AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The Referring Officer (land Acquisition Officer) under the Land Acquisition Act has come forward with the present appeal filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the award passed by the Court below, to which a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made, directing payment of enhanced compensation. The said award of the Court below was passed on 30.04.2001 in L.A.O.P. No. 132 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
An extent of 1.05 acres of dry land comprised in S. No. 44/6 along with other lands belonging to other persons in Thoppur Village was acquired by the Government for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme, Unit-I. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs. 4,500/- per acre, equivalent to Rs. 45/- per cent and awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,831.05, which includes other statutory benefits, namely 30% solatium and 12% additional market value. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the first Respondent herein, namely the claimant, received the amount under protest and made a request for making a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court for fixing a reasonable amount as compensation.
Accordingly, a reference was made to the Court, which was taken on file as L.A.O.P. No. 132 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. After having the claim statement of the claimant and the objection of the beneficiary filed into Court, the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge conducted the trial in which three witnesses were examined as C.Ws.1 to 3 and three documents were marked as Exs.C1 to C3 on the side of the first Respondent herein/claimant. No witness was examined and no document was marked either on the side of the Appellant herein, namely the referring officer or on behalf of the second Respondent herein, the beneficiary of the land acquisition.
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the first Respondent/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation by calculating the market value at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent, based on Ex.C.2, a copy of the award passed by the Court in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 1996, relating to an adjacent land acquired under the very same scheme in respect of S. No. 27/3A1B and 27/4B3 of the very same village.
The Court below has also calculated other statutory benefits like 30% solatium u/s 23(2) and additional market value at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award or taking possession, which ever was earlier, as per Section 23(1-A) and also directed payment of interest for the enhanced amount of compensation in accordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation.
The said award in L.A.O.P. No. 132 of 1994 passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is impugned in the present appeal by the land acquisition officer (referring officer). The beneficiary has been arrayed as the second Respondent in the appeal, whereas the claimant figures as the first Respondent.
The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
Whether the market value fixed by the Court below for the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification is excessive? and
Whether the amount awarded as enhanced compensation by the Court below is excessive requiring downward revision?
The submissions made by Mr. D. Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), Mr. R. Aravindan, learned Counsel for the first Respondent/claimant and Mr. P.Thilakkumar, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the second Respondent/beneficiary were heard. The materials available on records were also perused.
The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the property concerned in this appeal was issued on 24.12.1986. But the award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 01.02.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 45/- per cent, which is equivalent to Rs. 4,500/- per acre. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation thus awarded, the first Respondent/claimant seems to have paved the way for a reference being made to the Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by submitting a requisition to the Land Acquisition Officer.
In a reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court is not expected to assume jurisdiction of an appellate forum, as the L.A.O.P. is not an appeal against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The amount specified in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is nothing but an offer made by the State towards payment of compensation. A claimant, who is not satisfied with the amount that is offered, is given a right to seek a reference to the Court for fixing the reasonable compensation. As such, in a reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant shall take the position equivalent to a Plaintiff and the referring officer and the beneficiary shall take the position equivalent to the Defendants. The claimant, being placed in a position equivalent to the Plaintiff, shall prove by evidence that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification was more than the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and that he/she will be entitled to get more amount as compensation than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
In this contest, the first Respondent herein/claimant, besides examining three witnesses on her side as C.Ws.1 to 3, has also produced three documents marked as Exs.C. 1 to C3.
Ex.C. 1 is the copy of the award passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. No. 258 of 1989 in respect of a neighbouring land, namely S. No. 85/5 of the very same village, which was also acquired for Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the said land was made on 14.08.1985. In the said L.A.O.P., the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent and awarded enhanced compensation. The same may provide the basis for finding out the value of the acquired land concerned in this appeal as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, because of the proximity of time between the notifications issued u/s 4(1) in the said case and in the case on hand.
Ex.C.2 is the certified copy of another award passed by the very same Court in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 1996 relating to some other survey numbers in the very same village that was acquired subsequently. In the said award, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent and awarded enhanced compensation. Ex.C. 3 is the certified copy of the decretal order passed in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 1996.
A perusal of the said documents Exs.C. 2 and C.3 would show that 4(1) notification in respect of the lands concerned in those documents came to be issued five years after the date of 4(1) notification issued in the case on hand. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that fixing the market value on par with the market value fixed as on 22.11.1991 in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 1996, which was five years later than the publication of 4(1) notification in this case, shall not be proper. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the fixation of the market value of the acquired on the basis of Exs.C 2 and C3 made by the Court below is not proper has got be countenanced. Hence, this Court deems it fit to prefer the valuation made in Ex.C.1, provided it has not been modified in appeal.
So far as Ex.C.1 is concerned, it is also represented by the learned Government Advocate that the same was modified subsequently by the High Court in an appeal. But a copy of the judgment has not been produced. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has produced a copy of a common judgment made by a Division Bench of the this Court in A.S. No. 521 of 1999 and batch cases, in which a reference was made to the judgment pronounced by this Court in A.S. No. 884 of 1992, wherein for a land acquired for the very same purpose under the very same scheme, in respect of which notification u/s 4(1) was issued on 13.11.1985, was valued by this Court at the rate of Rs. 825/- per cent. The date of 4(1) notification concerned in the case dealt with by this Court in A.S. No. 884 of 1992 is in close proximity with the date of 4(1) notification issued in the case on hand. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to take the said amount fixed in A.S. No. 884 of 1992 as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land in the case on hand as on the date of issue of Section 4(1) notification. Since there was a time gap of one year 13 months between the date of 4(1) notification issued in the said case and the case on hand, this Court has to take into account the escalation in the market value during the said period. It is pertinent to note that the market value of the land from 13.11.1985 till November, 1991 has increased to Rs. 2,000/- per cent from Rs. 825/- per cent, which is evident from the above said judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.09.2003. The following chart will show the gradual increase in the market value:
Date of 4(1) Notification Case Number Rate per cent R s.
13.11.1985 A.S.No.884 of 1992 Batch 825
November, 1991 A.S.No.521 of 1999 Batch 2,000
One should not lose sight of the fact that there had been such a steep escalation of the market value because of the developments made in the lands acquired under the Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme, earlier to the acquisition concerned in the batch cases dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the increase in the market value would have gained momentum on pace with the developments made. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court deems it fit to fix the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification in the case on hand, namely 24.12.1986, at Rs. 1,000/- per cent, which shall be quite reasonable. Based on the above said fixation of the market value and the total compensation is worked out as follows:
Market value of the acquired land (1.05 acre) at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per cent = Rs.1,05,000
Solatium at the rate of 30% u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. = Rs. 31,500
Additional market value u/s 23(1-A) calculated at the rate of 12% from the date of 4(1) notification i.e., 24.12.1986 till date of award i.e., 01.02.1989 as possession was taken subsequently (2 years one month and 8 days) = Rs. 26,530
Total amount of compensation = Rs.1,63,030
The amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer = R s . 7,831
The enhanced compensation to which the first respondent/claimant is entitled = Rs.1,55,199
Rounded of to = Rs.1,55,200
Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 for determination are answered and the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Court below is reduced to Rs. 1,55,200/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only), which amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the award of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in L.A.O.P. No. 132 of 1994 is modified by fixing the enhanced compensation at Rs. 1,55,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only), which amount shall be paid to the first Respondent/claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year from 17.03.1989, the date on which possession was taken by the Government and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 10671 of 2004 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.