Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5153
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
The Special Thasildar (LA), SIPCOT Unit, Sriperumbudur
Versus
Prema & Others
Appeal Suit Nos. 177, 178, 183, 184, 191, 192, 193, 196, 235, 604 to 628, 662 to 671, 674 to 693, 695 to 704, 707 to 716, 719 to 732, 740 to 749, 759 to 766, 773 to 800 834 to 847 of 2006, 3 to 34, 38 to 59, 65 to 70 of 2007 & 331 to 371 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.2 of 2008 (40 Nos.) in A.S.No.331 to 371 of 2008; C.M.P.Nos.7169 & 7170 of 2006 in A.S.Nos.192 & 193 of 2006; C.M.P.7178 OF 2006 in A.S.No.235 of 2006, C.M.P.No.7436of 2006 in A.S.No.196 of 2006, C.M.P.No.7196 of 2006 in A.S.628 of 2006
Decided on : 30-11-2009
For the Appellant: V. Ravi, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondents:G. Karthikeyan, V.K. Rajagopalan, S.R. Rajagopal, Arun Subramaniam, Advocates. M. Devaraj, SIPCOT in all Appeal Suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of market value for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, Section 4(1) and Section 23, and the application of development charges.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Market Value - Land Acquisition Act, Section 4(1), Section 23 - L.A.O.P.No.1323 of 2002, L.A.O.P.No.88 of 2005, L.A.O.P.No.124 of 2007 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the determination of market value for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, Section 4(1) and Section 23, and the application of development charges. The court considered the sale deed dated 9. 1994 and the sale of dry land of one acre and 48 cents situated in Survey No.105/50, and the sale of 4.11 acres in Survey Nos.122 and 123 executed on 2. 1996. The court also examined the development of the acquired lands and the expenses incurred for development.
Fact of the Case:
The respective respondents/claimants were the owners of the lands acquired by the Acquisition Officer, SIPCOT, Irrungattukottai Scheme, Sriperumpudur. The appeals covered three judgments concerning the determination of market value for compensation and the entitlement of the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed dated 9. 1994 and the sale of 4.11 acres in Survey Nos.122 and 123 were relevant for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The court also considered the development charges and the expenses incurred for development by the Requisitioning Body.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the determination of market value for compensation and the entitlement of the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed dated 9. 1994 and the sale of 4.11 acres in Survey Nos.122 and 123 were genuine and relevant for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The court also found that the reduction of 43% on the value of the land as per the sale deed dated 9. 1994 was justified, and the development charges were to be uniformly fixed at the rate of 43%.
Final Decision: The court fixed the land value at Rs.3,000/- per cent with 30% solatium, and directed the appellants to calculate the compensation payable and deposit the compensation to the credit of respective L.A.O.Ps. within three months.
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
The Acquisition Officer, SIPCOT, Irrungattukottai Scheme, Sriperumpudur, is the appellant. The respective respondents/claimants are all the owners of the lands which were acquired at the instance of the appellant.
2. In this common judgment we cover all the appeals in which three judgments viz., the Judgment in L.A.O.P.No.1323 of 2002 with 208 cases covered by judgment dated 10. 2005 passed by Fast Track Court IV, Poonamallee; judgment dated 30.10.2006 concerning 22 cases commencing with L.A.O.P.No.88 of 2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court V), Chengalpattu; and the Judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, in L.A.O.P.No.124 of 2007 etc. batch. are under challenge.
3. As the lands were all contiguous lands and the acquisition proceedings were common in respect of the lands covered by the above three judgments, we propose to pass this common judgment.
4. (i) As far as the judgment dated 10. 2005 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1323 of 2002 etc. batch, is concerned, while the Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.300/- per cent, the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.3,500/- per cent with 30% solatium.
(ii) In the judgment dated 30.10.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.88 of 2005 etc. batch, while the Acquisition Officer fixed the value at the same rate viz. Rs.300/- per cent, the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.4065/-with 30% solatium and other additional benefits.
(iii) In the judgment dated 20.12.2007 in L.A.O.P.No.124 of 2007 etc. cases, while the Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.300/-per cent as in other cases, the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.4900/- per cent with 30% solatium etc.
5. The following issues arise for consideration:-
.(1) What is the market value to be fixed for the purpose of working out the compensation?
.(2) To what relief the claimants are entitled?
6. In all the three judgments, while rejecting the value of the data land, respective Reference Courts had taken the value of sale deed dated 9. 1994 in respect of sale of dry land of one acre and 48 cents situated in Survey No.105/50. It is relevant to note that the various lands acquired at Irrungattukottai village are all situated in Survey Nos.99 to 170 and Survey No.105/15 was also one of the lands covered by the acquisition.
.7. Assailing the above judgments of the Reference Court, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S) in his submission, contended that the sale deed dated 9. 1994 marked as Ex.C.2 in the judgment dated 10. 2005, which has been uniformly followed by all the three Reference Courts, ought not to have been accepted by the Court below. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the purchase effected under the said Ex.C.2 should not have been accepted without any supporting evidence at the instance of the claimants to show that the said sale was genuine one.
.Learned Special Government Pleader also contended that Ex.RB-1 which pertains to the data land, related to the sale of 4.11 acres in Survey Nos.122 and 123 which sale was executed on 2. 1996 while the acquisition was on 29. 1996 and therefore, the value mentioned in the said sale deed viz. Rs.300/ per cent alone should have been applied. Learned Special Government Pleader then contended that the value as mentioned in Ex.C.2 cannot be accepted since the said Ex.C.2 related to a land situated just abutting the National Highway as disclosed in Ex.R.2 = RB4 sketch and therefore, the Court below ought not to have applied the value uniformly in respect of all the lands acquired as the lands were spread over an area of 1 to 4 K.Ms. as between the land covered by Ex.C.2 and the lands which are located far away to the acquired lands. Learned Special Government Pleader therefore, contended that even while relying upon Ex.C.2 the Courts below ought to have reduced the value taking into account the location of various tracts of lands which were far away from the Nat
