AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somasundaram, J.—The legal representatives of the claimants in O.P. No. 33 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram is the
appellant in this appeal. The referring Officer in the said petition is the respondent in this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Original Petition.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:
Total extent of 3 acres and 35, 208 square feet of land had been acquired by the Government under the provisions of Act I of 1894 for
construction of a hundred-bed hospital at Chidambaram. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in
respect of the said acquisition had been published on30.6.1985 and the declaration on 18.1.1969. An extent of 2470 square feet in T.S. No.
1097/1 and 3 acres in T.S. No. 1123 of the said acquired land belonged to the claimant. He had constructed a rice mill on the said land. The Land
Acquisition Officer on a consideration of the materials, had fixed the value of the land at Rs. 1.21 per sq. foot and the value of the structure at Rs.
42, 113. Compensation had the before been fixed by the at the above said rate and together with 15% solatium and interest the total amount
payable to the claimant was fixed at Rs.2,52,363-15. The lands had been taken possession of on 12.11.1970. The claimant had disputed the value
of the land as well as the structure as arrived at by the Award Officer and at his request reference has been made to the lower Court.
The claimant filed a statement in the said Original Petition No. 33 of 197-2 contending as follows : The acquired land is situate in the town very
near the bus stand, railway station, cinema theatres etc., and the value of the site would be not less than Rs. 3.50 per sq. foot. The Civil Supplies
Corporation is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 5, 000 for a godown situate within a furlong from the acquired land which would indicate the high value
of the land in the locality. Because of the delay in taking possession of the property long subsequent to the publication of the notification the
claimant could not lease out his property on a rent of Rs. 5, 000 per mensem to the Civil Supplies Corporation. there had thus been loss of income
at the said rate because of the acquisition. Further because of the notification, people were under the impression that the mill was not running and
the claimant could not get his usual annual income of Rs. 6, 000. The value fixed for the rice mill building is very low. The same would be worth Rs.
2,00,085.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the lower court framed the following points for consideration.
What would be the market value of the site in the acquired land for purpose of compensation?
What would be market value of the building for the said purpose?
Has the claim sustained loss by reason of the delay in taking possession and is he entitled to compensation in that regard?
The lower court by its order dated 1.2.1978 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1.75 per sq. foot and consequently enhanced the
compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 1.21 per sq. foot to Rs. 1.75 per sq. foot. With regard to the superstructure in the
acquired land the lower court held that the value of the superstructure fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is reasonable and there is no ground to
enhance the compensation fixed in respect of the superstructure.
Aggrieved by the order of the lower court refusing to enhance the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the
superstructure and not satisfied with the rate of compensation fixed by the lower court for the acquired land, the claimant has filed the present
appeal.
The points which arise for consideration before us in this appeal are the following:
What would be the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of awarding compensation?
What would be the market value of the superstructure in the acquired land for the said purpose?
Point 1 : Before we examine the factual aspects it will be useful to note the proposition of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Chimanlal
Hargovind Das v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (1983) 3 S.C.C. 751 on the question of valuation of land acquired under the
provisions of the Act, for the purpose of awarding compensation to the owners of the land in the following terms:
The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
A reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied
upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the
court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making the valuation
cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award,
approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if
it were an appellate Court.
The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material
produced before it.
The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and
proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification u/s 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that
the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the
index of market value.
Only genuine instances have to be taken into account (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land).
Even post-notification instances can be taken into account-
If they are very proximate;
genuine, and
the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
i. proximity from time angle,
ii. proximity from situation angle
Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected the rein may be taken as the norm and the market
value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition
by placing the two in just a position.
A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation
as a prudent purchaser would do.
The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus
factors and unloading it for minus factors.
The exercise indicated in Clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business
would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is
the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1,000 sq.yds. cannot be
compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq.yds. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will
have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile
the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making deduction by way of an
allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving
out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building
activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneurs would be, locked up, will be longer or shorter and
the attendant hazards.
Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the
judge must place himself.
These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
Mr. K. Raghunathah, learned Counsel for the claimant would contend that the lower court should have placed reliance on Ex. A-6 and fixed the
market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per sq. foot. Ex. B-3 is the combined sketch prepared by the Town Surveyor,
Chidambaram Municipality showing the location of the acquired land, the property sold under Ex. A-6 and the data land sold under Ex. B-4. Ex.
P-3 plan shows that the property sold under Ex. A-6 is very near to the acquired lands. The son of the vendor under Ex. A-6 was examined as
P.W. 3 and in his evidence P.W. 3 has stated that the land was sold under Ex. A-6 to the municipality for the construction of a market. No doubt,
Ex. A-6 is dated 15.9.1966 and it came into existence subsequent to the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court in
the decision referred to above, dealing with the question whether post-notification sales can be taken into account for determining the market value
of the land under acquisition, has observed as follows:
Even post-notification instances can be taken into account 1. If they are very proximate;
genuine; and
the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
Considering the fact that the land sold under Ex. A-6 is nearer to the acquired land and the genuineness of Ex. A-6 is not in question, the sale
under Ex. A-6 can be safely relied on for fixing the market value of the acquired land even though the sale under Ex. A-6 has taken place
subsequent to the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The only reason given by the lower court for refusing to place reliance on the
sale under Ex. A-6 for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land is that P.W. 3 in his evidence has stated that there was a
structure in the land sold under Ex. A-6 and in the absence of evidence to show the value of the structure in the land sold under Ex. A-6, the said
document cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. But, the lower court failed to take note of the
evidence of P.W. 3 to the effect that the time of sale there was only a thatched house in the land sold under Ex. A-6 We cannot eschew Ex. A-6
merely on the ground that a thatched shed existed in the land sold under Ex. A6 and we are of the opinion that Ex. A-6 can be relied on for the
purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. Under Ex. A-6 the land measuring 1955 sq. ft. was sold for Rs. 9, 000 and it works
out at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per sq.ft. Considering the fact that the land under Ex. A-6 was sold on 15.9.1966, nearly one year and two months after
the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the market value of the acquired lands need not be fixed, at Rs. 3.50 per sq.ft. Taking note of the interval
between the date of Ex. A-6 and the date of Section 4(1) notification, the market value of the acquired land can be safely fixed at Rs. 3 per sq.ft.
In the present case the extent acquired is 2,470 sq.ft. in T.S. No. 1097/1, and 3 acres in T.S. No. 1123. When a large block of land has to be
valued for the purpose of awarding compensation, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside the land for carving out roads leaving
open spaces, plotting out small plots suitable for construction of buildings and other expenses incurred for development of the plots. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above on the
question of deductions to be made in case where large extent of land is acquired, we are of the opinion that 25% deduction can be made on this
account towards the development charges. If from the rate of Rs. 3% per sq.ft. fixed above as the market value of the acquired land; on the basis
of Ex. A-6, 25% deduction is made towards development charges, the market value of the acquired land works out at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per sq.
foot. Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of the opinion that the market value of the acquired land has to be fixed at Rs. 2.25 per sq.
foot. and accordingly we fix the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of awarding compensation to the claimants at Rs. 2.25 per sq.ft.
and there by we enhance the compensation payable to the claimants for the acquired land from Rs. 1.75 per sq.ft. fixed by the lower court to Rs.
2.25 per sq.ft. Point 1 is answered accordingly.
Point 2 : The superstructure in this case consists of a rice mill with its adjuncts and the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,085 as
compensation in respect of the superstructure. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 42,113 as compensation for the superstructure.
The lower court accepted the evidence of R.W. 2 and Ex. B-1, the estimate prepared by P.W.D. Authorities for the superstructure and held that
the claimant has not made out a case for enhancement of compensation in respect of the superstructure. A perusal of Ex. B-1, the estimate
prepared by the Public Works Department authorities for the superstructure shows no details of valuation of the main building as well as the rice
godown, store rooms etc. Further, Ex. B-1 does not show how the P.W.D. Authorities arrived at the value of the various items given in Ex. B-1.
The detailed valuation sheets with the line sketch of the building which are said to have been submitted along with Ex. B-1 were not produced
before the lower Court. R.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that Ex. B-1 is not in his hand-writing. Under these circumstances, there is force in the
contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants that the lower court is not justified in relying upon Ex. B-1 and the evidence of R.W. 2 for
refusing to enhance the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the Superstructure. P.W. 1 is the retired Assistant Engineer of the
Public Works Department. In his evidence P.W. 1 states that he had inspected the building and prepared detailed estimates and plans. Exs. A-1 to
A-4 are the plans prepared by P.W. 1 and Ex. A-5 is the detailed estimate prepared by him in respect of the superstructure in the acquired land.
Ex. A-5 shows that the value of the building would be Rs. 2,00,085. As between the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W. 2 regarding the valuation of the
superstructure, we are inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.1 and the lower court is not justified in brushing aside Exs. A-1 to A-5 and the
evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 2, in his evidence has stated that the rice mill was constructed by him in 1926 and 1927. The building would have been
about 40 years old in 1966. P.W. 1 states that the valuation given in Ex. A-5 is the local rates prevailed in the year 1966. No doubt, while giving
the valuation of the superstructure in Ex. A-5, P.W. 1 has not made any provision for depreciation. The before, we cannot take the value of the
building as given in Ex. A-5 as the value for the purpose of awarding compensation. Admittedly the building was about 40 years old in 1966.
Sufficient deduction has to be made towards depreciation before arriving at the market value of the building for the purpose of fixing compensation.
Taking into consideration the age of the building, the nature of the superstructure and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case we feel
that 50% of the value of the superstructure given by P.W. 1 in Ex. A-5 has to be deducted towards depreciation. After deducting 50% of the
value given in Ex. A-5 towards depreciation, we fix the market value of the superstructure for the purpose of awarding compensation at Rs.
1,00,000. The Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 42,113 for the superstructure and if that is taken into account
the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 57,887 towards the enhanced compensation in respect of the superstructure. Point 2 is answered
accordingly.
In view of our findings on points 1 and 2 we hold that the claimants will be entitled to the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired
land at 50 paise per square foot over and above the compensation fixed by the lower court. Further, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 57, 887
towards the enhanced compensation in respect of the superstructure over and above the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for
superstructure. The claimants will be also entitled to 15% solatium and interest at usual rate oh the enhanced compensation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs and the order of the lower court is modified to the extent indicated above.