AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Tamilvanan, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.11.1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1990
on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/First Additional Sub-Court Madurai.
The appellant herein, Referring Officer was the respondent in the Land Acquisition Original Petition. It is an admitted fact that the lands in
Survey Nos. 156/9A, 156/9B, 156/10, 156/11B, 156/12B were acquired, for which, compensation was fixed at Rs. 128/- per cent, by the Land
Acquisition Officer. The said lands in Pallapatti village, Nilakottai Taluk were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites, for deserving Adi
Dravidar community people. The land acquisition officer, after conducting enquiry, had fixed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 128/-
per cent. At the request of the respondents/claimants the matter was referred to by the authority, the appellant herein before the Land Acquisition
Tribunal, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for fixing just and reasonable compensation, as per the Act. After enquiry, the compensation amount
has been enhanced to Rs. 500/- per cent, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Aggrieved by which, the appellant/referring officer, has preferred the
present appeal.
Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that the Land Acquisition Tribunal
has relied on the sale deed, Ex.A.2, dated 17.10.1985, relating to a house site, whereby the said land had been sold for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-,
though the acquired land is not a house site, the said sale was considered. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the acquired
land is a longer extent of about 0.81.0 hectares, which is approximately 2 acres and hence, the Tribunal could have deducted, reasonable amount
towards developmental expenses, while fixing the market value, as per the sale deed, Ex.A.2, since the appellant had to spend money for levelling
the land for converting it as house sites, after forming roads.
It is not in dispute that the lands belonged to the first respondent in Survey Nos. 156/9A, 156/9B, 156/11B, 156/12B, an extent of 0.37.0
hectare in Survey No. 156/10, an extent of 0.18.0 hectare belonged to the second respondent and in Survey Nos. 156/15A, 156/16B, 156/19B,
an extent of 0.26.0 hectare, belonged to the third respondent herein and totally an extent of 0.81.0 hectare lands were acquired by the appellant
for the aforesaid purpose.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended that the acquired land are only on the inner road, whereas
the data land is located on the main road, therefore the compensation fixed by the Tribunal, on the basis of sale deed, Ex.A.2, dated 17.10.1985 is
on the higher side. It is seen from the sketch prepared by the appellant/Referring Officer that the acquired land is also located nearby a main road.
Though, the sketch was not marked as a document in the Land Acquisition Original Petition, the same was verified for the purpose of identifying
the location of the data land, land described in Ex.A.2, sale deed and the acquired land. It is seen from the sketch that the acquired land and the
land mentioned in Ex.A.2 are similarly placed lands and therefore, there is no error in considering the aforesaid sale deed for the purpose of
deciding the market value of the acquired land.
It is not in dispute that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 08.01.1988 in the Government Gazette. But, the
sale deed relating to Ex.A.2 had been executed on 17.10.1985, more than two years prior to the date of 4 (1) Notification. Learned Additional
Government Pleader submitted that the acquired land is an extent of 0.81.0 hectare, which is approximately two acres, though the land sold under
Ex.A.2 for the sale consideration of Rs. 7,500/- was only 15 cents, that was sold at Rs. 500/- per cent. According to the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, the land sold under Ex.A.2 is a smaller extent, whereas the acquired land is approximately 2 acres and therefore,
reasonable amount could have been deducted towards developmental expenses, while fixing the market value of the acquired land. Learned
Additional Government Pleader argued that the land sold under Ex.A.2 is a house site, whereas the acquired land is only a dry land and therefore,
at least 20% of the value, as per Ex.A.2 should be deducted towards developmental expenses.
Per contra, Mr. S. Kadarkarai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have claimed compensation for
the acquired land at Rs. 800/- per cent on the basis of compensation already awarded for the land acquired in survey No. 138/3, patta No. 1774.
It is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 herein, by their petitions, dated 28.03.1989 had claimed compensation for the lands acquired from them at
Rs. 800/- per cent. The copy of the petitions are available in the typed set, similarly the third respondent had also filed a petition, dated
20.04.1989 before the appellant seeking compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 800/- per cent. However, it is seen that no supporting
document was filed by the respondents / claimants before the Land Acquisition Tribunal for claiming compensation at Rs. 800/- per cent, only
copy of the petitions claiming compensation at Rs. 800/- per cent is available in the typed set.
The document marked as Ex.A.1 is a copy of the sale deed, dated 13.04.1990, executed by one Shanmugam in favour of one Chinnasamy
Pillai, whereby 5 cents of land in survey No. 147/8 had been sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,000/-. In the document, the value of the land
has been stated as Rs. 10,875/-. As per the document, a house site in survey No. 147/8 has been sold at Rs. 1,800/- per cent. The respondents
claimed compensation, as per the sale deed, Ex.A.1. However, Ex.A.1 could not be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the
acquired land, for the simple reason that the said sale deed, dated 13.04.1990 is a subsequent document, that was executed two years after the
date of 4 (1) Notification. Admittedly, notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been published for the acquired land on 08.01.1988,
but the sale under Ex.A.1 was taken place on 13.04.1990, long after the date of 4(1) notification and therefore, the same was rightly not
considered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Therefore, as contended by the learned Additional
Government Pleader, there is no error on the part of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, in rejecting Ex.A.1 sale deed on the ground that it was
executed more than two years after the date of 4(1) notification. Therefore, the only document available to determine the market value of the
acquired land is the copy of the sale deed marked as Ex.A.2.
As per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, any person interested in the acquired land, who has not accepted the award may, by written
application to the Collector, request that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of just and proper compensation by the
Court. Such objection may be relating to the measurement of the acquired land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable,
or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the extent of land
acquired by the appellant, similarly there is no dispute with regard to the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested. The matter
was referred, at the request of the respondents/claimants u/s 18 of the Act, for just and proper compensation, as per Land Acquisition Act.
While awarding compensation for the acquired land, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Tribunal should
consider certain important aspects for the purpose of determining the market value. Accordingly, the market value of the land at the date of
publication of 4(1) notification or prior to the date of such publication shall be taken note of for the purpose of awarding compensation. Apart from
the land acquired, trees (if any) on the land, at the time of taking over possession of land, other damage (if any) sustained by the owner or the
person interested shall be considered, while fixing the compensation.
In the instant case, the respondents/claimants have claimed compensation only for the acquired land. The extent of land and the apportionment
of compensation between the claimants are not in dispute in this appeal. From the sketch, it is clear that the land described in Ex.A.2 sale deed is a
similarly placed land, however, it relates to a house site of an extent of 15 cents. The market value of the acquired land has to be decided, based
on the sale deed, relating to a smaller extent of a house site. Hence, it would be proper to deduct a reasonable percentage of the value, as per the
sale deed, towards developmental expenses, while computing the market value of the acquired land. It is not in dispute that the acquired land could
be converted into a house site, only after levelling the land and forming roads. Hence, the acquired land could not fetch the same market value as
that of a house site, described in Ex.A.2, sale deed.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to compute the market value of the
acquired land on the basis of Ex.A.2, at Rs. 500/- per cent after deducting 20% in value towards developmental expenses.
As held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, , the function of the court
in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the
methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands
acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or
immediately prospective profits of the land acquired.
In Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that
the burden of proof to establish the land is capable of fetching higher market value is always on the claimants. In other words, the market value of
the acquired land shall be determined only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, however, the same is subject to the rebuttal
evidence adduced by state.
The Hon''ble Apex Court has made it clear in N. Narasimhaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others and Union of India (UOI) and
Others, , that to compute market value of the acquired land u/s 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the date of notification u/s 4(1) alone is relevant,
though declaration u/s 6 of the Act only provides conclusiveness to the public purpose specified in Section 4(1) Notification.
As per Section 23(1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, the Court shall take into
consideration, the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification u/s 4, Sub-section (1). It does not mean that the market
value of the acquired land should be fixed strictly as per the sale consideration or land value shown in the sale deed taken up for determining the
market value of the land. In the instant case, as a similarly placed land had been sold more than two years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, in
order to decide just and proper market value of the land as on the date of notification, reasonable weightage should be given by the Court in
determining the market value of the acquired land.
Mr. S. Kadarkari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the sale deed, Ex.A.2, relates to the year 1985, executed
more than 2 years, prior to the date of 4(1) notification, under the Act. Therefore, while considering the sale deed, Ex.A.2, dated 17.10.1985 for
fixing the market value of the acquired land, the approximate land value on the date of 4(1) notification has to be taken into consideration, since
Ex.A.2 sale deed relates to the year 1985, more than two years prior to the date of 4(1) notification. In the light of various decisions of the
Honourable Apex Court, I find it just reasonable to add 10% addition towards the market value of the land per year. Accordingly the
respondents/claimants are entitled to claim 20% additional amount towards, while computing the market value of the acquired land, based on the
sale deed, Ex.A.2. As the sale deed, Ex.A.2 relates to the year 1985, if 10% is added per year towards the land value, the market value of the
acquired land could be computed 20% more than the value specified in Ex.A.2. However, that would be equivalent to 20% of the value to be
deducted towards developmental expenses, since, the acquired land is a larger extent and the land sold under Ex.A.2 is a smaller extent of 15
cents. Hence, I am of the view that the market value could be determined after adding 20%, i.e., 10% per year in the market value as per Ex.A.2.
Deducting 20% towards the developmental expenses and adding 20% towards increase in the market value, considering the increase in price
would keep the value of the land under Ex.A.2 intact, at Rs. 500/- per cent.
As per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to get 30% solatium, 12% additional amount, interest at 9% for one
year from the date of award and subsequent interest 15% p.a. till the amount is paid. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per cent apart from awarding 30% solatium, 12% additional amount 9% interest for one year from
the date of award and subsequent interest 15% p.a. with proportionate cost, which is not in dispute in this appeal. Hence, the same is legally
sustainable.
It is clear in this appeal that though the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards developing expenses, while computing the market value
of the acquired land on par with a smaller extent of a house site, sold under Ex.A2, similarly the Tribunal has not given any additional weightage in
the sale consideration, while determining the market value of the acquired land, since the sale had taken place 2 years prior to the date of 4 (1)
notification. Hence, considering the same, I am of the view that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, as compensation for the
acquired land at Rs. 500/- per cent is just and reasonable. In such circumstances there is no need for this Court to interfere with the impugned
judgement and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
In the result, the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. However,
there is no order as to the cost in this appeal.