AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—A.S. Nos. 807/2005, 1001/2007 and 712/2009 are filed by the Acquiring Authority. A.S. No. 137 of 2005 is filed by a
claimant/land owner.
A.S. No. 807 of 2005 is directed against LAOP No. 22 of 2002. As against the same LAOP, the claimant has field A.S. No. 137 of 2005 for
enhancement of compensation. A.S. No. 712 of 2009 is filed against LAOP No. 35/2002. Likewise, A.S. No. 1001 of 2007 is filed against
LAOP No. 12 of 2003.
Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the acquiring authority in all the appeals and for the
respondent in A.S. No. 137 of 2005, Mr. P. Mani, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal Nos. 807 of 2005 and 712 of 2009
as well as for the appellant in A.S. No. 137 of 2005 and Mr. K.G. Senthil Kumar for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal No. 1001 of 2007.
In all these appeals, the lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing a bye-pass road in Kodanagar and Thiruvathur
Villages, Cheyyar Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District. The acquiring authority Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department
requested for acquisition of wet and dry lands in the two villages for the formation of the bye-pass road in Kodanagar and Thiruvathur Villages.
Subsequently the Government sanctioned the said scheme by G.O.Ms. No. 1155, Public Works Department (H&I) Department dated 1.6.1990.
Section 4(1) Notification was approved in G.O.Ms. No. 90, Highways and Rural Works Department dated 6.4.1998. After following due
procedure, an award came to be passed in Award No. Rc.a2/13299/93 dated 16.7.2001 by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue
Divisional Officer, Cheyyar. The acquiring authority fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs. 15/- per Sq.ft. The aggrieved land owners
objected to lower rates of compensation. Therefore, separate references were made for determination of the market value u/s 18(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act to the jurisdictional Reference Court, which in the present case is Sub Court, Cheyyar.
In LAOP No. 22 of 2002, in which both the acquiring authority and the claimant have come up on appeal respectively in A.S. Nos. 807 of
2005 and 137 of 2005. The claimant in that case is one Balambal. In LAOP No. 22 of 2002, the claimant had examined herself as C.W.1. On her
side, two documents were filed, namely Exs.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, the Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition
Radhakrishnan was examined as R.W.1 and 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.8.
The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence passed the judgment dated 3.9.2004 and found that the compensation awarded by the
acquiring authority is on a lower side. It fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per Sq.ft. It is against this judgment and decree dated
3.9.2004, the appeal by the acquiring authority and the claimant came to be filed.
In respect of the land owner Vedapuri, the reference was registered as LAOP No. 35 of 2002 and in that case, the claimant Vedapuri
examined himself as C.W.1 and filed 2 documents, which are marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, no evidence
either documentary or oral was let in. In that case, the Reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 86/- per Sq.ft. It is against the
said judgment dated 1.3.2007, A.S. No. 712 of 2009 came to be filed by the State.
In respect of the claimant Veenarani, the reference was registered as LAOP No. 12 of 2003. Before the Reference Court, the claimant
examined herself as C.W.1. On her side, 2 documents were filed and marked as Ex.C.1 and C.2. On the side of the acquiring authority, no
evidence was let in. The Reference Court by judgment dated 20.4.2006 found that the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs. 15/- per Sq.ft was not
valid and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per Sq.ft. It is against this judgment, A.S. No. 1001 of 2007 came to be filed.
In all these appeals, the challenge by the acquiring authority was that the acquiring authority took note of sale transactions made for a three
year period before the issuance of Notification u/s 4(1), namely from 8.8.1995 to 7.8.1998. The sale details with reference to 740 sales in
Kodanagar Village and 154 sales in Thiruvathur Village were considered by the acquiring authority. The lands were classified in 4 categories,
namely, ''A'', ''B'', ''C'' and ''D''. For the purpose of granting compensation, the data land was identified in Document No. 272, wherein in the sale
deed dated 25.2.1998, the land was sold for Rs. 44,400/- and it works out to Rs. 15/- per Sq.ft. It is also contended that the said land is a
representative of the land which was acquired. The acquiring authority in his award found some of the lands were converted as house sites even 15
years before. Similar exercise was carried out for awarding compensation for the lands taken over from Thiruvathur Village.
However, in LAOP No. 22 of 2002, the land owner relied upon the document Ex.C.1 dated 6.1.1995 and the document dated 9.1.1995 as
Ex.C.2, in which the lands were sold admittedly at the rate of Rs. 62 and Rs. 75 per Sq.ft. The Court below on going through the evidence of
C.W.1 held that she had not spoken about the quality and Tharam and whether they were comparable to the lands covered by Exs.C.1 and C.2.
Therefore, it was held, the value of the sale cannot be accepted. It also held that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were admittedly three years before the Section
4(1) Notification. In normal practice, the sale transactions that took place within three years before alone will be considered as relevant data in
order to avoid fluctuation in the land cost. While rejecting the contention of the acquiring authority in fixing the compensation at Rs. 15/- per Sq.ft,
the court below enhanced the compensation and fixed at the rate of Rs. 45/- per Sq.ft. A deduction was made in the value found in Exs.C.1 and
C.2 though they are also belonging to the same area.
The learned Counsel for the appellant in A.S. No. 137 of 2005 also circulated certified copies of the evidence of C.W.1 and R.W.1 recorded
by the court below. R.W.1 in his evidence during cross-examination admitted that the lands in question are situated next to the Arts College and
nearer to the Revenue Divisional Officer''s office and that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were purchased for Rs. 62/- and Rs. 75/- per sq.ft. He also refuted the
stand that the data land is no different from the lands which are acquired. In any event, the court below having found that the market rate fixed by
the acquiring authority is on the lower side. At the same time, Exs.C.1 and C.2 were comparable sale that had taken place three years before fixing
the compensation at Rs. 45/-. This Court does not think that the judgment of the court below in A.S. No. 137 of 2005 and 807 of 2005 calls for
interference. Hence, both the Appeal Suits stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
In respect of A.S. No. 712 of 2009 and 1001 of 2007, for curious reasons, the acquiring authority had not let in any evidence (either oral or
documentary). But the claimants/land owners have deposed and have also filed two sale documents, which were accepted by the court below,
which were accepted by the court below in fixing the market rate for the land.
In A.S. No. 712 of 2009 relating to LAOP No. 35 of 2002, the land owner one Vedapuri had his lands in Survey No. 16/4A in Kodanagar
village. Likewise, A.S.1001 of 2007 (the land owner is Veenarani), which is directed against LAOP No. 12 of 2003 relates to Survey No.
15A/6A in Kodanagar Village to the extent of 1620 Sq.ft. In both the cases, the acquiring authority had to blame himself in not leading any
evidence.
The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, , after laying out
certain guidelines for fixing the market rate of compensation, in paragraphs 4 (1) and 4(3) had observed as follows:
The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) 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.
(3) 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.
Though Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) contended that this Court in A.S. Nos. 807 of 2005 and 137 of 2005
confirmed the market value of the land at Rs. 45/- per Sq.ft and he is willing to reduce the compensation by any ground as ordered in the other
two cases, it must be noted that the Reference Court is not an appellate court and the land acquisition officer will have to satisfy the Reference
Court with reference to the mode and method by which the compensation was arrived at. In the present cases, the court below considered the
evidence of the claimant and came to decide the rate of compensation and since those lands were situated in different survey numbers, it is not
proper for this Court to reduce the compensation on the ground that the same ratio should be fixed as found in A.S. Nos. 807 and 137 of 2005 on
the very same ground. Under the circumstances, both appeals, namely A.S. Nos. 1001 of 2007 and 712 of 2009 stand dismissed.
In the result, all the Appeal Suits stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.