Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3437
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Arumuga Naiker (died) & Others
Versus
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), D.A.E. Project & Others
A.S.Nos.102 to 105 and 256 of 1998 and A.S.Nos.501 and 504 of 1999 and A.S.Nos.807 to 814 of 2004 and C.M.P.Nos.11573 to 11580 of 2004
Decided on: 31-08-2009
For the Appearing Parties :M.S. Subramanian, Advocate, C. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for R. Murali, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Requisitioning Body, V. Ravi Special Government Pleader (Additional Solicitor) for Special Tahsildar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair and reasonable compensation for acquired lands, considering the potentiality of the lands and the principles of fair compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Market Value - 1969 (1) MLJ 45, 1972 (1) MLJ 58, 2003 (1) SCC 354, 2001 (9) SCC 584, 2003 (10) SCC 525, 2002 (3) SCC 688, 2004 (2) SCC 283, 2004 (10) SCC 627 - The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances of the case and found that the market value fixed by the Lower Court at Rs.140/- per cent was not sustainable. The court modified the compensation to Rs.300/- per cent, partly allowing the appeals preferred by the claimants and dismissing the appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Body. The respondents/claimants in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004 were entitled to a modified market value of the land at Rs.300/- per cent with statutory benefits, subject to the payment of further amount of Court-fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to acquire lands in Maiyyur Village, Kundrathur Village, and Neikuppi Village for the purpose of building a Fast Breeder Reactor and staff quarters. The acquired lands were valued at Rs.70/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was later enhanced to Rs.140/- per cent by the Lower Court. The claimants appealed for a higher compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the market value fixed by the Lower Court at Rs.140/- per cent was not sustainable and modified the compensation to Rs.300/- per cent. The appeals preferred by the claimants were partly allowed, and the appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Body were dismissed. The respondents/claimants in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004 were entitled to a modified market value of the land at Rs.300/- per cent with statutory benefits, subject to the payment of further amount of Court-fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the market value of the acquired lands for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in various judgments to determine the correct market value of the acquired lands, considering the potentiality of the lands and the principles of fair compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation to Rs.300/- per cent, partly allowing the appeals preferred by the claimants and dismissing the appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Body. The respondents/claimants in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004 were entitled to a modified market value of the land at Rs.300/- per cent with statutory benefits, subject to the payment of further amount of Court-fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court.
These Appeals are directed against the award and judgment passed by the Lower Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.196, 197, 211, 212, 199, 213, 200, 199, 201 and 204 of 1991, dated 37. 1996 by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu has proposed to acquire lands in Maiyyur Village an extent of 774. 5 Hectares, in Kundrathur Village 51. 5 Hectares and in Neikuppi Village an extent of 482. 0 Hectares, totaling extent of 123.08.0 Hectares for the purpose of building 500 MV Fast Breeder Reactor by the Departmental of Atomic Energy Project, Kalpakkam, for the construction of staff quarters and for construction of staff quarters respectively. The said villages are located in Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengai Anna District. Among the said acquisition, the lands in Neikuppi village measuring an 1 extent of 482. 0 Hectares were acquired from the claimants in these Appeals and the Government had issued necessary 4(1) notification along with other acquisitions on 6. 1988 and had proceeded with the other enquiry process. The Land Acquisition Officer had, during the enquiry, collected datas for the purpose of fixing the value for the lands under the acquisition and accordingly, he had collected the sales statistics for the period commencing from 25. 1987 to 05.06.1988 from the Sub-Registrar Office, Thirukalukundram and had collected 12 data sales from Neikuppi Village, from out of the total sales statistics of 177. The Land Acquisition Officer had discarded the 11 data particulars from 2 to 12 for the reasons that they are either meager value or higher value. One of the sales was also rejected for the reason that the sale was of the record of receipt. Yet another sale was discarded for the reason it was located far away.
3. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had selected the sale, dated 25.06.1987, in S.No.31/11 of an extent of 1.05 Acres sold for the consideration of Rs.7,350/-. According to the said sale transaction, one cent of land was valued at Rs.70/-. The claimants, who were not agreeing to the said offer proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer, had requested the Land acquisition Officer to refer them to the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and accordingly they were referred and the cases had been taken on record as L.A.O.P. Nos. 196, 212, 199, 213, 200, 197, 211, 201, 204 & 214 of 1991. The Said L.A.O.Ps were taken up for enquiry along with four more L.A.O.Ps in L.A.O.P.Nos. 198, 202, 203, 205 of 1991 and were disposed of on 31.07.1996 by fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.140/-per cent. Aggrieved against the said Judgment, the claimants have preferred the Appeals in A.S.No.102 to 105 and 256 of 1998 and A.S.Nos.501 & 504 of 1999 and the government have preferred the appeals in A.S. Nos 807 to 814 of 2004.
4. Since all the Appeals are preferred by the parties against the common Judgment pronounced by the Lower Court, it has become necessary for this Court to take up all the Appeals clubbed together and heard them accordingly.
5. For convenience, the parties in these Appeals are referred as to their ranks before the Lower Court as claimants, Requisitioning Body/Government and Land Acquisition Officer.
6. Heard Mr. M.S. Subramanian appearing for the claimants in all the cases, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Krishnan appearing for Mr. R. Murali, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Body, the Union of India and Mr. V. Ravi, Special Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit in his argument that the fixation of market value by the Lower Court based upon the evidence adduced before it was, not appreciated properly and the correct market value has not been fixed by the Lower Court. He would further submit in his argument that the lands acquired were admittedly for the purpose of constructing Staff Quarters and the land compared and fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was a dry punja
