AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—The above appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition officer challenging the enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Poonamallee in LAOP Nos.: 462, 455, 456, 484, 486, 450, 454, 452 and 451 of 1987
respectively.
Heard Mr. R. Ashohan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first appellant in all the appeals, Mr. J. Madanagopal Rao,
learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appering for the second appellant in all the appeals and Mr. V. Lakshminaraynan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents in A.S. Nos: 1154 to 1157 of 2001 and Mr. Veeraraghavan for Mr. P.B. Ramanujam, appearing for the
respondent in A.S. No. 1202 and Mr. T.V. Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in A.S. No. 1204 of 2001.
Vast extent of identical land measuring 135.85 acres, in Kadaperi village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the Madras Export Processing
Zone (MEPZ) by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 23.1.1985, 13.2.1985 and on the
other dates closely following thereof. But, there is no appreciable gap between one Sec. 4(1) Notification and another Notification.
At the first instance, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 125.85 in respect of a portion and for the
remaining portion at Rs. 110/= per cent. On a Reference at the instance of the land owners, the learned Subordinate Judge of Poonamalee
enhanced the market value of the acquired lands at different amounts. Challenging the same, appeals were preferred by the Land Acquisition
Officer.
On the ground that documents relating to comparable sales have not been marked by examining the concerned persons, this court set aside the
judgement and award and remitted the matter to the court below in a majority of the appeals. Some of the appeals came to be taken up by the
other Division Benches after the decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, .
In Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, it has been held thus:-
Under section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act it is open to the Court to act on the documents regarding the transaction recorded in such
documents. However, that will not prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the transaction recorded therein to adduce
other evince to substantiate their stand regarding such transactions. But it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of Section 51-A,
the position would remain the same as before.
Thus it is not absolutely necessary to examine the parties to the document, but it is sufficient if certified copy of the sale deeds are produced and
marked through the parties to the Claim Petition. Such of those appeals which were not remanded and pending were also taken up and have been
disposed of by three different Division Benches on merits.
The appeals which were remanded also has been enquired into, documents were marked and the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in
those cases also enhanced the market value and fixed the market value at Rs. 4875/= per cent as on 13.2.1985, 23.1.1985 etc., on which dates
Section 4(1) Notifications were published. As against those enhancement also, the present appeals have been preferred and they are consolidated
at the joint request of counsel on either side.
Innumerable number of appeals were disposed of by this Division Bench as well as by earlier two different Benches of this court adopting the
valuation of the land as fixed by a Division bench consisting of P. Shanmugam and A. Subbulakshmi, JJ., in Annammal (died) and others Vs.
Special Tahsildar (LA), reported in 2001 (II) MLJ 82 and also a Division Bench of this court consisting of A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy and A.
Kulasekaran, JJ., in A.S. Nos.: 579, 590, 601 of 1992, 1146/93, 1028, 1029 of 1992, 1163/2001, 410 to 412 of 1991, 835 of 1990 etc.,
batches. The Division Bench consisting of P. Shanmugam and A. Subbulakshmi, JJ., fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 2040/=
per cent. Another Division Bench consisting of A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy and A. Kulasekaran, JJ., fixed the market value of the acquired land at
Rs. 2018/= per cent. In all the remaining appeals except this batch of Nine appeals, the counsel on either side readily accepted the fixation of
market value at Rs. 2040/= per cent and jointly requested to adopt the said valuation. Accordingly all appeals were allowed in part adopting the
said valuation by common judgement dated 23.4.2003.
In a batch of appeals which were listed before us, this Bench also fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2040/= per cent in respect
of substantial extent of the lands as the counsel on either side in those appeals after making their submissions represented that the value fixed by the
Division bench in Annammal Vs. Spl. Tahsildar may be adopted as the lands are comparable in all respects, identically located in a contiguous
stretch, commanding same facilities having same tharam, raised same crops, yielding approximately same income and also located away from GST
Road. Substantial number of appeals were disposed of on two different dates.
In this batch of appeals, the learned Additional Government Pleader represented that as the lands covered by this appeals are also identical in
all respects, comparable sale deeds also being identical and the lands being contiguous command the same facilities, access, location, tharam, the
market value may be fixed at Rs. 2040/= per cent for the lands covered by this batch of appeals.
However, Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, Mr. Veeraraghavan and Mr. V.T. Sekar learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these appeals
contended that they are not accepting the market value as fixed by the earlier three Division Benches of this court including this Bench and
expressed their desire to make their submissions and contended that the land owners/interested persons have produced the comparable sale deeds
and the market value in the present appeals should be fixed on a higher rate and no interference is called for in this batch of appeals. Therefore, this
court has to consider these appeals on merits and decide the same on merits.
Mr. V. Lakshminrayanan, learned counsel, leading the arguments for respondents submitted that the documents produced by the respondents
herein would establish that their lands are more valuable and no interference is called for with the market value as fixed by the learned Subordinate
Judge. The learned Additional Government Pleader and the counsel for the respondents took the court through the judgements and awards of the
Tribunal below as well as oral and documentary evidence in the respective LAOPs. It has to be pointed out that except the vehemence and
repetition, no material is available to fix the market value of the lands covered by these appeals differently or at higher rate than at the rate fixed by
earlier Three Division Benches. The judgement of the earlier Division Benches, it is contended by Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, are not judicial
precedents and at any rate, this court may consider the appeals on merits instead of adopting the earlier valuation arrived at by the earlier three
Division Benches in respect of identical lands. Considerable time was spent in hearing the counsel on either side.
In these appeals, the points that arise for consideration are:-
(a) What is the market value of the acquired land on the date of respective 4(1) Notifications?
(b) Whether the market value fixed by the earlier Three Division Benches at Rs. 2040/= per cent in respect of identical lands covered by the same
set of Section 4(1) Notification could be adopted to the lands covered by these appeals as well?
(c) To what relief, if any?
All the above three points could be considered together. There is no dispute that the lands which are the subject matter in this batch of appeals
as well as the appeals already disposed of by the earlier three Division Benches are identical in all respects commanding same advantages,
facilities, potentialities and more or less at the same distance from the GST road. The tharam of the land also the same. The lands were used for
agricultural purpose and identical crops were being raised. It is also not in dispute that most of the comparable sale deeds relied upon before the
connected LAOPs as well as the LAOPs now under appeal are mostly same set of documents. Whatever reason that prevailed with the earlier
Division Benches in respect of the same sale data that was collected by the Land Acquisition Officer or comparable sale deeds produced before
the Learned Subordinate Judge in the LAOPs could very well be applied in these appeals as well. Though it is contended that fresh documents
have been filed, we find that the documents in respect of comparable sale deeds are in no way different from the documents produced in the other
connected appeals, nor the documents show any appreciable increase in the prevailing market value. Excepting vehemence and an attempt to get
independent orders, we do not find any valid reason to adopt a different market value as there is practically no difference at all. If there is some
difference or appreciable difference, we would be justified in fixing the market value of the lands covered by these appeals at a higher rate.
As already pointed out and it is also not disputed that the lands are identical, contiguous, of the same tharam and potentialities and the
comparable sale deeds produced are also identical, one or two additional documents produced will in no way advance the case of the respondents
to enhance the market value and award a higher compensation in this batch of appeals. It may not be necessary to refer to the Exhibits relied upon
by the respondents themselves in detail since they are not new, nor they show appreciable or sharp difference. But it is pointed out by the learned
Additional Government Pleader that comparable sale deeds placed before the learned Subordinate Judge in all the LAOPs are the very same set
of comparable sale deeds and that the data sale deed taken into consideration are also the same and there is no difference at all, much less,
appreciable difference between the lands covered by the earlier innumerable appeals and this batch of Nine Appeals.
Whatever irregularity or illegality pointed out by the earlier Division Benches squarely applies to the judgements under appeal before us. There
is no basic material at all to fix the market value of the acquired land higher than what has been fixed by the three earlier Division Benches.
In Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , the Supreme Court laid down that the court has to
determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market, the nature of the user of the land to which
the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, the income derived therefrom and all other relevant attending
circumstances. Such determination, it has been further held, should be just, adequate and reasonable. IN other words, it must be just equivalent to
what the land is capable of fetching in the open market from a willing and prudent buyer and the court has to sit in the arm chair of a bona fide,
willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek an answer to the question where under the conditions prevailing in the market the
purchaser would offer the same market value as the court has proposed.
It is also the equally well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs and the burden is on them to prove by
adducing cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher market value than what is determined by the land acquisition
officer, which is only an offer. The burden to prove that the amount awarded by the land acquisition officer is not adequate is always on the
claimant. Such burden could be discharged by adducing relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching
higher market value than the amount awarded by the land acquisition officer. The very object of reference u/s 18 is to bring on record the
principles which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in the open market as on date of the notification.
The paramount duty of the courts of facts is to subject the evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the
parties on proper consideration thereof in the correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value. The circumstances and the
attending facts in a given case would furnish the guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. It is very much relevant to consider
the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or other advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each
case.
A fair and reasonable market value or adequate value always depends upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities
arising in each case. The guidance would be where a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and the willing purchaser under normal
circumstances would be willing to pay as a prudent mind under normal market conditions that prevails in the open market in the locality.
It is equally well settled that the best evidence of the value of property or the sale transaction in respect of acquired land to which the claimant
is a party, the time at which the property was sold, the purpose for which it is sold, the nature of the consideration and the manner in which the
transaction came to be brought out.
The doctrine of equality in determination of compensation payable to all the claimants covered by the same notification is not a good principle
as has been held by the Supreme Court in Basant Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . It is equally well settled that treating
the entire village as one Unit and uniformly determining the compensation on that basis is not sustainable in law. The court has to keep in its mind in
analysing the evidence and court should answer affirmatively by taking into consideration of the relevant factors.
In Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , the Apex Court further laid down thus:-
It would thus be settled law that the Court is enjoined to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in
the open market, the nature of the user of the land to which the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, the income
derived therefrom and all other relevant attending circumstances. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable. In
other words, it must be just equivalent to what the land is capable of fetching in the open market from a willing and prudent buyer. Therefore, the
Court is required to sit in the armchair of a bona fide willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek an answer to the question whether
in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value as the Court has proposed.
It has also been repeatedly held that court shall not indulge in feats of imagination, but it has to sit in the arm chair of a prudent and willing
purchaser under the normal conditions of the market value and seek answer to the question whether such a purchaser would be willing to offer the
amount proposed by the court after taking into consideration of the features of the land existing as on the date of the notification.
The claimants have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Collector is not adequate and that it does not reflect the
true market value of the land as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification by adducing evidence on the relevant date as to what was the market
value of the land in question.
In Bhag Singh and others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, , the Supreme Court laid down that enhancement of compensation could be
granted on the basis of a judgement of High Court determining the higher market value for land acquired in the vicinity. In that context, it has been
held thus:-
What was urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-claimants in support of the petition, was that this Court should
enhance the market value of the acquired lands of the claimants since a learned Single Judge of the High Court in some other appeal had awarded
a somewhat higher market value for a land similar to the acquired lands. Their submission was that the compensation payable for the lands of the
claimants had to be enhanced by treating the subsequent judgment of the High Court as evidence of the real market value of the acquired lands of
the claimants. Learned counsel sought to invite our attention to that subsequent judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court on which they
had relied, as had been reported in a Law Report. Further, they sought to obtain sustenance for their argument from a decision of this Court in
Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel made on behalf of the petitioners
does not merit acceptance. So also, the decision of this Court from which sustenance for the submission was sought, can lend no such sustenance.
No doubt, a judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired land, even though
not inter partes, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or
inferred. There will be no difficulty in accepting such judgment as one furnishing the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land
under consideration, if the opposite parties do not genuinely dispute the position that the judgment relied upon, could be acted (sic accepted) as
basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In fact, in Krapa Rangiah case1 this Court was considering a case where the High
Court had reduced the compensation which had been awarded in appeal by the reference court. It was not disputed before this Court that the
High Court had granted an extra rate of Rs. 2 per square yard for a similar land which adjoined the acquired land and had been acquired under the
same notification. It is in the said set of admitted facts, this Court enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land under consideration
before it by Rs. 2 per square yard. This decision, therefore, cannot lend any assistance to the petitioners claim for grant of compensation which
could be higher than that granted by the High Court. The petitioners in the present petitions, it has to be noted, though they have been granted
compensation by the High Court exceeding that granted by the reference court are seeking grant of further enhanced compensation from this
Court. But such claim for enhanced compensation is contested by learned counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Collector, by urging that the
judgment of the High Court on which reliance is placed on behalf of petitioners cannot form the basis for determining the market value of the
acquired lands of the petitioners, inasmuch as, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by them to show that in the attendant facts and
circumstances of the cases, it would be just and reasonable to grant the compensation for the acquired lands of the petitioners at a higher rate in
which compensation has been granted to the claimant concerned in a stray case where subsequent judgment has been rendered by the High Court.
Judgments of the High Court given in a large number of cases determining the market value of lands in a huge tract at uniform rates cannot be
revised, in our view, solely on the basis of claim made on behalf of petitioners that a learned Judge of the same High Court in a subsequent stray
case has awarded a higher compensation for a piece of land said to be in the same tract of the acquired lands. If recourse is taken to such
procedure, the market value already determined in a large number of cases at uniform rates may go on requiring either enhancement or reduction,
whenever subsequent judgment of the court in a stray case brings about a variation in the market value of land concerned. To say the least, such
procedure if is resorted to by courts in determination of market value of lands lying in large tracts based on previous awards or judgments can
never reach finality. Besides, recourse to such procedure could give ample scope for making of arbitrary and fanciful awards in land acquisition
cases. Hence, we consider it unsafe to act on a subsequent stray judgment of a High Court in a land acquisition case to disturb its earlier large
number of judgments, where uniform rate of market value of the acquired lands in same vicinity are fixed. Consequently, no interference with the
judgment of the High Court against which present SLPs are filed, is warranted. The SLPs are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
By following the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we have considered the evidence placed by the claimants before the learned
Subordinate Judge, both oral and documentary, the location with reference to the lands covered which forms part of a large tract of land acquired,
the same tharam, standard, level, comparable sale deeds, prevailing market conditions in the market, soil condition, similar advantageous features,
relative value of the lands in the neighbourhood, distance from the GST Road, Railway Line, Bus stop, already existing buildings, factories near to
the GST Road, lands being contiguous and definitely there being no difference or different situation or difference in the potentialities of the lands,
we hold that in these appeals also we are not persuaded to enhance the market value of the acquired land than what has been fixed by the earlier
three Division Benches of this court.
The lands being identical, located in the same locality and comparable sale deeds also reflect the same market value and there being no
difference, much less, appreciable difference between the lands which are the subject matter of present Nine Appeals and the other Appeals, we
hold that we do not see any reason to take a different view and we respectfully adopt the market value as already fixed for the identical lands
covered by the very same Notifications by the earlier three Division Benches.
In the result, the appeals are allowed in part, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 2040/= per cent with usual solatium at 30%,
interest on solatium, payment of additional amount of compensation u/s 23(1-A) and interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Consequently, all the Connected CMPs are closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs in these appeals.