AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Sundresh, J.—The appellants who are the respondents in L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 1996, on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Pondicherry, have filed this appeal challenging the award enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 8,13,348/- to Rs. 44,22,000/-.
The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
i. An extent of 88 Ares and 25 Centaires of land situated in Survey No. 120/1B in Madukarai Village, Bahour Taluk, Pondicherry has been
acquired by the appellants for the purpose of construction of Fire Station and Fire Staff Quarters. The Notification u/s 4(1) was issued in the
Government Gazatte in G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 08.02.1995 by invoking urgency provision u/s 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
declaration u/s 6 of the said Act was passed in G.O.Ms. No. 48 dated 04.05.1995.
ii. Thereafter an award was passed by the 2nd appellant fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs. 8,491 per Are. In view of the fact that the
acquired land was not a commercial and well developed land, 20% deduction was made towards the development charges and thereafter a sum of
Rs. 6,793/- per Are was fixed. Accordingly a compensation amount of Rs. 8,13,348/- was arrived at based upon 4 sale deeds which were
mentioned as item Nos. 18, 21, 23 and 26 in the Award No. 3 of 196 dated 26.02.1996.
iii. Challenging the said proceedings by claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per kuzhi, the respondent sought for a reference and
approached the Reference Court. The Reference Court in L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 1996 has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 8,13,348/-
to 44,22,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said enhanced compensation made by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred the present
appeal.
Before the Tribunal the respondent had filed six sale deeds in Ex.A-1 to A-6 and examined two witnesses on his behalf. The appellant has
marked seven documents in Ex.B-1 to B-7 and examined RW-1 on its behalf. The Tribunal has accepted the documents filed in Ex.A-1 to A-6
and took the average value mentioned in those documents for arriving at the compensation payable. The Tribunal has further held that the acquired
land is situated in Pondicherry Madukarai Main Road having direct access and it is situated among the potentially developed house sites and
Government High School. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration of the evidence of PW-1. It also rejected the documents filed by the
appellants by holding that the appellants have not taken the documents which are of higher value for consideration. The Tribunal has further held
that the evidence of RW-1 cannot be accepted, since he was not the Land Acquisition Officer at the relevant point of time of fixing the valuation.
Mr. Thangavel, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal without any basis has
rejected the data sale deeds produced by the appellants under Ex.B-1 to B-6 and wrongly based reliance upon the sale deeds produced by the
respondent in Ex.A-1 to A-6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not made any deduction towards the developmental charges, since
admittedly the acquired land was not a developed land as against the lands mentioned in the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent. It is the
further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) that the lands covered under Ex.B-1 to B-6 are nearer and therefore they
have been taken into consideration by fixing the value of the acquired land based upon higher valuation fixed in the data sale deed. Therefore the
learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) sought for the allowing of the appeal.
Per contra, Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that it is factually incorrect to state that the sale
deeds relied upon by the respondent in Ex.A-1 to A-6 are away from the acquired lands. The learned Counsel submitted that the distance
between the lands covered under Ex.A-1 to A-6, the acquired lands and the lands covered under Ex.B-1 to B-6 is very short and therefore the
average value given under Ex.A-1 to A-6 being higher in nature has been rightly adopted by the reference Court. The learned senior Counsel
submitted that inasmuch as RW-1 was not the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing of the award his evidence cannot be accepted as
against the evidence of PW-1 and 2. The learned Counsel also contended that the developmental charges need not be deducted in the present
case, since the acquired area is covered by developed lands and in view of the purpose of the acquisition which is for the construction of fire
station and staff quarters such deduction is not required. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for the confirmation of the award passed by the
reference Court.
We have heard Mr. Thangavel, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) appearing for the appellants and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned
senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
It is a well settled principle of law that while fixing the valuation the Court will have to take into consideration of the value fixed in a sale deed
which is beneficial and advantageous to the claimants is to be taken into consideration. Hence the Reference Court has correctly took into
consideration the transaction fetching the maximum price and most advantageous to the claimants. While fixing the valuation the Court will have to
sit in the armchair of the seller and the intending purchaser and decide the market value. The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
reported in The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3 Vs. Rathinareddi, has held that it is incumbent on the Court to
consider the transaction fetching the maximum price and which is most advantageous to the claimant while fixing the compensation for the acquired
land.
We are in respectable agreement with the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench. Applying the said ratio of the Hon''ble Division Bench, we
are of the opinion that the Reference Court has readily fixed the value by taking into consideration of Ex.A-1 to A-6. In the present case on hand,
the acquired land is situated on the main road of Madukarai Village, Pondicherry. We have also perused the sketch produced by the appellants.
The data sale deeds relied upon by the appellants are not situated on the main road even though they are nearer to the acquired land. The nearness
of the acquired land to the data lands by itself cannot be a sole basis to fix the just compensation. As submitted by Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned
senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, the sale deeds mentioned in Ex.A-1 to A-6 are not far away from the acquired land. Evidence has
been let in by PW-1 that the acquired land is having huge potential and is nearer to Madukarai Harijan Colony and Government High School.
Further evidence have been let in to show that there are houses, colonies and schools nearer to the acquired land. In so far as the evidence of RW-
1 is concerned, he has admitted that the acquired land is adjacent to the Madukarai Village and abutting the main road. It is stated that he does not
know as to whether adjacent to the acquired land, schools and colonies were situated. Hence the Tribunal has correctly considered the evidence
of PW-1 and 2 as well as RW-1 and came to the correct conclusion while fixing the compensation.
Therefore we are of considered view that the fixation of the value of the acquired land by the Reference Court based upon the average value
fixed in Ex.A-1 to A-6 cannot be found fault with. A similar view has been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in
Subh Ram and Others Vs. Haryana State and Another, . Hence we approve the method adopted by the reference Court in fixing the valuation of
the acquired land. In so far as the deduction towards the developmental charges is concerned, it is seen from the records 20% deduction was
made by the Land Acquisition Officer himself while fixing the valuation. The deduction towards the developmental charges depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Officer himself has only deducted 20% of the valuation fixed towards the
developmental charges and also inview of the evidence and the finding of the Reference Court about the developed nature of the area surrounding
the acquired land, we are of the opinion that 15% deduction towards the developmental charges would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly a
sum of Rs. 37,58,700/- is hereby fixed as compensation by deducting 15% within the compensation amount of Rs. 44,22,000/- fixed by the
Reference Court. In all respects, the judgement and decree of the reference Court is hereby confirmed.
In fine, the appeal is allowed in part by fixing the compensation at Rs. 37,58,700/- and in other respects the award and the decree of the
Reference Court is confirmed. The appellants are directed to deposit balance compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued
interest.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this appeal.