Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4826
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Chinnu @ Munusamy & Others
Versus
The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri & Others
A.S. No. 668 of 1999 A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002 & Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003
decided On : 12-11-2009
For the Appellants:C.R. Muralidharan, Ravi, D. Sivakumaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ravi, D. Sivakumaran, Special Government Pleaders.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Valuation of Acquired Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1), Section 18 - The judgment discusses the valuation of acquired lands for the establishment of a Regulated Market Committee. The court considered the evidence, including sale deeds and topographical sketches, to determine the correct valuation. The court also addressed the issue of deductions for developmental charges and provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing such deductions. The court partially allowed the government's appeal and dismissed the claimants' appeal and cross objection, reducing the value of the lands from Rs.15/- to Rs.12/- per square feet.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the valuation of acquired lands for the establishment of a Regulated Market Committee. The claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court enhanced the land value, leading to appeals and cross objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. was reasonable and that the deduction given by the Reference Court at 50% was excessive. The court also addressed the issue of deductions for developmental charges, providing a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing such deductions.
Issues: The main issues were whether the value fixed by the Reference Court was correct and whether the deduction given by the Reference Court at 50% was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. was reasonable and that the deduction given by the Reference Court at 50% was excessive. The court also provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing deductions for developmental charges, citing relevant case law.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Government was partly allowed, and the claimants' appeal and cross objection were dismissed. The value of the lands was reduced from Rs.15/- to Rs.12/- per square feet, with all other statutory benefits of 30% solatium and interest on solatium. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to deposit the amount within a specified period, and the claimants were entitled to withdraw the amount.
(Prayer: A.S. No. 668 of 1999: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri).
(Prayer: A.S. No. 652 of 2002: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri).
(Prayer: A.S. No. 653 of 2002: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
(Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003:-Cross Objection filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri).
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
The claimant has filed A.S. No. 668 of 1999 against the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri has filed A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002, against the judgment and decree passed in LAOP No. 15 of 1994 and L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 has been filed by the claimant in A.S. No. 652 of 2002. All these matters arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 07.04.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in LAOP No. 15 of 1994 and 68 of 1996, hence, with the consent of counsel for both sides, all the appeals as well as cross objection are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the purpose of establishment of Regulated Market Committee, the Government sought to acquire the lands situate in Parvathanahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The lands of the claimants comprised in Survey No. 657/2A and 657/1B1 etc., to an extent of 1.07.0 Hectares and 1.05.5 Hectares respectively were also sought to be acquired for the said purpose. Ultimately, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.09.1988 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharmapuri. After complying with the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an Award No.1/90 dated 012. 1990 fixing the value of the land at Rs.49,400/- per hectare. According to the claimants, the value fixed by the Land Acquision Officer was very meager, therefore, they sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Sub Court, Dharmapuri and the same were taken on file as L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 and 16 of 1996 respectively. The Reference Court, after taking into considertion the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the land value at Rs.15/- per square feet in respect of both the cases. The details of the lands acquired from the claimants and the compensation amount awarded are extracted hereunder:-
Table
3. Before the Court below, common evidence was let in by both sides. On behalf of the Claimants, CW1 to CW3 were examined and Exs. C1 to C5 were marked, which are sale deeds ranging from the period 1986 to 1991. On behalf of the Appellant, one Parivel was examined as RW1 and Exs. R1 to 4 were marked.
.4. It is seen from the records that Exs. C1 to C3 were prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Exs. C4 and C5 are subsequent to the said notification. The reference Court, taking into consideration Ex.C3, the document executed one year prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, has arrived at the value at Rs.30/-per square feet. Taking into consideration that Ex.C3 is in respect of a smaller extent of land, gave deduction at 50% for development purpose and awarded the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.ft., Aggrieved against such fixation of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002.
