The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs Rangathal and The Controller of Aerodrome

K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for appellant and Mr. Md. Hussain, learned Counsel for

M/s. Sree Associates, appearing for second respondent. The first respondent has not appeared either in person or through counsel.

This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore against the judgment and decree made in

LAOP No. 119 of 1987, dated 31.12.2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

The facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant had notified 42.21 acres of lands in Kalapatti and Uppilipalayam villages of Coimbatore comprising of several survey numbers. The

lands were required for extension of runway for Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu, Coimbatore. After following due procedures, the Acquisition

Officer passed Award No. 5 of 1984, dated 10.7.1984 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 10000/- per acre. The respondent land owner was

aggrieved by the lower rate of compensation. Therefore, he requested for reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter was referred to

the Sub Court, Coimbatore. Before the Sub Court, on behalf of the first respondent herein, she examined herself as C.W.1. On behalf of the

requisitioning body, one Gopalakrishnan was examined. On the side of the appellant, one Narayanamurthy was examined as R.W.1. On the side

of the claimant, eight documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.8. On the side of the appellant, five documens were filed and

they were marked as R.1 to R.5. On the side of the requisitioning body, six documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.R.6 to R.11.

The reference Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence framed two issues, i.e. Whether the compensation fixed by the land

acquisition officers was justified? and if not what is the correct value of the acqired property and the second issue was whether the claimant is

entitled for any relief?

In respect of those two issues, the respondent claimant filed six sale deeds which were marked as Exs.C.2 to C.4 and C.6 to C.8 as exemplars.

The claimant also stated that the adjacent land in LAOP No. 120 of 1987 and in 14 other caes, the very same court had fixed Rs. 1500/- per cent

as a rate of compensation.

In opposition of the claim made by the respondent land owner, it was contended by the appellant that the compensation will have to be paid

only on the basis of the value prevailing on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Though the claimant relied on various sale deeds, they were

registered before the date of 4(1) notification. After examining 219 sale deeds, they came to the conslusion that S. Nos. 427/2 and 428/1 Punja

lands can be an exemplar. It was ascerted that Rs. 12000/- per acre will be a correct value. In respect of S. No. 625 which is taken as an

exemplar is also a punja land and Rs. 10000/- per acre will be the correct value for the same. Therefore, the present land which was taken based

on its location and standard and which was sought to be acquired is only one kilo meter away from the exemplars. Therefore, the claimant was

eligible for compensation at the rate of Rs. 10000/- per acre.

The Requisitioning authority also contended that the documents produced by the respondent claimant in Exs.C.2 to C.4, C-6 to C.8 were

registered before 4(1) notification. Considering the fact tht the extent of land is very low, the rate cannot be based on the lands which are having

higher extent.

The trial court after examining the respective contentions, came to the conclusion that even in the year 1983, the acquired lands were separated

as layout and sold as house plots as can be seen from Exs.C.2 to C.6. Exs.C.3 and C.6 were documents of the year 1983 and the other

documents were before the year 1983. The trial court also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others Vs.

Collector of Ranchi, and held that the potential value of the land is also taken into account. Consideing that the neighbouring lands are having

industries, textiles, mills, hospitals, colleges and educational institutions and it is also having road facilties, the land will have to be assessed higher

than the value fixed by the appellant. The trial court came to the conclusion that as per the documents produced by the land onwer in Exs.C.4, C.7

and C.8, the value was worked out to Rs. 680/-, Rs. 2750/- and Rs. 1430/- per cent. Therefore, average when worked out it comes to Rs.

1620/- per cent. Therefore, rounding of the figure, the trial court came to the conclusion that the land acquisition officer will have to pay Rs. 1500/-

per cent. It was contended that the appellant herein will have to pay interest on the said compensation and reliance was placed upon a judgment of

the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India reported in 2001 (4) CTC 434. Therefore, the trial court ordered interest on the compensation

amount.

On the basis of the above, the lower court came to the conclusion that the respondent claimant is entitled for total compensatin of Rs. 73,980/-

together with interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from 20.4.1983 and for the subsequent period till the date of realisation, 15% interest was

ordered. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the trial court, dated 31.12.2004, the present appeal is filed by the State.

Since the appeal was filed with 234 days delay, after notice to parties, the delay was also condoned by this Court on 2.3.2007 and the appeal

was numbered. Pending the appeal, this Court directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount awarded together with interest accrued thereon

to the credit of the LAOP, failing which interim order was directed to be vacated.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the compensation amount is on higher side. The reference court failed to take into account 20

documens filed and only relied on some of the documents. Some of the lands which are shown as exemplars were small in extent. It is for the

purpose of runway for Civil Aerodrome, at least 33% of reduction should have been followed for fixing the market value. However, it is brought to

the notice of this Court an order passed by a division bench of this Court in A.S. No. 123 of 2007 and batch cases in Land Acquisition Officer

and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore v. Palaniappan and Ors., dated 23.2.2010 in respect of similar properties acquired for the very same

purpose by Section 4(1) notification, dated 29.5.1992. Though reference court in that case fixed Rs. 7447/- per cent, this Court revised it to Rs.

5000/- per cent with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value together with interest. The following passages found in paragraphs 17 and 18

may be usefully extracted below:

Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired lands. As held

by the Supreme Court in (2009) 4 MLJ 137 (SC) [Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project v. Mahaboob and Anr.], even though the land

is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings, the Collector is supposed to offer a fair compensation by

taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. The Supreme Court further held that the Land Acquisition Officers seldom

make reasonable offer and they tend to err on the safer side and invariably assess very low compensation.

Even though, based upon Exs.C4 and C5-sale deeds, Reference Court has taken the market value at Rs. 20,000/- per cent, but the Reference

Court has made 60% deduction for development charges and taken Rs. 7447/- per cent. Pointing out that the land owners themselves have asked

for only Rs. 10,00,000/- per Hectare. There again, Reference Court restricted to Rs. 5000/- per cent. We are of the view that the Reference

Court was very conservative in fixing the market value at Rs. 5000/- per cent. We are of the opinion that Reference Court ought not to have

restricted Rs. 5000/- per cent. However, since Claimants have not preferred any appeal or Cross-Objection for enhancement, the matter has to

be left there. The market value fixed by the Reference Court itself is very low, we find no reason for further deduction. We therefore confirm the

market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 5000/- with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value for 792 days [19.5.1992

to 29.7.1994]. In so far as interest, Tribunal has awarded interest on the enhanced amount with 30% solatium i.e. at the rate of 9% for one year

period from 26.06.1992 and thereafter at 15% p.a. till the date of deposit, the same is also confirmed.

12.Though the first respondent had not appeared, on that ground the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be allowed. It must be noted that the

Suprme Court in Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. v. Meerut Development Authority and Anr. reported in Rishi Pal Singh and Others Vs. Meerut

Development Authority and Another, held in paragraph 5 as follows:

...With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first

instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered

provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case,

specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate discount. This is a

case in which appropriate exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars of small plots

into consideration.....

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Sangunthala v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Ors. reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661

considered the scope of Section 23 and after reverring to previous precedents, in paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34 held as follows:

In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being

occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the RWs

is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the

adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future.

The other important factor is the proximity of the plots to two residential colonites i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on

record that Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to

conclude that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonites.

It should also be taken into consideration that the disputed lands were situated near the factory premises and further were adjoining the main

road which connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaid lands are potential house sites.

...

34.In view of the admitted case that the lands acquired were potential house sites we do not agree with the views taken by the High Court while

calculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are the two sale deeds containing particulars of the sale transactions held three years prior to the

Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court after close perusal of the aforesaid documents held that the same disclose that out of more than 100

sales, a number of sales in respect of the lands were sold as house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village and the adjacent survey numbers in

Thekkampatty Village were also sold as house sites.

14.Again, the Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) thr. L.R. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, while dealing with the

order of compensation under Sections 23 and 54, in paragraphs 23 to 27 held as follows:

It is clear from the above decisions and discussion that merely on the basis of ""circle rate"", market value for acquired lands cannot be fixed but,

at the same time, as observed earlier, the locality and the prevailing circumstances are relevant for determining the real value of the land. We have

adverted to the assertion of the claimants about the proximity and various other attending circumstances. It is seen from the evidence of PW2,

power-of-attorney holder of the appellants that the acquired plot was located in the midst of commercial properties, had commercial potentiality

and for similar properties, the rates in the locality were not less than Rs. 6000/- per square metre. He tendered evidence and placed documents

Exts.PW2/1 to PW2/11 which include Eicher City map. PW 2 has also highlighted that the plot was located within the developed commercial hub

of Karol Bagh having all facilities.

As rightly observed by the High Court, the Reference Court overlooked the evidence on record that after the property was purchased by the

appellants in 1961, considerable development in and around the area had taken place. The acquired property was purchased by the appellants in

the year 1961 and it is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings started in the year 1983 i.e. after a period of 22 years from the date of the

Sectin 4(1) notifiction (9-5-1983).

The High Court has also relied on Ram Lal Bansiwal v. Union of India, a decision of fixing market value @ Rs. 2320 per square yard for

commercial plots based on the circle rates. When the appeal was carried to this Court, by decision dated 17-2-1997, this Court enhanced the

amount of compensation to Rs. 3000 per square yard by observing that the land was located in a commercial hub and was adjoining to a petrol

pump. It is pointed out that the said decision relates to a Chowkri Mubarkabad being a locality adjacent to Karol Bagh situated by the side of main

Rohtak Road. It is also demonstrated that the same is in close proximity to Karol Bagh area and the plot in question was located in the midst of

Karol Bagh.

Though in the award, the Land Acquisition Collector has mentioned that the plot is 2 km away from the commercial area in the Karol Bagh,

admittedly, the very same Joshi Memorial Hospital was running on the land under acquisition since 1970-1971 and the hospital was paying rent to

the pattedars/owners. This information has been mentioned in the synopsis field by the Union of India in their Civil Appeal No. 8637 of 2002.

We have also verified the Delhi Government Map Survey of 1982. On going through the location as found in the government map, the

assertion of PW 1, an officer of the Government, PW 2, power-of-attorney holder of the appellants, various activities in and around the pllot and

considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector relied on the three property transactions relating to 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-

1983 and not nearer to the date of notification u/s 4(1) i.e. 9.5.1983 and also of the fact that even on the date of notification the very same hospital

i.e. Joshi Memorial Hospital was running on the land, we hold that even if we exchew ""circle rate"", the amount determined by the High court is just,

reasonable and acceptable. For the same reasons and in the absence of additional material, we are not inclined to increase the market value as

claimed by the appellant claimants.

The judgment, dated 23.02.2010 of the division bench cited above cannot be cited as it related to a subsequent acquisition. However the

Reference Court has kept in mind the parameters for ordering compensation and took into account the correct exemplars and had fixed the fair

compensation at Rs. 1500/- per cent. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment.

In the light of the above, the appeal suit will stand dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.