Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR
Radha Mudaliyar & Others
Versus
Spl. Tahsildar (Land ACQ.), T.N.H. Board & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5616 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5628 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5732 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9736 of 2004)
Decided on : 08-10-2010
(1982) 3 SCC 408; (1989) 4 SCC 662; (2005) 6 SCC 454; (2001) 7 SCC 650; (1998) 8 SCC 136 – Relied upon
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – Sale deed a little older – annual increase of 10% to 15% is normally allowed. (Para 12)
(2008) 14 SCC 745; (2008) 17 SCC 133 – Relied upon
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – Deductions – For different items of development – A total of 20% to 70% deduction had been affected by courts depending upon various factors. (Para 13)
(2003) 12 SCC 334; (1996) 2 SCC 62; (1996) 8 SCC 338; (1988) 3 SCC 751; (1998) 2 SCC 388; (2003) 12 SCC 642; 2009 (12) SCALE 293 – Relied upon
(d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – Reference court and High Court both have fallen in error of law – While Reference court allowed 40% price increase for a short intervening period of ten months, High Court did not allow enhancement in the value of the land despite the increasing trend coming into evidence – both the courts also fell in error of law in not considering Ex. A1 which was only three months old and from the Revenue estate of the same village. (Para 16)
(e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – Considering all factors, value of compensation determined at 2,800/- per cent. (Para 16)
(2003) 1 SCC 354 – Relied upon
(f) Section 23 and 34 – Solatium and interest – Distinction must be drawn between compulsory nature of acquisition and voluntary sale or transfer – Solatium is payable in compulsory acquisition and it is not same as damages – Interest u/s 34 is payable on the amount of solatium as well. (Para 18)
(2001) 7 SCC 211 – Relied upon
(1996) 2 SCC 71; (1999) 2 SCC 89 – Referred
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Industries Department of the State of Tamil Nadu to acquire land belonging to the appellant.
In response to the publication of the notification, the interested persons filed objections in terms of Section 5A of the Act which were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued.
The LAO awarded compensation at the rate of ` 145/- per cent for an extent of 64 cents and ` 110 for 6.42 acres of another kind of land and also awarded compensation at different rates for the superstructures raised by the appellants on their respective lands.
The possession of the land was taken and compensation was received by the appellants under protest, and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act.
The Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to `3,600/- per cent as agricultural land.
The Government, through the LAO, filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court declined to accept the reasoning recorded by the Reference Court in its different judgments under appeal and reduced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of ` 2018/- per cent.
Finding of the Court:
Both the Reference court and the High Court fell into error of law.
Result:
Appeals partly allowed.
Judgment :-
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.9736 of 2004.
2. Application for impleadment in Civil Appeal No.5616 of 2004 is allowed.
3. By this judgment, we will dispose of the three Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal Nos.5616, 5628 and 5732 of 2004 and a Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9736 of 2004 as they arise from a common judgment with somewhat similar facts.
FACTS
4. For the purposes of brevity and to avoid repetition, we would be referring to the facts in Civil Appeal No.5616 of 2004. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was issued by the Industries Department of the State of Tamil Nadu on 23.01.1985 to acquire land in the Revenue Estate of village Kadaperi, Hamlet of Tambaram, Tambaram Taluk within the municipal limits of the city including the land admeasuring 7.06 acres belonging to the appellant. This notification came to be issued in furtherance of the scheme, which was sanctioned by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) on 03.04.1984 and a total of 261.42 acres of land was acquired for setting up the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ). The entire land, including dry and wet lands, was sought to be acquired as a compact block for the project in question. In response to the publication of the notification, the interested persons filed objections in terms of Section 5A of the Act which were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the `LAO') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.04.1986. After notice to the interested persons/owners, Award No. 3/86 was made and published by the LAO on 28.11.1986. The LAO awarded compensation at the rate of ` 145/- per cent for an extent of 64 cents and ` 110 for 6.42 acres of another kind of land and also awarded compensation at different rates for the superstructures raised by the appellants on their respective lands. The possession of the land was taken on 03.02.1987. The compensation was received by the appellants under protest on 04.07.1987 and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. According to the appellants, the market price of the land in question was between `7,000/- and ` 8,000/- per cent in the years 1983-84. In 1985-86 the land was sold at the rate of ` 45,000/- to ` 50,000/- per ground. In this appeal, the appellants had claimed compensation at that rate. They also stated that they had raised nearly 160 coconut trees and dug a big well fitted with electric motor by incurring a cost of ` 1.5 lakh on the land in question. We may notice that various appellants had raised different claims on these grounds. The Collector, as already noticed, had awarded compensation uniformly at the rates mentioned supra while awarding compensation separately for the well, trees, etc.
5. The parties led evidence before the Reference Court and the Reference Court, vide its judgment dated 09.12.1988, enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to `3,600/- per cent as agricultural land by relying upon Exhibits A1, A4 and A5. The Reference Court granted the following relief to the claimants:
"1) The valuation fixed by the lands acquired at Rs.110/- and Rs.145/- per cent, by the Land Acquisition Officer has been raised and a fresh valuation at Rs.3,600/- per cent is fixed for the entire area of the acquired lands;
2) The valuation at Rs.2,675/- per coconut tree, fixed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar is held to be correct and confirmed;
3) The valuation for the well and the pump-set made by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar at Rs.44,487/- has been enhanced to Rs.1,76,862/- and fixed accordingly;
4) Further it is ordered that the claimant should be paid 30% solatium for the above amounts and interest at the rate of 12% from 23.1.1985 to 28.11.1986 and further 9% interest from 3.2.1987 to 2.2.1988. It is ordered that the sum of Rs.1,88,887.85 fixed as compensation by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar for the land, trees, well and p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
