{"id":267148,"date":"2009-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009"},"modified":"2014-11-10T06:26:18","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T00:56:18","slug":"the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:16\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nAppeal Suit (MD) No.247 of 1999\nAnd\nCMP (MD) Nos.7336 and 7337 of 1999 and 4147 of 2000\n\n1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   (Land Acquisition Officer),\n   Sivakasi.\n\n2.The Superintending Engineer,\n   Kamarajar Electricity Distribution Circle,\n   Virudhunagar.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\nvs.\n\nN.Janaki Ammal\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tThis Appeal is filed under Section 54<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 13.1.1999 made in LAOP No.127 of 1992 on\nthe file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.\n\t\n!For Appellants\t\t\t...  Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar,\n\t\t\t\t     Additional Government Pleader.\n^For Respondent\t\t\t...  Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer for\n\t\t\t\t     Mr.A.Sivaji.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe land of the extent of 0.48.0 hectares in Survey No.357\/3A1, Parapatti
\nVillage, Hamlet of Viswanatham Village, Sathur Taluk, Sivakasi District,
\nbelonging to the respondent herein, was acquired by the Government for the
\npurpose of upgrading the existing Electricity Sub Station. An award was passed
\nin Award No.3 of 1990 dated 26.2.1990, granting a total compensation of
\nRs.51,100\/-, comprising of Rs.17,784\/- towards value of land, Rs.17,957.50
\ntowards value of trees and the balance towards solatium etc.<\/p>\n
\t2. On a reference under Section 18<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in
\nL.A.O.P.No. 127 of 1992, the Tribunal, viz., Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, enhanced
\nthe compensation to Rs.24,26,000\/- together with solatium and interest, by a
\njudgment dated 28-4-1993. Aggrieved by such enhancement, the Referring Officer
\nas well as the beneficiary viz., the Tamilnadu Electricity Board filed an appeal
\nin A.S.No.282 of 1994, on the file of this court. Finding that the evidence of
\nPW-2 and his Report Ex.A-6, on the basis of which the Tribunal adopted the
\ncapitalisation method for arriving at the compensation, was wholly unreliable,
\nthis Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal. However, this court remitted
\nthe matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, in view of the
\nadditional documents sought to be filed by both parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. After remand, both parties let in additional evidence, oral as well as
\ndocumentary, and the Tribunal passed a fresh judgment dated 13-1-1999,
\ndetermining the compensation payable as Rs.21,72,000\/-, to be paid together with
\nsolatium and interest. It is against the said judgment that the Referring
\nOfficer and the Electricity Board have come up with the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. We have heard Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader
\nappearing for the appellants and Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. In this case, the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> of the Act, was
\napproved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2371, Public Works Department, dated
\n10.12.1987. But even before the issue of the notification, the Government took
\npossession of the land on 28.9.1987, with the consent of the
\nrespondent\/landlady. This is seen from Exx.B-5, B-6, B-7, B-29 and B-30 and this
\nfact is also admitted by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The land acquired, was of the extent of 0.48.0 hectares in Survey
\nNo.357\/3A1, in so far as the respondent herein is concerned. Another small
\nextent of land was also acquired simultaneously, but it is not the subject
\nmatter of dispute in this appeal. It is admitted by the appellants that in the
\nacquired land of the extent of 0.48.0 hectares, there were a total of 405 trees,
\nwhose break up is as follows:-<\/p>\n
\n\t(i) Coconut \t\t-\t\t65\n\t(ii) Luckknow Guava\t-\t        85\n\t(iii)Lemon\t\t-\t       135\n\t(iv)Silk Cotton\t\t-\t\t85\n\t(v) Karuvepilai\t\t-\t\t25\n\t(vi)Mathulai\t\t-\t\t10\n\t\t\t\t\t     --------\n\t\tTotal\t\t\t\t405\n\t\t\t\t\t        ====\n<\/pre>\n
Before possession was taken over, an inspection of the land was carried out by
\nthe Assistant Director of Horticulture, Srivilliputhur, on 20.1.1987. He
\nsubmitted a Report dated 2.2.1987, which was filed as Ex.B-9. This Assistant
\nDirector of Horticulture was also later examined as RW-5 on the side of the
\nReferring Officer and Beneficiary. As per Ex.B-9 and the evidence of RW-5, the
\nabove trees were more than two years old at the time of his inspection. The
\nAssistant Divisional Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board, who took possession and handed over charge, have also
\nrecorded in their Ex.B-7 Report that there were the above trees in the land in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The above break up is almost admitted by the respondent\/land owner and
\nthere is no big dispute about the number and type of trees standing on the land.
\nThe only difference in the break up given in Ex.B-9 and the break up claimed by
\nthe respondent is with respect to Silk Cotton trees. The respondent claims that
\nthe total number of Silk Cotton trees is 95 as against the number 85 given in
\nEx.B-9. Thus there is no serious dispute on the number of trees. However there
\nwas a dispute with regard to the age of those trees, their yield, the income
\nderived and the multiplier to be applied, for arriving at the market value.
\nWhile the appellants claimed that the above trees had not yet become fruit-
\nbearing at the time of taking possession, the respondent-landlady claimed that
\nthe trees were more than six years old and were fruit-bearing. Therefore the
\nrespondent wanted compensation to be paid by applying the capitalisation method.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. But the Land Acquisition Officer accepted the Reports of the Assistant
\nDirector of Horticulture and the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 2.2.1987 and
\n11.8.1987 respectively, filed as Exx.B-9 and B-32 respectively. Consequently,
\nthe Land Acquisition Officer valued the land separately on the basis of the sale
\nof comparable lands in the locality and valued the trees, on the basis of the
\nexpenditure that the landlady would have incurred, for planting, rearing and
\nnourishing the trees.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. For arriving at the market value of the land alone, the Land
\nAcquisition Officer considered the statistics relating to 486 sales transactions
\nthat happened in a period of 3 years immediately prior to the date of
\npublication of the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a>. Out of them, 22 transactions
\nwere rejected on the ground that the lands covered by them were of a soil of
\ndifferent quality and classification. 427 sale deeds were rejected on the ground
\nthat they covered small extents of land sold for house site purposes only. 25
\nsale deeds were rejected on the ground that they related to lands situate more
\nthan half a kilometer away from the acquired land. 8 sale deeds were rejected on
\nthe ground that sale deeds from nearest location are available.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Thus, 482 out of 486 sale deeds were rejected by the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer. Out of the remaining 4, 2 related to the sale of small extents for
\nhouse sites, made by the owner herself. Therefore they were also discarded. In
\nthe remaining 2 sale deeds, two portions of land in Survey No.392 had been sold
\nat the rate of Rs.37,050\/- per hectare and Rs.43,225\/- per hectare respectively.
\nSince these two sale deeds had been registered within a gap of two days (viz.,
\n5.2.1986 and 7.2.1986  respectively),   the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the
\nvaluation of Rs.37,050\/- per hectare, as per the sale deed document No.238 dated
\n5.2.1986, considered under Serial No.206 of the data sale deeds. It is relevant
\nto note here that the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer was filed as Ex.B-
\n10, the statistics relating to 486 sale deeds prepared by the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer was filed as Ex.B-11 and the sketch of the lands, acquired as well as
\nsurrounding, was filed as Ex.B-12.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. After adopting the market value of the land at Rs.37,050\/- per
\nhectare, on the basis of the sale deed dated 5.2.1986, on the ground that it
\nrelated to the land in Survey No.392, which was nearer to the acquired land in
\nSurvey No.357\/3A1, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded further to fix the
\nvalue of the trees. For the said purpose, the Land Acquisition Officer placed
\nreliance upon the Report of the Assistant Director of Horticulture,
\nSrivilliputhur, who inspected the land on 20.1.1987 and sent a Report. In his
\nReport, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, fixed the age of the trees as
\nmore than two years. Since in his opinion, the trees were not yet yielding, he
\nfixed the value of all the trees, other than Coconut trees, at Rs.29,967.50,
\nwhich included the value of the Pump Set Well of Rs.15,000\/-. The valuation of
\nthe trees, as stated earlier, was done by the Assistant Director of
\nHorticulture, by estimating the expenditure that the respondent could have
\nincurred in buying the saplings, planting them and nourishing them for a period
\nof two years. The Land Acquisition Officer found that admittedly the Well was
\nlocated outside the acquired land and hence deducted the value of the Well and
\nfixed the value of the trees as Rs.14,967.50. Then he added the value of the
\nCoconut trees estimated at Rs.2,990\/-, and fixed the value of all the trees put
\ntogether at Rs.17,957.50 {Rs.14,967.50 + Rs.2,990\/-}.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Thus, in effect, the Land Acquisition Officer estimated the value of
\nthe acquired land measuring 0.48.0 hectares at Rs.17,784\/- (at the rate of
\nRs.37,050\/- per hectare) and fixed the value of the trees at Rs.17,957.50. Then
\nhe added solatium at 30% to both the above amounts and allowed interest at 12%
\nper annum from the date of the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> {viz.,
\n26.12.1987} to the date of the Award {viz., 26.2.1990}. A total amount of
\nRs.51,100\/- was thus arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer, towards
\ncompensation payable to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the reference made under Section 18<\/a> of the Act, in LAOP No.127 of
\n1992, the landowner examined herself as PW-1 and examined the retired Director
\nof Horticulture as PW-2 and filed Exx.A-1 to A-6. The Referring Officer examined
\ntwo witnesses and filed Exx.B-1 to B-12. Placing heavy reliance upon the
\nevidence of PW-2 and the Report given by him, filed as Ex.A-6, the Tribunal held
\nthat the trees were fruit-bearing trees and that compensation had to be awarded
\nby capitalisation method. Consequently, by a judgment and decree dated
\n28.4.1993, the Tribunal fixed a compensation of Rs.9,20,000\/- for Coconut trees,
\nRs.8,17,000\/- for Silk Cotton trees, Rs.4,04,000\/- for Lemon trees,
\nRs.2,00,000\/- for Guava trees, Rs.65,000\/- for Curry leaves trees and
\nRs.20,000\/- for Pomagranate trees, totalling to a sum of Rs.24,26,000\/-. On this
\namount, the Tribunal awarded solatium of 30% and interest at varying rates.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the Referring
\nOfficer filed an appeal in A.S.No.282 of 1994 on the file of this Court. The
\nappeal was allowed by this Court by a judgment dated 9.11.1995, on the ground
\nthat the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A-6 were not reliable. However this Court
\nremitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, since the
\nparties wanted to adduce additional evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. After remand, the landowner examined one more person as PW-3 and filed
\nExx.A-7 to A-17 as additional documents. Similarly, the Referring Officer
\nexamined PWs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and filed Exx.B-13 to B-53.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Interestingly, while considering the matter afresh after remand, the
\nTribunal found that among the data lands taken up for scrutiny by the Land
\nAcquisition Officer (486 sale deeds), there were certain lands which were
\ncomparable to the acquired land and that the Land Acquisition Officer ought not
\nto have rejected them. As stated above, the land acquired was in Survey
\nNo.357\/3A1 and the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the value mentioned in the
\nsale deed relating to the land in Survey No.392 and arrived at the compensation
\nof Rs.37,050\/- per hectare. The Tribunal found this to be wrong, on the ground
\nthat the acquired land was very near Sathur-Sivakasi Road and that on the
\nNorthern side of the acquired land, there was an Electricity Sub Station. The
\nTribunal opined that the sale deeds at Serial Nos.233 and 425 of the data lands
\n(Ex.B-11) related to lands which were comparable to the acquired lands. These
\nlands were in Survey Nos.340 and 276. The land in Survey No.276, situate on the
\nEastern side of the acquired land, was valued at Rs.1,93,751\/- per hectare. The
\nland in Survey No.340 was valued at Rs.4,19,900\/- per hectare. Therefore, the
\nTribunal held that the Land Acquisition Officer was in error in not considering
\nthese sale deeds which related to the lands comparable to the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The Tribunal also took into account the fact that the landlady herself
\nhad sold two small pieces of lands in Survey No.357 itself (forming the subject
\nmatter of acquisition) under Exx.A-3 and A-4. Both Exx.A-3 and A-4 are sale
\ndeeds dated 28.8.1986 executed by the respondent-landlady. Under Ex.A-3, the
\nrespondent sold 5-1\/6 cents in Survey No.357\/3 for a value of Rs.17,500\/-.
\nTherefore the rate per hectare would work out to Rs.8,36,613\/-. Under Ex.A-4,
\nthe respondent sold 4-1\/2 cents in Survey No.357\/3 for a value of Rs.15,540\/-,
\nmaking the rate per hectare work out to Rs.8,52,973\/-. These two sale deeds were
\nconsidered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his data sheet (Ex.B-11) at Serial
\nNos.321 and 322. But the Land Acquisition Officer discarded these sale deeds on
\nthe ground that they were executed by the very same landlady for very small
\nextents of land.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Interestingly, the Tribunal agreed with the Land Acquisition Officer
\nthat the above two sale deeds (Exx.A-3 and A-4) cannot be taken as the basis,
\nsince they were executed by the landlady herself. Therefore, the Tribunal held
\nat the end of paragraph-7 of its judgment that the Land Acquisition Officer
\nshould have valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,19,900\/- per hectare,
\nby taking the sale transaction at Serial No.233 of the data sheet (Ex.B-11)
\nrelating to Survey No.340.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Having thus concluded in paragraph-7 of its judgment that the value of
\nthe land should have been taken as Rs.4,19,900\/- per hectare, the Tribunal
\ndropped that conclusion without any further discussion, but proceeded to find
\nwhether the land was a fruit-garden and how it should be valued. Therefore, the
\nfirst question that we have to consider, is whether this approach of the
\nTribunal, in resorting to the capitalisation method of evaluation, is correct or
\nnot, especially when the Tribunal found that data relating to the sale of
\ncomparable lands were very much available.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. It appears that the earliest decision that the Supreme Court rendered
\non the several alternative methods of valuation, was in The special Land
\nAcquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. T.Adinarayan Setty<\/a> {AIR 1959 SC 429}. It was
\nheld in paragraph-9 therein as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is not disputed that the function of the Court in awarding
\ncompensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the
\ndate of the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> and the methods of valuation may be
\n(1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
\ntransactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the
\nlands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years
\npurchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands
\nacquired.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The above decision was that of a three Member Bench of the supreme
\nCourt and it was followed by another three Member Bench in Smt. Tribeni Devi and
\nothers vs. Collector of Ranchi<\/a> {1972 (1) SCC 480}. However, the Supreme Court
\nalso indicated the following in paragraph-4 of its decision in Tribeni Devi’s
\ncase:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other
\nspecial circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive
\nas near as possible an estimate of the market-value. In arriving at a reasonably
\ncorrect market-value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those
\nmethods into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as
\nno two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or
\nthe potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from
\nwhich that valuation can be accurately determined.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. In The State of Madras vs. Rev. Brother Joseph<\/a> {1973 (2) SCC 504}, the
\nLand Acquisition Officer himself adopted the method of capitalising the net
\nincome at 20 years’ purchase, for valuing Coconut and Orange Topes. Therefore
\nthe Supreme Court approved of the same, without laying down as a principle of
\nlaw as to the number of years of purchase at which capitalisation should be
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Interestingly, in The State of West Bengal vs. Shyamapada<\/a> {AIR 1975 SC
\n1723}, the Supreme Court directed the application of 20 years’ annual income,
\nfor a land on which sabai grass was grown. However, it is seen from paragraph-4
\nof the said decision that the Supreme Court decided to apply the said multiplier
\nonly on account of non-availability of sale deeds regarding sales of land on
\nwhich sabai grass was grown.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. In Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. P.Veerabhadarappa<\/a> {AIR 1984 SC
\n774}, the Supreme Court dealt with the principles underlying the method of
\nevaluation and held in paragraph-7 of its decision, as follows:-
\n\t“7.The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to
\nascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> of the Act and the methods of valuation may be: (1) Opinion of
\nexperts (2) The prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions
\nof purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those
\nacquired and possessing similar advantages. And (3) A number of years’ purchase
\nof the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
\nNormally, the method of capitalising the actual or immediately prospective
\nprofits or the rent of a number of years’ purchase should not be resorted to if
\nthere is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the
\nmarket value. It can be resorted to only when no other method is available.”\n<\/p>\n
Emphasising the principle that the method of capitalisation should be adopted
\nonly when evidence of comparable sales is not available, it was held in
\nparagraphs-8 and 9 of the same decision as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales
\nof similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> or otherwise, the Court has no other alternative but to fall back
\non the method of valuation by capitalisation. In valuing land or an interest in
\nland for purposes of land acquisition proceedings, the rule as to number of
\nyears’ purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule but depends upon economic
\nfactors such as the prevailing rate of interest in money investments. The return
\nwhich an investor will expect from an investment will depend upon the
\ncharacteristic of income as compared to that of idle security. The main features
\nare: (1) Security of the income; (2) fluctuation; (3) chances of increase; (4)
\ncost of collection etc. The most difficult and yet the most important and
\ncrucial part of the whole exercise is the determination of the reasonable rate
\nof return in respect of investment in various types of properties. Once this
\nrate of return and accordingly the rate of capitalisation are determined, there
\nis no problem in valuation of the property.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is thus clear from the above enunciation that the method of
\ndetermining the value of the property by application of a multiplier to the net
\nannual income or profit should only be adopted when there is no evidence of
\ncomparable sales of similar lands in or about the neighbourhood at the relevant
\ntime i.e., on the date of the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> of the Act. In
\ncertain circumstances however the Court has no other alternative but to fall
\nback on the capitalised value.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25. After laying down the law as aforesaid, the Supreme Court approved in
\nthe above case, a multiplier not exceeding 10 as appropriate. However, since the
\nGovernment itself took a stand in that case that the multiplier of 12-1\/2 would
\nbe appropriate, the Supreme Court allowed a multiplier of 12-1\/2. This can be
\nseen from paragraph-21 of the above decision which reads as follows:-
\n\t“21. In the premises, when the rate of return on investment was 8.25% in
\nthe years 1971 and 1972, a person investing his capital in agricultural lands
\nwould ordinarily expect 2% to 3% more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged
\nsecurities or other forms of safe investment and therefore the proper multiplier
\nto be applied for the purpose of capitalisation could not in any event exceed
\n“ten”. In the present case, the State Government however contends that the
\nproper multiple to be applied should be 12-1\/2 in computation of the capitalised
\nvalue of the lands in these cases having regard to the rate of return of 8% at
\nthe relevant time i.e., on the date of the notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> of
\nthe Act. In view of this, it must be held that the multiple of 12-1\/2 should be
\napplied in computation of the capitalised value of the lands.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The dicta laid down in P.Veerabhadarappa’s case, was quoted with
\napproval in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma vs. State of Kerala<\/a> {AIR 1991 SC 2027}.
\nHowever, the Supreme Court also added therein that it is open to the Court to
\ntake into account some special circumstances in an appropriate case. It was held
\nin paragraph-4 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is settled law that the methods of valuation to be adopted in
\nascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of the notification
\nare:(i) opinion of experts (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona
\nfide transaction of the purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the lands
\nadjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (iii) a
\nnumber of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the
\nlands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking
\nany other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into
\nconsideration. As the object being always to arrive as near as possible in an
\nestimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value,
\nit may be necessary to take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch
\nas the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same
\neither in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it
\npossible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be
\naccurately determined.”\n<\/p>\n
After referring to P.Veerabhadarappa’s case, the Supreme Court further held in
\nthe same paragraph, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“In Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. P.Veerabhadarappa<\/a> {(1984) 2 SCR
\n386: AIR 1984 SC 774}, this Court held that the method of valuation by
\ncapitalisation should not be resorted to when other methods are available.
\nHowever, where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales
\nof similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> or otherwise, the Court has no other alternative but to fall back
\non the method of valuation by capitalisation. In valuing land or an interest in
\nland for purposes of land acquisition proceedings, the rule as to number of
\nyears’ purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule but depends upon economic
\nfactors such as the prevailing rate of interest in money investments. The return
\nwhich an investor will expect from an investment will depend upon the
\ncharacteristic of income as compared to that of idle security. The main features
\nare: (1) security of the income; (2) fluctuation; (3) chances of increases; (4)
\ncost of collection, etc. The traditional view of capitalised value being linked
\n\t with gilt-edged securities, no longer be rigorous when investment in
\nfixed deposits with nationalised banks, National Savings Certificates, Unit
\nTrusts and other forms of Government securities and even in the share market
\ncommand a much greater return are available. The capital in agricultural lands
\nnormally when the rate of return on investment was 8.25 per cent in the years
\n1971-1972, the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalisation
\nwould not, in any event, exceeding 10 per cent.”\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In Additional Special Acquisition Officer vs. Yamanappa Basalingappa
\nChalwadi<\/a> {1994 (3) SCC 323}, the Supreme Court followed the ratio in
\nP.Veerabhadarappa’s case, but applied 10 years multiplier, since data of sale of
\ncomparable lands was not available.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. In K.A.A.Raja and others vs. State of Kerala<\/a> {1994 (5) SCC 138}, the
\nSupreme Court held that it would be necessary in every case to place a correct
\nreport before the Reference Court about the number of trees, their age, their
\nyield etc., when capitalisation method is adopted. Ultimately, the Supreme Court
\ntook 7 years’ multiplier in that case, for want of appropriate evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. In State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and Another<\/a> {1995 Supp. (2)
\nSCC 637}, a compensation for the land was awarded on the market value.
\nAdditionally compensation for fruit-bearing trees was also awarded separately.
\nThe Supreme Court held that the compensation for the land as well as fruit-
\nbearing trees, cannot be determined separately. Coming to the multiplier to be
\nadopted, the Supreme Court held in paragraph-3 of the said decision as follows:-
\n\t“Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than a 8 years’
\nmultiplier, as it is a settled law of this Court in a catena of decisions that
\nwhen the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or
\na plantation, 8 years’ multiplier should be the appropriate multiplier. For
\nagricultural land 12 years’ multiplier should be a suitable multiplier.”\n<\/p>\n
\t30. In Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Ganaram Dhoba<\/a> {1996 (1) SCC 631},
\nthe Supreme Court held the application of a multiplier of 16 to be illegal. In
\nparagraph-4, it was held that “it is settled law that multiplier of 10 would be
\nthe proper multiplier to determine the compensation when the land is assessed on
\nthe basis of the yield on agricultural lands”.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Again in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Virupax Shankar
\nNadagouda<\/a> {1996 (6) SCC 124}, the Supreme Court found fault with the application
\nof the multiplier of 15 and held that 10 years’ multiplier would be the proper
\nmethod. While holding so, the Supreme Court specifically followed the decision
\nin P.Veerabhadarappa’s case.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In State of Gujarat vs. Rama Rana<\/a> {1997 (2) SCC 693}, the Supreme
\nCourt again reiterated in paragraph-5, the principle of law propounded in
\nP.Veerabhadarappa’s case. It was held in paragraph-5 as follows:-
\n\t“It is undoubtedly true that one of the methods of determination of
\ncompensation, in the absence of best evidence, namely, sale deeds, is the
\nrealised value of the crop.”\n<\/p>\n
After holding so, the Supreme Court allowed a multiplier of 10 and directed a
\ndeduction of 50% towards cultivation expenses, since the Court found that both
\nparties failed to produce the best evidence, namely, the sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. In Thakarsibhai Devjibhai vs. Executive Engineer<\/a> {2001 (9) SCC 584},
\nthe Supreme Court approved that part of the judgment of the High Court which
\nfollowed the decision in P.Veerabhadarappa’s case. In paragraph-9, the Supreme
\nCourt held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The High Court for this relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer vs.
\nP.Veerabhadarappa<\/a>, to hold that yield method can be referred only when there is
\nno other evidence in the form of sale transaction or opinion of experts
\navailable.”\n<\/p>\n
However, on a different ground the order of the High Court was found fault with.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan {2001 (10)
\nSCC 660}, the Supreme Court referred to the decisions in Virupax Shankar
\nNadagouda, Rama Rana and Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma cases and ultimately held
\nthat the multiplier of 10 years would be appropriate for fixing the value of the
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. In Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopal Roy<\/a> {2002 (3) SCC 527},
\nthe Supreme Court quoted with approval the decision in P.Veerabhadarappa’s case
\nand held in paragraph-8 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. It is settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired
\nproperty namely land and building or the land with fruit-bearing trees standing
\nthereon, value of both is to be determined not as separate units but as one
\nunit. Therefore, it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court,
\neither to assess the land with all its advantages and fix the market value
\nthereof on the basis of comparable sale instances. In case where comparable sale
\ninstances are not available and where there is reliable and acceptable evidence
\non record of the annual income, market value could be assessed and determined on
\nthe basis of net annual income multiplied by appropriate multiplier for its
\ncapitalisation. In the case of fruit-bearing trees, their net yield is to be
\ntaken into consideration, that is to say, by deducting expenses incurred for
\ngetting the yield and also the value of the timber and expenses to cut and
\nremove the trees from the land. For capitalising the income, previously income
\nfrom the gilt-edged securities was the basis, but thereafter rate of interest in
\nthe Nationalized Banks where deposits are quite safe is taken into consideration
\nas the proper basis.”\n<\/p>\n
\t36. In Airports Authority of India’s case, the Supreme Court also referred
\nto the decision in Shanti Devi’s case and Gurcharan Singh’s case and ultimately
\nheld that the High Court was error in not applying 8 years multiplier following
\nGurcharan Singh’s case. The adoption of the multiplier of 18 by the High Court
\nwas held by the Supreme Court (in paragraph-14) to be clearly erroneous.
\nHowever, considering the small amount of compensation, the Supreme Court did not
\nultimately interfere in the matter, applying dicta in State of Madras vs. Rev.
\nBrother Joseph<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. In Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary vs.
\nS.T.Pompanna Setty<\/a> {2005 (9) SCC 662}, the Supreme Court held in paragraph-15
\nthat normally where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is
\nconsidered proper and appropriate.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. In Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao and
\nAnother<\/a> {2007 (3) SCC 526}, the Supreme Court referred to the decisions in
\nP.Veerabhadarappa’s case, V.S.Nada Gouda’s case and Pompanna Setty’s case and
\nheld that the application of multiplier of 20 was contrary to the well settled
\nproposition of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. Thus the law laid down in P.Veerabhadarappa’s case {AIR 1984 SC 774}
\nhas held the field for the past 25 years and has been cited with approval in all
\ndecisions upto Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao’s case {2007 (3) SCC 526}. Therefore the
\ncapitalisation method of valuation of the acquired land is permissible only in
\nthe absence of evidence of comparable sales or in the absence of other evidence
\nfor computation of market value.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. Despite the above well settled proposition of law, the Tribunal
\nadopted the capitalisation method, in the case on hand, even after recording in
\nparagraph-7 of its judgment that there is evidence of comparable sales available
\non record. In the last line of paragraph-7 of its judgment, the Tribunal held
\nvery clearly that the sale of the land in Survey No.340 mentioned at Serial
\nNo.233 of the data sheet Ex.B-11, is a comparable sale and the sale value
\nindicated in that document could be taken as the guiding factor. After recording
\nthis finding, there was no scope for the Tribunal, in view of the law laid down
\nby the Supreme Court to adopt the capitalisation method. Hence the approach of
\nthe Tribunal in our considered view, is clearly erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. Even if for the sake of argument, the sale deed at Serial No.233 of
\nthe data sheet (Ex.B-11) relating to Survey No.340 is discarded, the landlady
\nherself had produced two sale deeds as Exx.A-3 and A-4. These sale deeds relate
\nto the sale of 5-1\/6 cents and 4-1\/2 cents respectively in the very same Survey
\nNumber viz., 357\/3. The acquired land is also in Survey No.357\/3. Both these
\nsale deeds Exx.A-3 and A-4 were executed by the respondent herself in favour of
\nthird parties, for a consideration of Rs.17,500\/- and Rs.15,540\/- respectively.
\nOn the basis of this value, the value per hectare works out to Rs.8,36,613\/-
\nunder Ex.A-3 and Rs.8,52,973\/- under Ex.A-4. Since the land acquired is less
\nthan half a hectare viz., 0.48.0 hectares, the market value of the land
\nacquired, would only be a little above Rs.4,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. Interestingly, the sale of small pieces of land under Exx.A-3 and A-4
\nby the respondent-landlady in the very same Survey Number, had taken place on
\n28.8.1986, just around the time when the officials of the Electricity Board
\nstarted surveying the land with a proposal for its acquisition for the expansion
\nof the Sub Station. In fact, the earliest letter seeking the consent of the
\nrespondent for the acquisition, was filed as Ex.B-48. It is dated 9.9.1986. The
\nletter of consent given by the respondent-landlady, agreeing for the acquisition
\nof the land in question, is filed as Ex.B-30. It is seen from Ex.B-30 that it
\nwas given by the respondent, in reply to the letter of the Divisional Engineer,
\nElectricity Board, dated 18.11.1986. It is only after this consent letter Ex.B-
\n30, that the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board writes a letter
\ndated 8.12.1986 filed as Ex.B-29, to the District Revenue Officer, requesting
\nhim to initiate the process of acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
\t43. Therefore, the above circumstances indicate that the sale of small
\nextents of land by the respondent in the very same Survey Number under Exx.A-3
\nand A-4 dated 28.8.1986, might have happened, perhaps, when the proposal for
\nacquisition was in the offing. Even according to the respondent, as seen from
\nher deposition as PW-1, the total extent of land in Survey No.357\/3 was 4 acres,
\nout of which the land acquired was of the extent of acres 1.19. Therefore, the
\nquality of soil in the small pieces sold under Exx.A-3 and A-4, in the very same
\nSurvey Number, could not have been different from the quality of soil in the
\nacquired land. Hence it is clear that the respondent-landlady herself had
\nestimated the market value of the land in Survey No.357\/3 only at about
\nRs.8,36,613\/- per hectare. In such circumstances, the adoption of the
\ncapitalisation method of valuation, by the Tribunal, is wholly unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
\t44. Apart from adopting the capitalisation method, the Tribunal also
\ncommitted another error viz., that of placing reliance upon the evidence of PW-2
\nand his Report Ex.A-6. Even in the first round in A.S.No.282 of 1994, this Court
\nrejected the evidence of PW-2 and his Report Ex.A-6 and remanded the matter back
\nto the Tribunal, giving liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence. In
\nparagraph-3 of its judgment, dated 9.11.1995, passed in A.S.No.282 of 1994, the
\nDivision Bench commented as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“A perusal of his deposition along with the report Ex.A-6 shows that the
\nwitness is not speaking the truth and he has prepared the report only to help
\nthe claimant to claim high compensation.”\n<\/p>\n
Despite the above finding of the Division Bench of this Court, the Tribunal
\nagain relied upon the evidence of PW-2 and his Report Ex.A-6, on a strange
\nreasoning that after remand, he was recalled and re-examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t45. PW-2 claimed in his evidence that he first inspected the land in
\nJanuary 1980 and advised the landlady to resort to high density farming. He
\nfurther claimed that he visited the Farm five time thereafter, the last time
\nbeing on 6.6.1987. He admitted that he served the State Government as the
\nDirector of Horticulture from 1983 till the date of his retirement in April
\n1987. His admission shows that during the period from 1980 to 1987, he was a
\nGovernment Servant, but he did not seek the permission of the Government either
\nto tender advise to a private party or to submit a Report in their favour,
\nespecially in respect of a land acquisition case. Therefore, his evidence is
\nunacceptable, without going into the question whether his conduct was deplorable
\nor not.\n<\/p>\n
\t46. We have one more reason to discredit the evidence of PW-2. According
\nto him, the respondent developed the land into a farm land and planted saplings
\nin the year 1981, on his advise. But in the consent letter, filed as Ex.B-30,
\nthe landlady had claimed that she had planted about 415 trees of different
\nvarieties, in the year 1983. This consent letter Ex.B-30, was sent by the
\nrespondent in response to the letter of the Divisional Engineer dated
\n18.11.1986. In the second paragraph of Ex.B-30, the respondent-landlady claimed
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the required area by you, I had planted in the year 1983, the
\nfollowing varieties of fruit trees in near about 1.18 acres”\n<\/p>\n
\t47. The above statement in Ex.B-30 was the one made at the earliest point
\nof time by the respondent-landlady. Therefore, the credibility of that statement
\nis much more than that of the statements made subsequently, apart from the fact
\nthat the probability of the same is also much more. The above statement of the
\nlandlady in Ex.B-30 that the saplings were planted in 1983, also almost tallies
\nwith the age of the trees given in the Inspection Report of the Assistant
\nDirector of Horticulture, dated 2.2.1987, filed as Ex.B-9.\n<\/p>\n
\t48. In the first round, the author of Ex.B-9, viz., the Assistant Director
\nof Horticulture, was not examined as a witness. The Division Bench held in
\nA.S.No.282 of 1994 that no reliance can be placed on Ex.B-9 unless further
\nevidence is adduced regarding its contents. Therefore, after remand, the
\nAssistant Director of Horticulture was examined as RW-5 and he confirmed the
\ninspection made by him on 20.1.1987 and the Report given by him on 2.2.1987. He
\nhad stated in Ex.B-9 Report that there were 65 Coconut trees, 85 Guava trees,
\n135 Lemon trees, 85 Silk Cotton trees, 25 Curry leaves trees and 10 Pomagranate
\ntrees, totalling to 405 trees and that they were more than 2 years old. His
\nevidence and Report were challenged by the respondent only on the ground that he
\ninspected the property without notice to the landlady. But, in our considered
\nview, such a challenge is a very weak challenge and it does not appeal to us,
\nfor more than one reason.\n<\/p>\n
\t49. The Report Ex.B-9, dated 2.2.1987, was submitted at least 7 months
\nbefore the landlady handed over possession. The parties were not in dispute at
\nthe time of the inspection on 20.1.1987 and at the time of the Report, dated
\n2.2.1987. On the contrary, the parties were on consensus ad idem, at that time,
\nsince the consent letter of the respondent was given in November\/December 1986
\nand the inspection by RW-5 (Assistant Director of Horticulture) was done in
\nJanuary 1987. Moreover, the contents of Ex.B-9 Report, with regard to the total
\nnumber of trees and the nature of the trees, is almost accepted by the
\nrespondent except to the extent of 10 trees. The only dispute that the
\nrespondent has about Ex.B-9 Report is with regard to the age of the trees
\nmentioned therein as just more than 2 years. But the respondent herself had
\nclaimed in her letter Ex.B-30 (extracted earlier) that the trees were planted in
\nthe year 1983. Therefore, the contents of Ex.B-9 Report, read with the oral
\ntestimony of RW-5 appear to be unassailable.\n<\/p>\n
\t50. The evidence of RW-5 and his Report Ex.B-9, in our considered view,
\nappear to be well balanced and not one sided, for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The number of each category of trees is correctly mentioned (except in
\nrespect of Silk Cotton trees).\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The Report records the fact that the landlady had put up a bore well
\nand was irrigating the trees with 1 HP Jet Motor Pump, through rubber tubes.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) The Report also records the fact that the farm is well maintained,
\nthough due to severe draught, for 2 years, the plants had not grown as
\nanticipated.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) The Report records that the soil has lime content and was suited for
\ncultivating lemon.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) The Report further records that because of being a farm, the value of
\nthe land should be more.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) It is also recorded in the Report that the plants may start yielding
\nafter 3 years and that the Guava plants have reached the stage of flowering.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) As per the Report, Lemon was the primary cultivation and all other
\nplants were inter-crops.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h) The Report concludes that once Lemon and other plants start yielding,
\nthe farm would become a fully developed one and the value of the land would then
\nincrease manifold.\n<\/p>\n
\t51. In the light of the above findings in Ex.B-9, it is highly
\nuncharitable on the part of the respondent, to attribute any motives to RW-5 and
\nhis Report Ex.B-9. We are more than convinced that Ex.B-9 reflects the true
\nstate of affairs of the land acquired, since (i) most of its contents (such as
\nnumber of trees, variety of trees etc.) are accepted by the respondent and (ii)
\nthe dispute raised by the respondent with regard to the age of the trees, fails
\nin the light of the admission in Ex.B-30.\n<\/p>\n
\t52. Apart from the fact that as per Ex.B-30, the saplings were planted
\nonly in 1983, the claim of the respondent that the trees had started yielding
\nand that she was deriving a huge income, is belied by several other factors
\nalso. The claim of the respondent was that she was deriving an income of about
\nRs.5,00,000\/- per annum. But she admitted that she was not assessed to
\nagricultural income tax. This was also confirmed by RW-3. By a letter dated
\n30.11.1993, filed as Ex.B-40, the Assistant Collector, Sivakasi, called for
\ninformation from the Agricultural Income Tax Officer. He sent a reply on the
\nsame day, filed as Ex.B-41 to the effect that as per the General Index Registers
\nof Sathur Taluk, for the period from 1984-85 to 1991-92, the respondent was not
\nassessed to agricultural income tax. The concerned Register relating to payment
\nof agricultural income tax, for the fasli years 1391 to 1402 was also filed as
\nEx.B-28. We are not for a moment, carried away by the non payment of
\nagricultural income tax by the respondent, to reach the conclusion that the
\ntrees in the acquired land were not fruit-bearing and had not started yielding.
\nWe are only taking note of the non payment of agricultural income tax as a
\ncorroborative or additional factor, in support of the conclusion that we have
\nreached in the previous paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
\t53. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the capitalisation
\nmethod of valuation adopted by the Tribunal, is wholly illegal and
\nunsustainable, especially in view of –(i) the clear evidence as well as
\nadmission available on record with regard to comparable sales and (ii) the
\nunimpeachable evidence to the effect that the trees were not fruit-bearing and
\nhad not started yielding.\n<\/p>\n
\t54. Now coming to the compensation to be fixed, on the basis of the
\nevidence of comparable sales, it is seen that Exx.A-3 and A-4 relate to the sale
\nof small extents of land in the very same Survey Number, which is the subject
\nmatter of the acquisition. The sale of land in Survey No.340 appearing at Serial
\nNo.233 in the data sheet (Ex.B-11), which is accepted by the Tribunal to be
\ncapable of a close comparison, is nevertheless situate at a distance. Though the
\nvalue indicated in Exx.A-3 and A-4 are not accepted both by the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer and by the Tribunal, on the sole ground that those sale deeds were by
\nthe respondent herself, we are of the considered view that the same can be
\naccepted. This is in view of the fact that these sale deeds are dated 28.8.1986.
\nThe first letter seeking the consent of the landlady was sent only on 9.9.1986
\nunder Ex.B-48. Though an element of suspicion is created, it is not established
\ncategorically by the appellants that Exx.A-3 and A-4 were created by the
\nlandlady for the purpose of jacking up the value of the property, in
\nanticipation of acquisition. Moreover, the sale of the land in Survey No.340
\nwhich is adopted by the Tribunal as an indicator, is actually situate at a
\ndistance of just less than a kilometer from the acquired land. In Ex.B-12
\nsketch, the Land Acquisition Officer has shown the lands lying within a radius
\nof 1 kilometer from the acquired land. Survey No.340 is towards the end of the
\nradius. Therefore, we reject the comparison between the land in Survey No.340
\nand the acquired land and we accept Exx.A-3 and A-4.\n<\/p>\n
\t55. In accepting the value indicated in Exx.A-3 and A-4, there is an
\ninherent advantage viz., that the respondent can be pinned down by her own
\nvaluation of the land in the very same Survey Number. Therefore we take the
\nmarket value of the land, as reflected in Ex.A-3, as the basis. In Ex.A-3, 5-1\/6
\ncents have been sold at Rs.17,500\/-. Hence the rate per cent is about Rs.3,387\/-
\n. The land acquired is of the extent of acres 1.19. Therefore the market value
\nfor the entire extent of the land acquired would come to Rs.4,03,064\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t56. In so far as the trees are concerned, we accept the valuation given by
\nthe Assistant Director of Horticulture under Ex.B-9. In other words, we allow an
\namount of Rs.14,967.50 for other trees and an amount of Rs.2,990\/- for Coconut
\ntrees, totalling to Rs.17,957.50. We round it off to Rs.18,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t57. Thus the total amount of compensation payable to the respondent would
\nbe as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     Rs.<\/p>\n
\n\t\tValue of the land\t\t\t-\t4,03,064.00\n\t\tValue of the trees\t\t\t-         18,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------------\n\t\t\tTotal\t\t\t\t-       4,21,064.00\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t=========\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t58. Coming to the question of interest, it is an admitted fact that
\npossession of the land was taken over by consent even before the notification
\nunder Section 4(1)<\/a>. However, under Section 23<\/a>(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>,
\n1894, interest is payable at 12% per annum from the date of the notification
\ntill the date of the Award or till the date of taking possession, whichever is
\nearlier. If the provision is literally construed, the respondent may not get any
\ninterest from the date of possession till the date of the Award. However, under
\nSection 17(2)<\/a>, the appellants ought to have offered to the respondent,
\ncompensation for the trees standing on the land, at the time of taking
\npossession. Under Sub Section (3-A) of Section 17<\/a>, the Collector is obliged to
\ntender payment of 80% of the compensation, before taking possession. If the
\nCollector was prevented from making such payment, he should deposit the same
\ninto Court, as provided under Section 31(2)<\/a>. But admittedly, the appellants in
\nthis case did not make any payment at the time of taking over possession, as per
\nSection 17(2)<\/a> or 17(3-A). Therefore the appellants are obliged to pay interest
\nas per Section 34<\/a> at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till
\nthe date of expiry of one year. Since the compensation is enhanced, the
\nappellants should also pay interest on the excess amount at 9% per annum under
\nSection 28<\/a> from the date of possession. Thus, in effect, the respondent would be
\nentitled to interest uniformly at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
\npossession till the date of deposit already made into Court, on the entire
\namount of compensation as fixed now in this appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t59. Accordingly we allow the appeal and modify the judgment of the
\nTribunal in LAOP No.127 of 1992 dated 13.1.1999 by fixing the amount of
\ncompensation payable to the respondent as Rs.4,21,064\/-. The respondent will be
\nentitled to solatium at 30% on the said amount and interest at the rate of 9%
\nfrom 28.9.1987 (the date of possession) till the date on which the appellants
\ndeposited the money in pursuance of the interim orders passed in A.S.No.282 of
\n1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t60. It is seen from the records that during the pendency of the appeal in
\nthe first round in A.S.No.282 of 1994, the appellants were directed to deposit a
\nportion of the Award and the respondent was permitted to withdraw 25% of the
\nsame, after furnishing a Bank Guarantee. The respondent accordingly withdrew a
\ntotal amount of Rs.19,61,230\/-, after furnishing the Bank Guarantee. In its
\njudgment dated 9.11.1995 in A.S.No.282 of 1994, the Division Bench ordered Bank
\nGuarantee to continue till the disposal of the LAOP after remand. After the
\nTribunal passed a fresh judgment, the Bank Guarantee expired. The application
\nfiled by the appellants for a direction to the respondent to renew the Bank
\nGuarantee, did not see the light of the day. However, the respondent has filed
\nan affidavit of undertaking, agreeing and undertaking not to alienate her some
\nother properties. The respondent has also filed a Valuation Report. Therefore
\nthe property covered by the affidavit of undertaking should not and could not
\nhave been sold by the respondent so far. The respondent should refund the excess
\namount already withdrawn by her, after adjusting the amount due to her as per
\nthis judgment. The respondent is granted two months time to deposit into the Sub
\nCourt, Srivilliputhur, to the credit of LAOP No.127 of 1992, the excess amount
\ntogether with simple interest at 6% per annum, from the date of withdrawal of
\nthe money till the date of deposit into Court. Till the money is deposited by
\nthe respondent, there shall be a charge on the other properties of the
\nrespondent. If excess amount is not deposited, it will be open to the appellants
\nto invoke the power conferred by Section 17<\/a>(3-B).\n<\/p>\n
\t61. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, dated
\n13.1.1999 in LAOP No.127 of 1992 is modified and the compensation payable to the
\nrespondent is fixed at a total amount of Rs.4,21,064\/-, together with solatium
\nof 30% and interest at the rate of 9% from 28.9.1987 till the date of deposit
\nmade by the appellants in A.S.No.282 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The appellants shall be entitled to proportionate costs in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) The respondent shall make a deposit of the excess amount now lying
\nwith her, together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
\ndate of her withdrawal of the money till the date of her redepositing the same,
\nwithin two months, to the credit of LAOP No.127 of 1992 on the file of the Sub
\nCourt, Srivilliputhur and upon such deposit, the appellants are permitted to
\nwithdraw the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Till the respondent deposits the excess amount before the Sub Court,
\nthe affidavit of undertaking filed by the respondent shall remain in force and
\nthere shall be a charge on the other properties of the respondent, for the
\namount due from her.\n<\/p>\n
\t62. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. Consequently connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Svn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n   (Land Acquisition Officer),
\n   Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Superintending Engineer,
\n   Kamarajar Electricity Distribution Circle,
\n   Virudhunagar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN Appeal Suit (MD) No.247 of 1999 And CMP (MD) Nos.7336 and 7337 of 1999 and 4147 of 2000 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8218,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\",\"name\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009"},"wordCount":8218,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009","name":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T00:56:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-janaki-ammal-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}