AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—In all these eight appeals filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants are the claimants. Their lands were
situated in Gengavaram Village and Melsozhankuppam Village coming under Polur Taluk in Tiruvannamalai District. Their lands were taken over
for the purpose of constructing a check dam in Miruganadhi river.
The acquiring authority after following due procedure acquired the lands. He fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs. 250/- per Cent.
Aggrieved by the lower rate of compensation, the land owners raised objection and demanded Rs. 5,000/- per Cent as compensation. The
matters were referred for determination of market value by the jurisdictional Reference Court, which in the present case is the Sub Court, Arni.
The various references were numbered as LAOP Nos. 1 to 5 of 2005 in respect of the lands situated in Mel Sozhankuppam Village. In respect of
the lands situated in Gangavaram Village, they were numbered as LAOP Nos. 11 to 15 of 2005.
On a joint memo filed by both parties, common evidence was let in LAOP No. 2 of 2005. In LAOP Nos. 1 to 5 of 2005, before the Reference
Court, on behalf of the claimants, M/s. Kaveri and Palani were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2. C.W.1 is the claimant in LAOP No. 2 of 2005.
On their side, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. Ex.C.1 is the Sale Deed dated 11.10.2001. On the side of the acquiring
authority, the then Tahsildar Seshadri was examined as R.W.1. On their side, 30 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.30. The
Reference Court on an analysis of all the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the rate of compensation awarded by
the acquiring authority was inappropriate. It fixed the compensation at Rs. 370/- per Cent and also ordered proportionate payment of other
statutory dues.
Likewise in LAOP Nos. 11 to 15 of 2005, common evidence was let in LAOP No. 14 of 2004. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses
were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2 and 6 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.6. On the side of the acquiring authority, one
witness was examined and 31 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.31. In this batch of LAOPs also, the Reference Court fixed the
compensation at Rs. 370/- per Cent by a judgment dated 4.4.2006. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Reference Court, the claimants
have come before this Court.
The following table will show the name of the claimants, the LAOPs concerning them and the corresponding Appeal Suits filed by them.
Sl. No. Name of the claimants L.A.O.P.No. APPEAL No.
1 Kanakavalli
Rajathi Ammal 9/2005 973/2007
2 Subramanian 7/2005 974/2007
3 Chinnapaiyan 8/2005 975/2007
4 Arumugam 11/2005 1003/2007
5 Palani 12/2005 1004/2007
6 Vijaya 13/2005 1005/2007
Suseela
Kandasamy
Adhimoolam
7 Kaveri 2/2005 1016/2007
8 Pitchandi 5/2005 1017/2007
In these appeals, the claimants have restricted their claim and have claimed an additional compensation of Rs. 200/- per Cent and have
accordingly paid court fees only on the basis of the said claim.
Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS)
for the acquiring authority.
The contentions raised by the appellants were that the Reference Court was wrong in rejecting Ex.C.1 only on the ground that it was 3 years
prior to Section 4(1) Notification. It was also contended that in the sales statistics furnished by the acquiring authority, Serial Number 38 showed
the sale was made at Rs. 722/- per Cent. The Reference Court having referred to the same and also commented about the acquiring authority in
ignoring the said sale consideration, for the reasons best known, did not take into account that data. Similarly, it is also contended that the land was
having irrigation facility and it was fertile. Sugarcane and paddy can be grown and bananas can also be planted. But, however, the claimants''
witnesses have spoken about the potential value of the land, which is not disputed by the acquiring authority in his oral evidence. The court below
should not have rejected the evidence. Hence, the statistics found in Serial No. 38, wherein the consideration was Rs. 722/- per Cent has to be
accepted. Though Ex.C.1 showed sale consideration of Rs. 900/- per Cent, the claimants have demanded only Rs. 750/- per Cent before the
Reference Court and even that was rejected.
It is seen from the records that the acquiring authority deposed before the Reference Court that the State Government by G.O.Ms. No. 384
dated 8.7.1999 had approved the proposal of building the check dam. Subsequently Section 4(1) notification was approved by G.O.Ms. No. 648
dated 9.12.2003. The acquiring authority considered the sale transactions, which had taken place from 1.4.2002 to 31.12.2003. As many as 94
sale transactions were considered. Excepting Serial Nos. 53, 65 and 92, the other transactions were rejected stating that they are not comparable
lands and that no reliance can be placed upon those data. In respect of the three data lands considered by them in survey No. 457/1P, 0.50 Cents
were sold at Rs. 12,500/- on 12.6.2003. Therefore, market rate works out to Rs. 25,000/- per Acre and the said land is more comparable to the
lands which are acquired. Likewise, in Sale Deed dated 26.9.2003, the land was sold at Rs. 35,500/- per Acre. Since the lands were not
agricultural lands and they were acquired only for the purpose of building dam, the rates were fixed on the basis that the lands are to be treated as
Manavari dry lands.
The court below found that in respect of the data land, it had taken note of the land in Serial No. 53. In Survey No. 4674, punja land was sold
at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per Acre. In another case, 0.18 Cents of land was sold at Rs. 13,000/-. Therefore, the overall price worked out to Rs.
722/- per Cent. As in that land, there was also well, it was considered. The sale consideration was on the higher side and hence the authority for
the reasons best known to them ignored the said data available to them. Though they were similarly placed and located at the same distance and
the quality and Tharam of the sale were also the same, the authority took note of only Survey No. 457 and ignored Survey No. 467. However, the
court below considering that the land covered under Ex.C.1 was sold at Rs. 900/- per Cent, which was sold as early as 11.10.2001, did not
consider the same. It also rejected the acquiring authority''s stand that the land in Survey No. 40/1B was not to be compared on the ground that it
was at a distant place. However, for curious reasons, the court below rejected Ex.C.1. But while rejecting the data land furnished by the acquiring
authority, took note of the land found in the statistical data in Survey No. 87, wherein the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 37,000/- per Acre and
fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 370/- per Cent.
It is under those circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the court below did not keep in mind the guidelines
provided under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and had arbitrarily fixed the rate at Rs. 370/- per Cent. Having noted that the
authorities have rejected unlawfully the exemplar in Ex.C.1 and also even the statistical data shown in Survey No. 467/4, which had fetched Rs.
722/- per Cent, it drastically reduced the compensation to Rs. 370/- per Cent by taking into account another data land. By this process, the court
below has denied the right of the appellants to get legitimate compensation as required under law. Because of their poverty and inability, they have
restricted their claim for Rs. 200/- per Cent as additional compensation. The court below also took note of the potential value of the land, wherein
the sugarcane can be cultivated for which the facilities were available. Under these circumstances, they have approached for enhancement of
compensation.
However, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the exemplar pointed out in
Ex.A.1, which is admittedly three years before the Section 4(1) Notification. Secondly while rejecting the claim for Rs. 722/- per Cent, the court
below found that there was a well in the land and therefore, there was additional value for the said land. The court below was correct in fixing the
compensation on the basis of the data land found in Serial No. 87 Survey No. 40/1P and that finding cannot be disturbed by this Court. In any
event, the court should not grant more than what was claimed by the land owners in the light of the bar provided u/s 25 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
However, it must be noted that there was no legal bar for considering a document, which was three years prior to Section 4(1) Notification, if
that land is comparable to the lands which are acquired and that no other reliable data was available for considering the rate of compensation.
The Supreme Court in the latest judgment in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and Others, had held that in given facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acquired, the Court can award higher compensation to ensure
that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of the property without grant of fair compensation. In the very same judgment
in paragraphs 74 and 75, the Supreme Court had upheld the fixation of land value even on the basis of the value of the land available in the
adjoining village. Hence, it is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 74 to 76, which are as follows:
It is not in dispute before us that the entire land was acquired for the same purpose and, in fact, the entire land including the land of the
adjacent villages had submerged or was utilised for the purposes of construction and operation of Hemavathi Dam. This Court has held in a
number of judgments that the lands of the adjacent villages can be taken into consideration for determining the fair market value of the land,
provided they are comparable instances and satisfy the other ingredients stated in this judgment. It can hardly be disputed that the land in the area
of village Sanaba and the adjacent village is being used for growing mulberry crops which is supplied by the agriculturists to the silk factories or
they use the same for their own benefit of manufacturing silk. The lands were given tow classification i.e., wet land and lands which were not having
their own regular source of irrigation (dry lands).
It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land.
This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. Instance of the same villages are available,
then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales
statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence
tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation
and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as
would be just and fair.
The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or
different schemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record
that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt such a price a the same is not impermissible. Where there
is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully,
reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Bal Ram.
(Emphasis added).
Normally the Courts are not willing to consider the exemplars which are old or ancient only because it may not reflect the correct market value.
But that does not mean that those documents are irrelevant from being considered. In fact, it goes without saying that the land costs will be
appreciating on an higher scale. Therefore if at all any old document three years prior to the Notification was taken into account, adequate
additional compensation will have to be made for arriving at the correct market rate of compensation.
Even in the present case, the court below referred to the land in Serial No. 38, Survey No. 467/4D, which is as late as 3.2.2003 was sold at
Rs. 65,000/- per Acre, in which case, it works out to Rs. 650/- per Cent. Another land in the same area to an extent of 0.18 Cent was sold at Rs.
13,000/-, which works out to Rs. 722/- per Cent. The reason given by the acquiring authority to reject the statistical datas were not even accepted
by the Reference Court, in which case the court below ought to have upheld the claims of the appellants.
In the light of the same, this Court has no hesitation to enhance the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Since the appellants have
confined their claims for an additional compensation of Rs. 200/- per Cent, it will work out to compensation of Rs. 570/- per Cent. Further, this
Court is not inclined to grant more than what has been claimed by the claimants.
Hence, the appeal suits are partly allowed. The compensation payable to the claimants is to be worked out at the rate of Rs. 570/- per Cent
together with statutory payments to be made under law. In paying the compensation, the acquiring authority will set off the compensation amount of
Rs. 370/- per cent which was directed to be paid by the Reference Court and pay only the balance amount. However, under the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. It is needless to state that though a common judgment is pronounced,
the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) is entitled for separate set of fees.