Dr. Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Special Tashildar, (Land Acquisition) Neighbourhood Scheme <BR>The Special Tashildar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Scheme Vs Dr. Saritha Muthurajan and The Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli Housing Board

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The claimant is the appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 and the Special Tasildhar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood

Scheme, Nagercoil, is the appellant in A.S. No. 686 of 1998.

A.S. No. 686 of 1998:

Lands in T.S. No. L5-1/4 of an extent of 0.35.265 acres along with larger extent of lands in Vediveeswaran village, Agastheeswaram Taluk,

Nagercoil, belonged to the 2nd respondent/claimant were acquired by the appellant, for the formation of Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil

Nadu Housing Board under 4(1) notification dated 27.08.1990. The appellant after complying with the legal formalities passed an award, by his

award proceedings No. 8/93-94 dated 24.08.1993 and fixed the market value at Rs. 1,050/- per Cent and also valued the trees. Not satisfied

with the market value fixed by the appellant, sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 1995 on the file of

the Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil and the learned Sub Judge after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market value to

Rs. 3,500/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

A.S. No. 329 of 1998:

The claimants, who claimed the market value at Rs. 10,000/- per Cent to Rs. 15,000/- per Cent filed A.S. No. 329 of 1998 for enhancement

of compensation from Rs. 3,500/- to 9,000/- per Cent. Both the appeals were heard together by the consent of both parties.

4.The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the enhancement of compensation given by the lower Court is excessive as contended by

the appellant in A.S. No. 686 of 1998 or the lower Court ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,000/- per Cent as contended by the

appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998?

The Land Acquisition Officer has considered nearly 610 sale deeds for fixing the market value and after discarding 609 sale deeds, selected the

land in T.S. No. L5-4/3, which was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,050/- per Cent and fixed the market value. The data land is in T.S. No. L5-

4/3 of an extent of 17 Cents was sold for Rs. 17,850/- under Ex.B1 on 26.07.1989. Ex.B2 is a topography sketch and from the topography

sketch, it can be seen that the data land is situate nearer to acquired land. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader, vehemently

contended that the lower Court should not have taken into consideration the Ex.A1 for fixing the market value and erroneously enhanced the

market value from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per Cent.

On the other-hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 and second respondent in A.S. No. 686 of 1998

contended that Ex.A1 is in respect of house sites situate in T.S. No. L6-15/4 of an extent of 5 Cents and it was sold on 26.09.1986 at the rate of

Rs. 9,000/- per Cent and therefore, the same must be considered for fixing the market value of the acquired land.

Though the Land Acquisition Officer considered 610 sale deeds for arriving at the market value at Rs. 1,050/- per Cent, by taking into

consideration, the land in T.S. No. L5-4/3, he has not stated the details of the sales transaction in respect of 609 sale deeds in his award

proceedings. In his award proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has simply referred to various items of sale deeds and gave reasons for

rejecting the same. Therefore, this Court is handicapped by the failure on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in not giving the details of the sale

deeds and sale consideration viz., survey number, extent and the sale consideration passed for ascertaining the correct market value for the

acquired land. However, it is stated by the Acquisition Officer that sales in respect of Serial Nos. 205, 229, 374, 375 and 421 have been effected

in the lands under acquisition. He further stated that in the document referred to under Serial No. 205 only a smaller extent of 5/1-4 Cents has

been sold for higher amount of Rs. 24,000/- and it does not reflect the real market value of the larger extent of the land acquired and therefore, it is

discarded and the lands in Serial Nos. 229, 374, 375 and 421 are adjacent to the black topped road and having vehicle traffic and the land in

black topped road frontage cannot be equated with the major portion of the lands under acquisition, which lie interior and away from the black

topped road and that was also discarded on the above reasons. It is seen from the above observation of the Land Acquisition Officer that sales

were effected in respect of same survey number, in which the land was acquired and therefore, it would definitely have reflected the correct market

value and it would have been used as guidance for fixing the market value and for reasons best known to him, the details of the data lands and the

other sale transactions were not disclosed in the award proceedings. Therefore, in my opinion, an adverse inference can be drawn from the non-

disclosure of the sale transactions against the appellant in A.S. No. 686 of 1998 and the sale transactions if disclosed would throw light on the

correct market value that can be fixed for the acquired land. In my opinion, the land in Serial No. 205 of an extent of 5-1/4 Cents was sold at the

rate of Rs. 22,000/- and it must either be in respect of the same Survey number or adjacent land to that of acquired land. Therefore, in my opinion,

the lands in the same survey number might have sold for not less than Rs. 4,500/- per Cent earlier to the acquisition and that was the reason that

the details of those transactions, were not disclosed by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings. Further the land covered

under Ex.A1 is in respect of T.S. Nos. L6-15-4 & L6/15-4 and no-doubt, it was sold as a house site for Rs. 9,000/- per Cent. Admittedly, the

land was acquired for Housing Board purpose and therefore, it is a potential house site. The land covered under Ex.A1 is also situate adjacent to

the acquired land on the northern side and like the acquired land, the land covered under Ex.A1 is also having road advantage and the data land,

which was selected by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer, did not have road advantage. Further, the land under Ex.A1 was sold in the year

1986, whereas, the 4(1) notification was dated 27.08.1990 i.e. four years thereafter and therefore, definitely the market price would have gone up

during the 4 years'' period and by giving 15% increase per year, the market value of the land covered under Ex.A1 would be around Rs. 12,000/-

per Cent in the year 1990.

It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Claimant/Appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 that the lower Court ought to have fixed the

market value at Rs. 9,000/- per Cent. In this case, 35 Cents of land belonging to the claimant was acquired along with other lands and it is seen

from the award proceedings that nearly six acres of lands were acquired by the Government for providing house sites. It is further admitted by

R.W.1 that the land covered under Ex.A1 is lying adjacent to the acquired land.

It is further admitted by R.W.1 that a school is situate within 1/2 km. adjacent to the acquired land and the road living to Sanguthurai beach is

also there. Therefore, taking into consideration of the value for which the adjacent land was sold under Ex.A1 and having regard to the

undeveloped nature of the acquired land, in my opinion, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,000/- per

Cent, which would be the correct market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition and accordingly, I enhanced the market value for the

acquired land to Rs. 7,000/- per Cent and the appeal filed by the claimant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 is allowed in part and the compensation is

enhanced from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- per Cent and the Appeal No. 686 of 1998 filed by the State is dismissed.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 Mr. K.N. Thambi that the lower Court declined to

grant interest on the solatium following the judgment reported in Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Vs. S.P. Singh and Others, He further

contended, that judgment was over-ruled by the larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2002(2) L.W.39 in the case of

Sunder v. Union of India and therefore, as per the larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court interest is also payable on solatium. The

submission of Mr. K.N. Thambi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 is correct. In that judgment reported in

2002(2) L.W.39 a larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court consisting of five Honourable Judges held that interest is payable on solatium.

Therefore, the decree of the lower Court is modified that the appellant in A.S. No. 329 of 1998 is also entitled to interest including solatium and

the finding of the lower Court contrary to that is set aside. In other aspects, the order of the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to

costs.