the learned Counsel for
the claimants. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
“3.Having given our consideration, the question that arises for
consideration is whether the High Court has committed any error of law in fixing
the compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per acre? On the principle of
deductions in the determination of the compensation, this Court in K.Vasundara
Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO [(1995) 5 SCC 426] has considered the
entire case law and has held that the Court, in the first instance, has to
consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of lands are genuine and
reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In the event the
Court finds that such sales are genuine and reliable and the lands have
comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just
and fair market value of large tracts of land. The time-lag for real
development and the waiting period for development are also relevant
consideration for determination of just and adequate compensation. Each case
depends upon its own facts. For deduction of development charges, the nature of
the development, conditions and nature of land, the land required to be set
apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water
etc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered. In
this case, the facts recorded by the High Court are that Ex.P.10 sale deed is
dependable sale but it is in respect of a small plot of land situated at a
distance of more than 1 Km. It is also found that the land in the area is not
developed and there is no development in those lands though the lands are
capable of being used for non-agricultural purpose. On those findings the High
Court held that the market value under Ex.P.10 cannot form the sole basis but
keeping in view the developments the lands are capable of fetching compensation
at the rate of Rs.56,000 after deducting 65%. For developmental charges, that
deduction between 33-1/3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court in several
judgments. In Vasundara Devi case 63% deduction was upheld. In view of the
fact that development of land would have taken years, the High Court has
deducted another 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in view the fact that the
lands under Ex.P.10 were situated at far-flung places from the lands under
acquisition and since the land takes long time for development it has given
additional deduction of 12%, i.e.53 + 12% = 65% in determination of the
compensation. On the basis of the rationale referred to above, the principle
adopted by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal. Thus considered, we
hold that there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded by
the High Court or to further increase the compensation.”
24. Relating to the deduction is concerned, previously 40% was deducted
towards the developmental charges. While the Court exercising the power to
effect deduction towards development expenditure, it should take into account
the purpose for which the land is being acquired and it has become a trite
proposition of law over which there is no controversy. For setting up the Air
Force Station, the ground should be levelled and the major part of the area
should be cemented and various other amenities should be installed before
putting that land into use as Air Force Station.
25. Hence, in this view of the matter, adhering to the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in
(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 640, I am of the considered opinion that 53% should
be deducted from the value of the land arrived at Rs.1,744/- per cent. As such,
the following formula emerges:
The value of the land acquired - Rs.1,744.00 per cent (-) 53% deduction towards development charges - Rs. 924.32 per cent --------------- The net value of the land for awarding compensation- Rs. 819.68 per cent ---------------
26. Accordingly, the net value of the land for awarding compensation after
deducting 53% towards developmental charges, is arrived at Rs.819.68/- per cent
which could be rounded to Rs.820/- per cent (Rupees Eighty Hundred and Twenty
only). Accordingly, if worked out, the net value of the land per acre would
come to Rs.82,000/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand only).
27. The claimants are also entitled to statutory entitlements over which
there is no dispute. For the enhanced amount in the award, the claimants are
entitled to get solatium as well as interest on the additional amount.
28. The learned Counsel for the claimants cited the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram v. R.S.Raveendran
reported in 2006-2-L.W.102 and an excerpt from it, would run thus:
“10.It is also relevant to note that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 makes it clear that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
are applicable to all proceedings initiated under the said Act (Land
Acquisition Act). In view of the same, it is not in dispute that Order 41, Rule
33 C.P.C. is applicable to the land acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the
appeal is also continuation of the original proceedings, the said provisions are
applicable to the appeals also and in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court as well as this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, interest is payable for
the solatium amount, and in order to render substantial justice, we accept the
request of the counsel for respondents/claimants and hold that the solatium
amount also carries interest at the same rate as applicable to the enhanced
compensation and additional amount.”
29. As such, adhering to the aforesaid decision, the claimants are
entitled to appropriate interest on the solatium as well as the additional
amount awarded. Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed of by this common
judgment. The Government shall deposit the amount in the interest of bothy sides
within a period of six months from this date. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
sj
To
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I,
Thanjavur
