IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
A.S.No.197 of 2006
The Sub Collector,
South Arcot Vallalar District,
Cuddalore. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Abbas
2.Panruti Municipality,
rep. By its Commissioner,
Panruti.
(R2 impleaded vide order dt.9.4.2008
in CMP No.635 of 2008) .. Respondents
This appeal suit has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti in LAOP No.45 of 1996 dated 29.07.2004.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS)
for appellant and also for R-2
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar
Mr.P.Venkateswaran for R-1
- - - -
JUDGMENT
Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for appellant and the second respondent and Mr.R.Sunilkumar, learned counsel appearing for first respondent. Pleadings set were printed and circulated. Original records were summoned from the court below and were examined.
2.This is an appeal filed by the Sub Collector, South Arcot District, Cuddalore against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Panruti made in LAOP No.45 of 1996, dated 29.7.2004.
3.The grievance of the appellant was that the court below had erred in increasing the compensation from Rs.1.95/- per sq. ft. to Rs.16.79 per sq.ft. and hence it was alleged that it was in complete violation of the guidelines issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The lands of the respondent in RS.No.44/4A to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares situated at Vadakailasam, Panruti Taluk were acquired for expansion of Panruti Municipal Bus stand. The Referring Officer awarded at the rate of Rs.85106/- per acre with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification, dated 10.1.1982, by an award in Award No.1/85. The land owner claimed that the compensation awarded was very inadequate. The matter was referred to the Reference Court.
4.The stand of the land owner was that the lands are situated next to the bus stand, which is already in existence and located amidst developed residential and commercial area. Further, schools, hospitals and Government offices are nearby. It is on the main road from Cuddalore to Chittoor and that nearer to the lands, there are various Government offices including Magistrate Court, Police station and community hall. The market value was on the basis that it was a dry land. But its potential and commercial value was not taken into account.
5.However, this was resisted by the appellant State stating that the compensation was correctly fixed. Before the court below, on the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined including himself and four documents were filed. On the side of the appellant, four documents were filed and one Ramachandran was examined. The court below held that purpose of acquisition was to expand the bus stand. The data land value produced cannot be accepted as it was a sale between the father and son and subsequently, additional stamp duty was paid on the registration. The land was situated right inside the Panruti Municipal limit. There is no further improvement required in the land. There are commercial complex and that the main road is situated next. Therefore, Ex.B.2 cannot be the only basis. On the other hand, Exs.A.1 to A.3, sale deeds are having close proximity to the value of the adjacent land acquired. In fact, as per Ex.A.1, sale deed obtained by the Sourth Arcot Central Cooperative Bank for purchasing the vacant land, if it is taken into account, it comes to Rs.16.79 per sq.ft. Therefore, that was taken as basis for arriving at compensation. It is as against the same, this appeal was filed.
6.Considering the fact that the land was already a developed land and adjacent to it, already exists a bus stand, which is in operation, it cannot be said that the court below had made any exorbitant increase. But, it had taken into account the potential value of the land and its locational advantage. Further, the land did not require any further improvement as admitted by R.W.1.
7.It must be noted that the Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Sangunthala Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 has laid down factors to be determined in awarding compensation. In paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34, it was observed as follows:
“24.In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the RWs is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future.
25.The other important factor is the proximity of the plots to two residential colonies i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on record that Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to conclude that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonies.
26.It should also be taken into consideration that the disputed lands were situated near the factory premises and further were adjoining the main road which connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaid lands are potential house sites.
…..
34.In view of the admitted case that the lands acquired were potential house sites we do not agree with the views taken by the High Court while calculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are the two sale deeds containing particulars of the sale transactions held three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court after close perusal of the aforesaid documents held that the same disclose that out of more than 100 sales, a number of sales in respect of the lands were sold as house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village and the adjacent survey numbers in Thekkampatty Village were also sold as house sites.”
8.In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the court below. Hence the appeal suit will stand dismissed. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs.
06.07.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Panruti.
2.The Commissioner,
Panruti Municipality,
Panruti.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN A.S.No.197 of 2006 06.07.2010