BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 24.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.864 of 1998 1.Union of India rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Pondicherry. 2.The Deputy Collector (Rev) cum - Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal. .. Appellants / Respondents Vs. I.Kunjithapatham .. Respondent / Claimant Prayer:-This appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the decree and judgment dated 19.08.1998 in LAOP.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. For Appellants: Mr.R.Natrajan, Additional Government Pleader, Pondicherry For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajendaran, Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the judgment in LAOP.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.
2.The Government of Pondicherry have acquired 12 acres 76 Ares 00 Ca of land in Kelaiyur Village of Karaikal Taluk comprised in S.Nos.56/1, 56/2, 56/3, 56/4, 56/5, 56/6, 57/1, 57/2, 57/3, 57/4, 57/5, 57/6, 57/7, 71/1, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 74, 75/2, 75/3, 76/4, 76/5 & 76/6 for the purpose of setting up a Gas Power Plant by Electricity Department, Kariakal, at Kelaiyur Village.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities, had published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in the Gazette on 22.05.1991. On the basis of the data land, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.5,250/- per Are for the dry land and at Rs.3,200/- per Are for the wet land acquired by the Government for the purpose of setting up Gas Power Plant by electricity department at Kelaiyur Villat in Karaikal. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objections before him, which was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act.
4.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondents, the Special Tahsildar Mr.S.Nagarajan was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked. After scanning the evidence both oral and documentary and after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 sale deeds taking into consideration the potentiality of the lands acquired and having come to the conclusion that the lands that were sold under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in the year 1990 ie., before the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the lands acquired by the Government are similar in nature, has raised the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.3,200/- per Are to Rs.4,000/- per Are. Aggrieved by the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Government has preferred this appeal.
5.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader confined his argument only regarding of deduction in respect of developmental charges. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that admittedly the lands acquired are not well developed one and are used for agricultural purposes and the Government had acquired the land for setting up Gas Power Plant for the Electricity Department and for that lot of improvements to be made in the lands by the Government and towards that some deduction ought to have been made by the Land Acquisition Tribunal while awarding the compensation. In support of this contention the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely on 2008(2) CTC 171 (The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vridhachalam Vs. Sornambal @ Sornasundari an another). The short facts of the above said ratio are that about 2.63 acres of land in R.S.No.24/3 and 1 acre 37 cents of land in R.S.No.24/6 in Budhamur Village, Vridhachalam, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of providing house sites for houseless dhobies and barbers. But the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.90/- per cent (9026 per Acre). On appeal the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced and fixed the compensation at Rs.700/- per cent. Both the Government as well as the claimants have preferred appeal and cross-objection respectively before this Court. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Government in that case would contend that atleast 25% deduction should be made from the compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- per acre (Rs.700/- per cent) towards development charges. Relying on a ratio decidendi in AIR 2004 SC 2006 (Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another), this Court has allowed 20% deduction towards development charges.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would also based his reliance for the same proposition of law on 2005(9) SCC 594 (Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Ramanjulu and others), and would contend that in a case where lands were acquired by the Government for expansion of industrial estate, the Honourable Apex Court has held that 15% deduction towards development charges to be made. In the said case also both the claimants as well as Land Acquisition Officer have preferred appeal before the Honourable Apex Court. In that case, the learned Government Advocate for the Land Acquisition Officer before the Honourable Apex Court has contend that there was no material placed before the Court to show as to what should be the rate of escalation in price and that 20% escalation given is not justified and that while determining the market value of the land acquired, they being agricultural land, proper deduction should have been made towards developmental charges. Accepting the contention of the learned Government Advocate for the Land Acquisition Officer, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:-
“Admittedly, the lands acquired are agricultural lands. It is on record that these lands have potentialities for conversion into house sites. They are acquired for the third phase of expansion of industrial estate. In these circumstances, certain amount has to be deducted towards developmental charges. Ordinarily, one-third deduction towards developmental charges would be made, but in these cases, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly taking note of the fact that the lands are acquired for expansion of industrial estate, that too for the third phase, and also taking note of the fact that the lands acquried are levelled lands adjoining to developed lands for Phase I and Phase II of industrial estate, we think it is just and appropriate to deduct fifteen per cent towards developmental charges.”
In the case on hand also the lands acquired are both dry and wet lands and the Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the compensation at Rs.4,000/- per Are on the basis of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, under which agricultural lands were sold. The Government has acquired the lands from the claimants taking into consideration that they are fit to set up Gas Power Plant for the Electricity Department. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would contend that the lands acquired by the Government in this LAOP are all wet lands and that necessary developmental measures are to be taken to make the land fit for setting up Gas Power Plant for the Electricity Department. Under such circumstances, applying the same yardstick taken by the Honourable Apex Court in 2005(9) SCC 594 (Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Ramanjulu and others), I hold that 15% deduction is to be made towards developmental charges from the compensation amount of Rs.4,000/- per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
8.The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that for the first time before this Court the appellants-Government have raised the point that some deduction shall be given in the award amount towards developmental charges. But even in the ratio decidendi relied on before this Court the stand of deduction towards developmental charges has been raised only before the appellate Court ie., before the High Court as well as before the Apex Court and the same was considered for the first time before the appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent holds no water.
9.In fine, the appeal is allowed in part and the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, is modified and the compensation for the land acquired by the Government is fixed as Rs.3,400/- per Are instead of Rs.4,000/- per Are as fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The claimant is entitled to the said compensation amount of Rs.3,200/- per Are with solatium, interest on solatium and additional compensation as permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. It is seen from the Order of this Court in CMP.No.19693 of 1998 in A.S.No.864/1998 the entire award amount (as per the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal) was deposited before the Tribunal and that the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount without furnishing any surety. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the balance from out of the remaining 50% of the award amount in deposit after adjusting the same with the present award amount passed in this appeal with accrued interest.
ssv
To,
The Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry