AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Challenge in these batch of Appeals is enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 4,571/- per cent in respect of the lands
acquired for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme.
Though, all the Appeals arise out of different Award and Land Acquisition Original Petitions, Appeals relate to acquisition of lands in respect of
Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme, all the Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment.
Under various Awards large extents of lands comprising 79.23 acres of wet and 62.83 acres of dry and manavari were acquired for Ambattur
Neighbourhood Scheme. Section 4(1) notification was issued in 1975 and after publication of Section 6 declaration, Awards were passed.
Land Acquisition Officer had taken 464 sales for statistics and divided the sale deeds into seven groups. Land Acquisition Officer has taken the
sale deed dated 22.11.1973 in which 0.22 cents of Dry land was sold in S. No. 561/8 for Rs. 12,000- and another sale deed of the same date
[22.11.1973], 0.11 cents in the same S. No. 561/8 was sold for Rs. 6,000/-. Based upon the same, Land Acquisition Officer formed an opinion
that the acquired lands are of the same tharam and classification. Opining that the lands are situated in the developed locality and that under data
sale deeds land was sold as house sites, Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs. 545/- per cent. Land Acquisition Officer has also
awarded 30% solatium, 12% of additional market value per annum from the date of 4(1) notification to the date of Award or taking possession
which ever is earlier.
On objection raised by the land owners regarding quantum of compensation, Section 18 reference was made. Both Land Acquisition Officer
and Claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned trial Court has taken Ex.C1 sale deed [14.3.1973] in which 3672 sq.ft. in S.
No. 600 was sold for Rs. 38,500/-. Taking Ex.C1 sale deed [14.3.1973] as comparable sale, Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 4,571/-
per cent. Court has observed that Ex.C1 sale deed [14.3.1973] pertaining to S. No. 600 was of the year 1973, two years prior to acquisition and
based upon the said sale deed dated 14.3.1973[Ex.C1], Court enhanced the market value of acquired lands to Rs. 4571/- per cent and also
ordered 30% solatium, 12% of additional market value, interest at 9% for one year from the date of possession for a period of one year and
thereafter interest at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of realisation.
Details of Award, Survey Numbers, extent, Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer, Enhancement by lower Court are as follows:
A.S. Nos. LAOP Award No. S. Nos. & Extent Amount Enhancement by
Nos. awarded by Reference Court
LAO Rs. Rs.
399/2004 81/1995 4/1989 dt. 481/1 - 0.61 Cents 1,61,651/- 8,26,610/-
30.12.89
481/2 - 0.53 Cents
492 - 0.66 Cents
400/2004 37/1997 5/1989 dt. 497 - 0.481/2 Cents 40,895/- 2,21,693.50
30.12.89
401/2004 36/1997 5/1989 dt. 522/1 - 0.25 Cents 37,134/- 1,82,840/-
30.12.89
522/2 - 0.15 Cents
402/2004 38/1997 5/1989 dt. 499 - 1.25 Acres 1,05,399/- 5,71,375/-
30.12.89
403/2004 191/2001 4/1989 dt. 494 - 1.21 Acres 1,04,579/- 5,53,091/-
30.12.89
404/2004 83/1995 4/1989 dt. 534/1 - 1.03 Acres 1,97,306/- 10,69,614/-
30.12.89
541 - 1.31 Acres
405/2004 82/1995 6/1989 dt. 563/3 - 1.06 Acres 1,23,106/- 6,67,366/-
30.12.89
563/4 - 0.40 Cents
727/2004 15/1986 2/1985 532/2 - 1.08 Acres 89,010/- 4,93,668/-
728/2004 183/1987 3/1986 535 - 0.76 Cents 64,736.40 3,47,396/-
859/2004 216/1987 468/4 - 0.03 Cents 2,521.85 13,713/-
860/2004 264/1987 561/4 - 0.85 Cents 2,19,716.75 10.97,040/-
565/2 - 0.90 Cents
565/3 - 0.45 Cents
566/5A1- 0.20 Cents
861/2004 265/1987 2/1986 566/5A2 1,38,933.30 7,31,360/-
dt.12.09.86
566/5B - 1.60 Acres
862/2004 27/1986 1/1985 dt. 572/7 - 4.79 Acres 1,201.45 21,89,509/-
06.12.85
A.S. Nos. LAOP Award No. S. Nos. & Extent Amount Enhancement by
Nos. awarded by Reference Court
LAO Rs. Rs.
863/2004 208/1987 4/1986 dt. 513/1 - 0.57 Cents 48,552.30 2,60,547/-
23.09.86
864/2004 209/1987 9/1986 dt. 497/1 - 1.491/2 Acres 1,27,343.30 6,83,365/-
23.09.86
225/2006 211/1987 5/1986 dt. 539/2 - 0.74 Cents 60,375.65 3,38,254/-
23.09.86
226/2006 263/1987 3/1986 dt. 561/5 - 1.08 Acres 88,951.80 4,93,668/-
07.01.86
227/2006 262/1987 3/1985 dt. 561/5 - 1.09 Acres 88,951.80 4,93,668/-
07.01.86
159/2007 32/1986 1/1985 dt. 571/1 - 1.05 Acres 4,40,242.60 59,92,581/-
04.07.86
571/2 - 1.65 Acres
572/2 - 2.36 Acres
572/5A- 3.05 Acres
572/C - 4.12 Acres
572/8 - 0.88 Cents
Mr. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the land in S. No. 600 taken by the Court is very far away from the acquired
lands and while so, Court below erred in taking Ex.C1 sale deed [14.03.1973] as comparable sale. It was further submitted that the data land (S.
No. 561/8) selected by the Land Acquisition Officer is very near to the acquired lands and while so, Court below ought not to have rejected the
value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Main contention of the Appellants is that agricultural lands were acquired and Court below ought to
have made suitable deduction 33 - 1/3% for development.
Reiterating the submissions of learned Special Government Pleader, Mr. Veerasekaran, learned Counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board has
contended that while fixing of value for the acquired lands, Court below ought to have kept in view that Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a beneficiary
department which is also carrying on developmental activities in providing housing to all sections and Court below ought to have given atleast 65%
deduction for both developmental and beneficiary activities of Housing Board.
Mr. Damodaran, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents contended that the acquired lands are in the midst of developed lands and the
compensation enhanced is reasonable. It was further submitted that the acquired lands are being in the midst of developed area, no deduction need
be made.
Determination of Market value:
Land Acquisition Officer has taken sale deed dated 22.11.1973 in which 0.22 cents in S. No. 561/8 was sold for Rs. 12,000/-. Based upon the
said sale deed, Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs. 545/- per cent. According to Appellants, both the acquired lands and
the data land are similar in all aspects of tharam and classification and therefore, Land Acquisition Officer was justified in fixing the market value at
Rs. 545/- per cent. Further contention of Appellant is that enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,571/- per cent is exorbitant and is to be reduced.
Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act depends upon a large number of factors,
the first being the nature and quality of the land. The area of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring thereof amongst
others would be relevant factors Apart from nature and quality of land in the event of agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant
therefore are also required to be considered, viz., as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation,
location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season,
existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on
determining the valuation of land.
Principles for determination of market value:
In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of amount of compensation. The positive as
well as negative factors to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs.
State of Gujarat, , the Supreme Court held as under:
One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to
offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the
cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a
particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date
of notification u/s 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to
the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable
adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road distance (ii) situation in the interior at a from the road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small
frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous
acquisition factors which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of
an adjoining property to whom it
may have some very special
advantage
Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out
roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may
range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
The Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Others, on the question of determination of market value
held as follows:
While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefore indisputably
has to be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor.
The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any
direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefore inter alia would be
judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and
award, in the absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary
value.
Therefore, the contention that as the Union of India was a party to the said awards would not by itself be a ground to invoke the principles of
res judicata and/or estoppel. Despite such awards it may be open to the Union of India to question the entitlement of the respondent claimants to
the amount of compensation and/or the statutory limitations in respect thereof. It would also be open to it to raise other contentions relying on or on
the basis of other materials brought on record. It was also open to the appellant to contend that the lands under acquisition are delivered. The area
of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual
market value of the property although such judgments/awards, if duly brought on record, as stated hereinbefore, would be admissible in evidence.
It is brought in evidence that the acquired lands are surrounded by house sites and layout have been formed and lands were sold as house sites
and acquired lands are in the midst of developed area. Even before acquisition, Ambattur area was declared as an Industrial Area. In their
evidence, Claimants have stated that many heavy industries like T.I. Cycles, T.V.S. Lucas, Milk Dairy Farm are located in Ambattur Industrial
Estate. Even prior to acquisition there are so many educational Institutions like Murugappa Polytechnic, Mahalakshmi Engineering College are
there and nearly about 10 Colleges are situated around the acquired lands. Within 3 k.m. away from the acquired lands is the Ponnamallee High
Road and the acquired lands are situated within 2 k.m. from Chennai City border and Anna Nagar. Nearby acquired land is the other developed
localities - Athipattu and Sivananda nagar. Within the radius of 1 k.m. Tiruverkadu Karumariamman Temple, Tirumullaivoyal Pachaiappan
Masilamani Easwaran koil are situated.
Even though, acquired lands are in the midst of developed lands, Land Acquisition Officer has taken the data sale deed dated 22.11.1973
which is about two years prior to the date of acquisition and fixed the market value at Rs. 545/- per cent. The learned Counsel for Claimants
submitted that when 1973 document was taken for arriving at the market value atleast suitable increase ought to have been made. As held by the
Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, , the increase in
market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained
with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase.
As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year''s market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase
cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. Even though, 1973 document was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, he has not chosen to increase
the value nor taken the potentials of the land.
Learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that data land [S. No. 561/8] is
very near to the acquired lands whereas S. No. 600 is very far away from the acquired lands and while so Ex.C1 sale deed [14.11.1973] relating
to S. No. 600 cannot be taken as comparable sale.
We have gone through the comprehensive plan. Even though, S. No. 600 is slightly far away from the acquired lands, the potentiality of the
acquired land has to be kept in view. Being near to the city, acquired lands are in advantageous position having potential of development. As we
have pointed out before acquisition, Ambattur was declared as an Industrial area. While fixing the market value, Land Acquisition Officer is
required to consider the location of the property, its advantages as well as its potentiality. Land Acquisition Officer has not kept in view the
potentiality of the lands for development and the compensation offered was a meagre amount.
Expressing concern over plight of land losers and that land losers had to engage a lawyer and fight for a reasonable compensation, in (2009) 4
MLJ 137 (SC) Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project v. Mahaboob and Anr., the Supreme Court held as under:
Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is
taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation
by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector
to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and
purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make
reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ''safer'' side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meagre awards force the land loser to
seek reference to civil Court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the
reference Courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme
Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference Court or the
judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to Courts to
initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due.
Resultantly the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition.
In these Appeals also most of the acquisition relate to lands held by small farmers whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land.
Considering the potentiality of the lands and that it is situated in the midst of developed lands and applying the ratio of the principles laid down in
various decisions of the Supreme Court, in our considered view, Court below rightly taken the sale deed dated 14.3.1973 [Ex.C1] and enhanced
the market value at Rs. 4,571/- per cent.
Deduction towards Development charges:
While fixing the market value, very often, documents of smaller extent would be taken as the basis. Normal rule in fixing the compensation for large
extent of land with reference to the value show in the sale document of lesser extent is that there must be suitable deduction. While fixing the
market value, development charges have to be deducted depending upon the nature of the land. While giving such deduction, the Land Acquisition
Officer must record reasons about the disadvantage of the land acquired and the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired as well as
extent of land necessary for providing developments like provision of roads, electricity, water and sewerage and other facilities. The extent of
deduction cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Supreme Court had time and again indicated the factors to be
considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for making deduction towards development charges as well as percentage of deduction. Such
deduction is also not automatic unless there is a factual finding that deduction was absolutely necessary on the facts of the case by taking into
consideration the ground situation. In case the property has already been developed, there would be no requirement of deduction towards
development.
In 2008 (13) SCALE 202 Naganath (dead) by Lrs. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., the Supreme Court
observed that the trend of the various Judgments of the Supreme Court indicates deduction on account of development charges in the range of
1/6th to 33%.
The Supreme Court in Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , referred to an earlier decision relating
to deduction towards development charges, in Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer,
Visakhapatnam Municipality, , wherein it was held as follows:
In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into
consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small
plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the
extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and
situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc.
then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified.
In the present cases the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters
with the Town Planning Trust Road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the
land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and having stated the
advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the
principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Therefore, the High Court erred in making a deduction of one-
third of the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10 per sq. yd. to Rs. 6.50 per sq. yd.
Regarding deduction in the case of smaller extent when compared the larger extent acquired in Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs.
State of Haryana and Another, , the Supreme Court has explained the legal position as under:
In Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, , it was held as follows:
(15) Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out
roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of
an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately
between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting
will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period
during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
Shri Dwivedi has also referred to Basant Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , K. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue
Divisional Officer (LAO), and H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi and Others, . In the first cited case, land was acquired for planned
development of Delhi and in the other two cases for housing boards and a deduction of 33% was applied.
The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land, according to
cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines
and other civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the
roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment
flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period
during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made.
Ex.C1 sale deed [14.3.1973] is admittedly for lesser extent of 3672 sq.ft. when compared to the properties acquired by the Government.
Even though, S. No. 600 is slightly far away from the acquired lands, vast extent of 79.23 acres of wet and 62.83 acres of dry and manavari were
acquired in various Survey Numbers. Extent of property acquired from each of the Claimants are in acres much more than the area shown in the
said sale deed dated 14.03.1973.
Main contention of Appellant is that while enhancing the market value at Rs. 4,571/-, Court below has not given deduction for development
charges. It was further contended that agricultural lands have been acquired and for laying roads and other amenities, 33-1/3% ought to have been
deducted. It was further contended that at the time of acquisition, no development had taken place in that area and Court below erred in not giving
suitable deduction.
In the present case lands acquired are in the developed Area/Industrial Area. The neighbouring areas are already developed and houses have
been constructed. The land has potential value for being used as house sites. The acquired lands are very near to the City and is in a very
advantageous position and therefore, there need not be one-third deduction.
Lands were acquired in 1975, but due to one litigation or other, Awards were passed in 1985, 1986, 1989 etc. Having regard to the
potentiality of the lands and that the acquired lands are situated in the Industrial area, in our considered view, applying the ratio of Atma Singh''s
case and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor''s case, deduction of 10% would be reasonable. The market value of acquired lands - Rs. 4,571/- per cent
fixed by the Court below is reduced to Rs. 4,121/- [Rs.4,571 - Rs. 450 = Rs. 4,121/-] rounded off to Rs. 4,125/-.
We therefore confirm the market value of the land fixed by the Court at Rs. 4,571/- per cent and giving 10% deduction, the land value for the
purpose of calculating the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,121/-, rounded off to Rs. 4,125/- per cent.
In the result, all the Appeals are partly allowed. Market value of the lands acquired in all the Appeals are fixed at Rs. 4,125/- per cent with
30% solatium. Claimants are entitled to an additional amount of 12% p.a. from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of Award or taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier as ordered by the Court. Claimants are entitled to 9% interest for the first year from the date of taking
possession of the land and 15% p.a. for every subsequent year, on the amount calculated as market value till the date of deposit.
It is stated that part of the compensation amount along with accrued interest and proportionate solatium have been deposited and Claimants have
withdrawn 50% of the amount so deposited. The Appellant is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount along with solatium and the
accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of Judgment. Claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance
modified compensation along with accrued interest.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall be entitled separate fee in each of the Appeal.