The Land Acquisition Special Officer, (Sub Collector) vs G. Periyannan <BR>Venkatesan Vs Kamatchi and The Land Acquisition Special Officer, (Sub Collector)

K. Chandru, J.

Heard.

These four appeals were directed against LAOP Nos. 44/2003, 45/2003, 25/2004 and 26/2004 respectively. In LAOP Nos. 44 and 45 of

2003 judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court on 30.08.2005. In LAOP Nos. 25 and 26 of2004, a judgment and decree was

passed by the Reference Courton 23.3.2006.

The aggrieved land owner, who is the Respondent in A.S. No. 490 of 2006 had also filed Cross Objection 18 of 2007seeking for further

compensation.

The Appellant land acquisition officer-cum-Sub-

Collector, Tindivanam by an Award No. 16/2001 dated 20.11.2001acquired the land of the Respondents in these appeals. The lands were

acquired for the purpose of gauge conversion of the Railway Line between Chennai and Tiruchirapalli. The lands of the Respondents in the

Appeals were situated in TindivanamTown in various re-survey numbers. The Acquiring Authorityfixed the market rate of compensation at the rate

ofRs.96,900/- per acre (Rs. 969 per cent).

The aggrieved land owners were not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the Acquiring Authority. Hence, the issue was referred for

determination by the jurisdictional Reference Court, which is the Court of Principal Sub-Judge, Tindivanam. The references were registered as

various LAO Ps and in the present appeals, they were LAOP Nos. 44/2003,45/2003, 25/2004 and 26/2004.

Before the reference Court (i.e. the Court below),in respect of each reference, separate judgment and decree was passed. In LAOP No. 44 of

2003, on behalf of the land owner, the Respondent Periannan and one Pachai were examined as C.W.1and C.W.2. On their behalf, a sale deed

dated 27.03.1995 given in favor of one Pandurangan by Sundari was filed and marked as Ex.C.1. On the side of the acquiring authority, one

Rajasekaran Thambi R.W.1 was examined. On their side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3.

In LAOP No. 45 of 2003, on behalf of the landowner, the Respondent Venkatesan (cross objector uncross. Obj.18/2007) was examined as

C.W.1 and on his side, apart from Ex.C1 marked in LAOP No. 44/2003, a valuation certificate issued by licensed building Engineer was marked

asEx.C2. On the side of the acquiring authority, the same Rajasekaran Thambi R.W.1 was examined and on their side, two documents were filed

and marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2.

On the basis of these materials, by a judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005, the Reference Court found that the compensation ordered by the

Acquiring Authority was on the lower side and it fixed the market rate of compensation asRs.10,000/- per cent.

Challenging the same, the Appellant filed these appeals u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention raised by the Appellant was that the

reason given by the Reference Court was not valid and contrary to the guidelines prescribed u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The document

relied upon in Exs.C1 and C2 are documents relating to sale of smaller extent of lands. The Reference Court was also erroneous in considering the

lands as house sites.

In respect of LAOP Nos. 25 and 26 of 2004, common evidence was let in and a common judgment and decree was passed on 23.03.2006.

Before the reference Court, the Respondent Ramu examined himself as C.W.1. On his side, 6documents were filed and marked as Exs.C1 to C6.

On the side of the acquiring authority, no witnesses were examined. In this LAOP, the same document as in the other two LAO Ps, namely sale

deed between Sundari and Pandurangan dated 27.03.1995 was marked as Ex.C3. The Reference Court found that the compensation ordered by

the Acquiring Authority was on the lower side and therefore, it fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent.

The ground taken in these LAO Ps are also identical as that in the case of other two LAO Ps. The land owner in LAOP No. 490 of 2006,

Venkatesan in his Cross Objection demanded enhanced compensation on the basis of rate per square feet. He claimed Rs. 48/-per sq.ft for the

land and inrespect of the building, he claimed separate compensation ofRs.4 lakhs.

In view of the fact that all the four appeals as well as the cross objection related to the acquisition for the same purpose and located in the

same village, they were grouped and heard together.

The Acquiring Authority for the purpose of arriving at the market rate for the land gathered statistics from various sale transactions that had

taken place three years before the date of 4(1) notification namely 10.05.2000collected from the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam II.

It was found that 64 transactions had taken place in the said area during that period. The Acquiring Authority rejected most of the transactions on

the ground that either the sale had taken place long before or it is a prior sale or a joint sale or the soil, Taram and quality were different. Sl. No.

54 was rejected on the ground that it was sold as a house site. Therefore, he only took note of the land in Punjai 7-1-3 as a basis and the lands in

re-survey numbers 55/2, 56/5, it was sold as per acre 96,900/-and took that as a basis data land. Similarly, in S. Nos. 53/3 and 53/4,the

guidelines value it showed for Punja land was Rs. 96.900/�per acre. Therefore, he fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs. 96.900/-per

acre on the basis of the land classification as punja land.

The Trial Court in its judgment and decree found that the lands were situated adjacent to the National Highways and adjacent to the Railway

track. The sale transaction that took place before the acquisition was not taken into account. It also found that R.W.1 in his evidence had admitted

that the land acquired is a residential area and therefore, it found that the compensation awarded was on the lower side and agreed with the rate

found on the sale deed produced by the claimant land owners. The Award enquiry in respect of Re-survey No. 53/3A, the land belonged to Ramu

the Respondent inA.S. No. 830 of 2006, Kamatchi, the Respondent in A.S. No. 831 of2006 showed that there was a house found with

Mangalore tiles as well as thatched house in the land. Similarly in the resurvey No. 55/12A belonging to Venkatesan, Respondent in A.S. No. 490

of 2006 and Cross Objector in 18/2007, the awardenquiry itself showed that there is one-storeyed house, tiledhouse and thatched house found

and there were also bathroomsand toilets. Therefore, the land owner during the enquiry claimed compensation for the house. In support of his

claim,Venkatesan also produced Ex.C2 which is a valuation certificate produced from a licensed building Engineer. There''re no contra evidence

on the side of the Appellant.

It is rather unfortunate in LAOP Nos. 44 and 45 of2003 one office assistant of the Sub-Collector office alone was examined. In LAOP Nos.

25 and 26 of 2004, no evidence was let in by the Appellant. It goes without saying that the cumulative effect of the evidence let in by the land

owners proved that the lands are situated in the urban limits of Tindivanam Municipality and houses have also come up in the land in question.

Therefore, it cannot be assessed as a Ungallant and they had already become house sites coming within the municipal limits. These facts were also

found reflected in the Award enquiry. It is surprising as to how the Acquiring Officer did not grant separate compensation in respect of the house

which was lost by one of the Respondent land owner. In fact the said Respondent had taken efforts to bring evaluation certificate from an Engineer

which is not disputed. The Award enquiry itself had showed that there was undestroyed tiled house and thatched house with bath rooms and

toilets. Therefore, the land owner/Cross Objector is also entitled to get separate compensation in respect of the building located in the land which

were acquired.

The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, has held that a

reference u/s 18 is not an appeal. The acquiring authority must place materials and convince the Reference Court to accept their valuation. It is

necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 4(1) and 4(3):

4(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 aboriginal proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material

produced before it.

The Supreme Court vide its judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.

Lucknow and others, , in paragraph 7 observed as follows:�

7.... Though the Attorney General repeatedly referred to the statistical data of the market value in 1980-82 atRs.10 to 15 per square foot, it is

equally settled law that the data is not evidence unless evidence is adduced.

In so far as the rate of compensation is concerned, the potential value of the land also plays a vital role. Once it is established that it is adjacent

to National Highways to the existing meter gauge, certainly potential value of the land must also be a relevant factor. The Supreme Court vide its

judgment in Sangunthala v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Ors. reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 has held that relative advantage in

facilities available on acquired land has to be considered and potentiality for its immediate use and land being closer to residential colonies, the

value should be with reference to its location. In paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34, the Supreme Court 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 areto be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the R Ws

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 colonies i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come onrecord

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

that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonies.

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.

....

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

100sales, 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.

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of found by the Reference Court. Hence, all the four

Appeal Suits filed by the Acquiring Authority will stand dismissed.

The claim made by the cross objector for a compensation of Rs. 48/-per sq.ft also cannot be granted in the absence of any proof regarding the

same. Hence, as far as the land is concerned, the Cross Objector can get the compensation only at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per sq.ft. With

reference to the house, since the cross objector had produced Ex.C2 before the Reference Court which was not controverted by the Appellant, he

is entitled to get compensation on the value of the house as per the valuation certificate which is valued at Rs. 4,00,000/-. Hence, the Cross

Objection is partly allowed. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.