AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kirubakaran, J.—The appeal suit has been preferred by the Government against the award of the Tribunal enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,250/- to Rs. 3,000/-. Not satisfied with the enhancement, the cross appeal has been preferred by the claimants 8 and 9.
The facts of the case are as follows: The lands comprised in T.S. Nos. A1-15/14 and A1-15/15 measuring about 01.19.70 Hectare situated in Vadaseri Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District were acquired u/s 4(1) Notification dated 17.12.1980, for the purpose of expansion of Nagercoil 66/11 KVSS to 110/1 KVSS at Parvathipuram. The land acquisition officer relying upon Ex.B.1 sale deed dated 19.04.1980, determined the compensation of Rs. 1,200/- per cent, whereas the Tribunal on reference determined the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- relying upon Exs.A.4 dated 21.10.1981, A.5 dated 22.10.1981 and A.6 dated 20.11.1981. The said award is being challenged before this Court in the above appeal suit and in the cross appeal.
Mr. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the documents relied upon by the Tribunal are all post notification sale deeds and the same cannot be relied upon. Secondly, he submitted that no deduction was given towards development charges. Therefore, he seeks restoration of the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer and seeks setting aside of the award passed by the Tribunal.
On the other hand, Mr. K. Sreekumaran Nair, who led the argument on behalf of the respondents/claimants and the cross appellants submitted that the acquired lands are situated within Nagercoil Municipality and therefore no deduction is required. Secondly, he submitted that post notification sale deed could be relied upon, if it is found to be within reasonable time.
It is seen from the records that Section 4(1) notification is dated 17.12.1980 and the purpose of acquisition is for expansion of the electricity sub-station. The Tribunal rejected the value of the Ex.B.1 on the ground that Ex.B.1 has been executed more than 2 years before Section 4(1) Notification and the property conveyed under Ex.B.1 is far away from the acquired property as seen from Ex.B.3 Topo-Plan. The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting Ex.B.1 is perfectly valid and the same is confirmed.
As far as the location of the acquired land is concerned, it is admittedly situated within the Municipal limits of Nagercoil as it is proved by very nomenclature of the survey number as T.S. Nos. A1/15-14 and A1/15-15. If the property is situated within the municipal limits, town survey numbers would be given. Ex.B.3 Topo-plan shows the acquired land is situated abutting Nagercoil National Highways and the surrounding lands are developed as residential area. The Tribunal considered C.W.1''s evidence that the acquired lands are situated very closer to Nagammal Mill, Ganesh Nagendra Mills, Indian Oil Bunk, Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, Akash School, Bank of Baroda and apart from that close to Railway Station and Bus Stop. Therefore, it is easy for this Court to conclude that the acquired property is situated in the Nagercoil Town and it is in developed area and it has many locational advantages.
As far as claimant documents are concerned, Ex.A.4 is dated 21.10.1981, Ex.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has already held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Major Jitendra Kumar and Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 382 that post notification sale deeds also could be looked into for the purpose of determining the value of the property. In Karan Singh and others etc. Vs. Union of India, , it has been held that the onus is on the claimant to prove that there was no raise in price of land after the issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification. Section 4(1) notification is dated 17.12.1980. Ex.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and the land conveyed is 81/2 cents. Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981 and the land conveyed is 2.5 cents. The Tribunal relied upon Exs.A4 to A.6 to determine the market value as they are closer to the acquired property and it is found to be similar in character with all amenities. As Ex.A.5 conveyed the lands along with building, the same is not relied by this Court. As far as Ex.A.6 is concerned it was executed on 20.11.1981 and the sale value per cent is Rs. 3,200/- and therefore, the value of the land is determined as Rs. 3,200/- per cent.
Considering the time gap between Section 4(1) notification dated 17.12.1980 and Ex.A6 dated 20.11.1981, this Court deducts 10% towards depreciation. In the interregnum period the value of the land would have appreciated and the same has to be deducted from the value of Ex.A.6.
Value per cent as per Ex.P.6 : Rs. 3,200/- 10% deduction towards depreciation Rs. 3,200 - Rs. 320 : Rs. 2,880/- The said amount is rounded of to : Rs. 3,000/-
Therefore, the market value of the acquired land is determined by this Court as Rs. 3,000/- per cent.
As far as deduction is concerned, the learned Government Advocate submitted that 60% is required to be deducted towards amenities charges and he relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Basavva and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, . However, the three Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Karnataka UrbanWater Supply and Drainage Board etc. v. K.S. Gangadharappa and Anr. reported in 2010 (1) LW 1001 held that there is no straight jacket formula towards deductions to be made for development charges. In view of the said judgment, no deduction is required to be made for the following reasons:
The land acquired has been given survey numbers as Town survey Numbers.
It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits.
It is situated abutting Nagercoil - Trivandrum National Highways.
It is surrounded by Educational Institutions, Bank, Petrol Bunk, Church, Textile Mills, Bus Stop and Railway Station.
That is to say it has all the amenities of the municipality. Therefore, no deduction is required to be made. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tenneti Kamesam v. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC) held as follows:
In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the land in question with regard to the fact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded by several structures, residential buildings and other commercial establishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other facilities. It is, therefore, evident that the land was already situated in a developed area and the question of deduction of development charges did not, therefore, arise.
In this case also, the development and amenities are similar in nature. Relying upon the same, no deduction is made by this Court towards development charges.
As far as compensation given for super structure, coconut trees etc., are concerned, they are found to be reasonable and hence, they are confirmed. However, the award of the Tribunal determining the compensation at Rs. 3,000/- is determined but in a different way. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
Therefore, the appeal suit is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is dismissed. In view of the above judgment passed in the appeal suit, the Cross Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.