Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANIKKACHALAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAM
The Assistant Collector, Tiruvallur - Appellant
Versus
C. Ramamoorthy (Died) and Others - Respondents
Appeal No.34 of 1985
Decided On : 05 July 1989
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - RATE - POTENTIAL USER - INTEREST - RATE - LAND ACQUISITION (TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT) ACT, 1953, S.2 - LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1984 (ACT 68 OF 1984), S.18 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART.254(2).
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the acquisition of land for the construction of a Bus Depot. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable at Rs. 118.80 per cent, and fixed Rs. 2,135/- as compensation for a well with usual solatium. The claimant sought a reference to Court under S.18 of the Act, and the Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per cent with usual solatium and awarded interest at 4% p.a. from the date of dispossession.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Court below was inadequate and fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,700/- per cent. The Court also held that the claimant was entitled to solatium at 35% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below was adequate? 2. Whether the claimant was entitled to solatium at 35%? 3. Whether the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Court below was inadequate, considering the locational advantages enjoyed by the acquired lands and the market value reflected by the only instance of comparable sale. 2. The Court held that the claimant was entitled to solatium at 35%, as the award in this case was passed by the Court below between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghbir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. etc., the claimant would be entitled to solatium at 30% and not at 15%. 3. The Court held that the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit, as the provision of S.2 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 12 of 1953, stood impliedly repealed, with the result that interest at the rate of 9% p.a, should be awarded and not at 4% p.a.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the Memorandum of cross-objections was allowed to the extent indicated above. There was no order as to costs either in the appeal or in the Memorandum of cross-objections.
RATNAM
This appeal under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Assistant Collector, Tiruvallur, has been preferred against the order of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, in L.A.O.P. No.25 of 1981, on a reference made to it under S.18 of the Act.
2. An extent of 1.65 acres in survey No.2/2 and another extent of 1.27 acres in survey No.3/1 with a well in Periakuppam, village, tiruvallur taluk, Chengalpattu District, classified in the revenue records as 'wet' were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the construction of a Bus Depot for Pallavan Transport Corporation. The notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published on 27-7-1977. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant prayed that compensation in respect of the acquired lands should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent, in addition to the compensation for the well situate in one of the acquired properties. The Land Acquisition Officer, on a consideration of the sales statistics, determined the compensation payable in respect of the acquired lands at Rs. 118.80 per cent and also fixed Rs. 2,135/- as compensation in respect of the well with usual solatium. In doing so, the Land Acquisition Officer took into account an instance of sale of 5.04 acres of land of the same and soil in survey No.540/ 1 on 21-2-1975 as the basis for fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition and considering the time interval between that instance of sale and the date of publication of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, added Rs. 18.80 per cent to the market value reflected by that instance of sale. Not satisfied with this, the claimant sought a reference to Court under S.18 of the Act and on a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per cent in respect of the acquired lands with usual solatium and awarded interest at 4% p.a. from the date of dispossession. It is the correctness of this that is questioned by the State in Appeal No.34 of 1985, while the claimant, in the Memorandum of Cross-Objections, has prayed that compensation should be awarded in respect of the acquired lands at Rs. 1,700/- per cent.
3. We may immediately point out that on behalf of the State no documents were filed in the course of the proceedings before the Court below. Only the claimant relied upon five instances of sales marked as Exhibits C. 1 to C. 5. From a perusal of Exhibits C.1 and C.2, it is found that the transactions related to composite sales comprising of vacant site as well as superstructures thereon. Exhibits C. 1 and C. 2 cannot, in our view, be considered to furnish a satisfactory basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. That leaves for consideration Exhibits C.3 to C.5. Under Exhibit C.3 dt. 8-3-1976, an extent of 1 Ground and 1,178 sq. ft. had been sold for Rs. 5,220/- though the market value according to the guidelines had been mentioned as Rs. 7,455/-. A consideration of the description of property sold under Exhibit C.3 shows that the property is a well developed building site laid out as plots with provision made for roads as well. The acquired lands are wet lands and, therefore, the instance of sale under Exhibit C.3 cannot afford a comparable basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. Exhibit C.5 is the registration copy of a sale deed dt. 10-6-1974 in respect of a site measuring east-west 34 feet and north south 53 1/2 feet in survey No.29/2. A consideration of the location of the property dealt with under Exhibit C.5 shows that it is not anywhere near the vicinity of the acquired properties. We are of the view that that instance of sale would not be of any assistance in determining the market value of the acquired lands. We are, therefore, left only with Exhibit C.4 dt. 27-5-1977 executed by Parvathi Ammal and others in favour of one Ranganatha Pillai for Rs. 12,500/-. That shows tha
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
