Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 419
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme,Srivilliputhur
Versus
Seeni Naicker and two others
A.S.Nos.891 of 1989 and 832 and 833 of 1990
Decided On : 16-03-1998
The court established principles for fixing compensation in land acquisition cases, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence, burden of proof, and the court's discretion in determining a fair and reasonable market value.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES FOR FIXING - POTENTIAL VALUE OF LAND - SALE DEEDS - RELIABILITY - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - COURT'S DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves three appeals against decisions of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Srivilliputhur, in references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeals relate to the compensation awarded for the acquisition of irrigated garden lands in small bits for a reservoir scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge was excessive and needed to be modified. It determined a fair and reasonable compensation based on the principles of land acquisition, including the potential value of the land, reliability of sale deeds, burden of proof, and the court's discretion.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge was appropriate. 2. Whether the sale deeds relied on by the parties were reliable and admissible as evidence. 3. How to determine the burden of proof in land acquisition cases. 4. The extent of the court's discretion in fixing compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various principles established in previous judgments to determine the compensation. These principles included: - The onus is on the claimants to prove that the acquired lands are capable of fetching a higher market value than offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. - Comparable sales method of valuation is recognized for arriving at fair market value, considering factors like time, bona fide transactions, location, size, shape, tenure, and potentiality. - Sale statements without examining vendors, vendees, or attesting witnesses are not admissible as evidence. - The court must maintain a balance between diverse interests and avoid speculation in determining market value. - The land's potential value, including its condition and development potential, should be considered. - The court should adopt a pragmatic approach and assess the value capable of fetching a reasonable market value.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge and fixed a fair and reasonable compensation of Rs.42,350 per acre for the acquired lands. This value was applied to all three appeals, and the decisions of the Subordinate Judge in the other two cases were also modified accordingly.
1. These three appeals have arisen against the decisions of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Srivilliputhur, in references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Act 2 of 1894.
2. We will first notice the details relating to A.S.No.891 of 1989 which is against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in L.A.O.P.No.72 of 1987. The Special Tahsildar, Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme, Unit-I, Srivilliputhur is the appellant. Irrigated garden lands in small bits in S.Nos.1041/2-B belonging to the respondent were acquired. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 8. 1983 and the award was passed on 25. 1986 in Award No.12 of 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value per acre at Rs.5,000 and worked out the award amount at Rs.6,7870. At the instance of the respondent there was a reference to the Subordinate Judge’s Court under section 18 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000 per acre. Aggrieved the appeal has been filed. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a sale deed Ex.B-5 dated 111. 1981 which was in respect of an extent of 1.11 acres in S.No.817. The Subordinate Judge relied on Ex.A-1 dated 1 9. 1982 which was in respect of 2*4 cents in S.No.1357/5 and fixed the compensation at Rs.60,000 per acre.
3. It is the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the reliance placed on Ex.A-1 by the learned Subordinate Judge was clearly wrong as the sale was in respect of a small extent of land of 2 1/2 cents whereas the land acquired was of a total extent of 83 cents. The learned Government Pleader relied on the following two decisions in support of his contention:
(1) Sri Saunu v. Collector, Land Acquisition , 1997 (1) CTC 127 and (2) Pehlad Singh and another v. Union of India , 1996 (1) SCC 310.
According to the learned Additional Government Pleader the property acquired was agricultural land whereas Ex.A-1 land relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge was non-agricultural land situate in a different village and it was in respect of a small bit of 2 1/2 cents, which could not be a proper guide for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired. There was no demand for house site in the small hamlet where the acquired lands were situate. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the claimant/respondent had himself given a written statement that the lands were worth Rs.20,000 per acre. All the other owners had also accepted the award and the respondent/claimant alone had questioned the award. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the present land acquisition was different from other cases where the land owners and the beneficiaries were different, while in the present case the canals and field bothies benefited directly the land through which they passed. Only a fraction of the extent acquired was utilized as canal and field bothies. A major portion continued to be under the actual possession and enjoyment of the land owners though they received compensation also for their portion.
4. Mr.Mohanram, countering the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the Subordinate Judge had fixed the compensation on the basis that the lands acquired were potential house sites and this was spoken to by the claimant as P.W.1 and P.W.2, the vendee under Ex.A-1 relied on by the claimant. The witnesses on the side of the claimant had spoken to the existence of several match factories and dynamite factories in and around the village and that the village was not a small hamlet as claimed by the Land Acquisition Officer, but it had a population of five thousand people. The learned counsel also submitted that as against the evidence on the side of the claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence on the side of the claimant. Neither the vendor nor the vendee under Ex.B-3 on the basis of which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the comp
