High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
The Special Tahsildar Neighbourhood Scheme
Versus
Jaganathan Gounder & Another
A.S.Nos.707 & 708 of 2003,727 to 734 of 2003, 544 of 2005, 706 of 2006 & Cross Appeal Nos. 444 to 453 of 2008
Decided on : 02-03-2009
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Proceedings - Section 4(1) - [Section 4(1)] - The judgment discusses the factual matrix of the land acquisition proceedings, the determination of market value, and the findings after remand. The court considered the importance of the locality, locational advantages, and infrastructural facilities available in the area to arrive at the market value. The legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State Of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Kumari Devi, Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – cum- L.A.O. v. SHAIK AZAM SAHEB ETC., and Faridabad Gas Power Project, Ntpc Ltd. Etc. V. Om Prakash & Ors. were applied to determine the market value. The court emphasized the duty to assess reasonable compensation, the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price, and the positive and negative factors to be considered for determining the market value.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals relate to Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated as per Section 4(1) notification dated 11. 1997 and 12. 1997. The claimants contended that the acquired property had potential value for housing and business purposes, supported by documents and witnesses. The Reference Court found the market value to be Rs.65/- per sq.ft. and observed a considerable increase in land value in the area. The matter was remanded, and after further evidence, the Reference Court fixed the market rate at Rs.27.55 per sq.ft. after deducting development charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the property was situated in a covetable locality suitable for construction of residential houses, rejected contentions regarding development charges, and fixed the market rate at Rs.27.55 per sq.ft. after deducting development charges. The Court emphasized the importance of considering positive and negative factors for determining the market value.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of the market value of the acquired property, the relevance of documents and witnesses, and the consideration of development charges in fixing the market rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied legal principles from State Of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Kumari Devi, Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – cum- L.A.O. v. SHAIK AZAM SAHEB ETC., and Faridabad Gas Power Project, Ntpc Ltd. Etc. V. Om Prakash & Ors. to determine the market value, emphasizing the duty to assess reasonable compensation, the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price, and the positive and negative factors to be considered for determining the market value.
Final Decision: The land value was re-fixed at Rs.5,22,720/- per acre (Rs.12/-per sq.ft.), and the claimants were entitled to all statutory benefits. The learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Housing Board were entitled to separate fees for each of the first appeals as well as cross appeals.
K.K.Sasidharan, J
These Land Acquisition appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken
up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals relate to the Land Acquisition Proceedings that commenced as per Section 4(1) notification dated 11. 1997 and 12. 1997 and published in the Gazette on 12. 1997 and 13. 1997 respectively.
3. The extent of property acquired as per the relevant notifications are as follows:
a) Notification dt.11. 1997 -- 55.89 Acres
b) Notification dt.12. 1997 -- 51.75 Acres
4. The details of the land acquisition Original Petitions and the related appeals and Cross Objections and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as by the Reference Court and the findings recorded after remand are detailed in the tabular columns below.
Table
5. The factual matrix as projected in L.A.O.P. No.32/2002 corresponding to A.S.No.727/2003 is extracted below as background facts.
A.S.No.727/99 (LAOP 32/02)
At the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board an extent of 6.33 acres of land was acquired from the claimants as per Section 4(1) notification dated 12. 1997. The acquisition was for the purpose of putting up residential houses for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer, upon consideration of documents, determined the market value of the property at Rs.50,000/-per acre even though the land owners have claimed a sum of Rs.50/-per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was initiated. Before the Reference Court the claimants contended that the acquired property is situated very near to Erode-Perundurai as well as Sennimalai Road junction. It was further contended that the residential colonies like Anna Nagar, Sri Nagar, Bharathi Nagar, Rail Nagar, Jeeva Nagar, Subramania Nagar, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, etc., are all in the vicinity. The property was having potential value for housing as well as for business purposes. There are also Arts Colleges, Womens College, Kongu Higher Secondary School, St.Joseph Clinic,hospitals and other infrastructural facilities in the area. A sum of Rs.50/- per sq.ft was claimed as compensation.
6. In the counter filed by the Housing Board as well as by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court, it was contended that market value was arrived at on the basis of document No.2290/96 dated 7. 1996, which showed the sale value at Rs.50,000/- per acre. According to the Land Acquisition Officer 64 documents registered during the relevant period was verified and document No.50 alone was retained. It was only on the basis of the said document the market value was determined which according to them reflects the correct value as on the date on which Section 4(1) notification was issued.
7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have marked documents relating to survey No.871/2 dated 21. 1985 wherein an extent of 1344 sq.ft. of land was sold at the rate of Rs.17.11 Per sq.ft., sale deed dated 112. 1988 relating to the property having an extent of 1200 sq.ft. in survey Nos.732 and 733 which shows the value at Rs.15/-per sq.ft., and another document dated 30/12/1988 executed by one M.Damodaran in favour of Mr.N.Ardhanareeswaran wherein an extent of 1200 sq.ft. was sold at the rate of Rs.10.67 per sq.ft. They have also marked the following documents in support of their plea that the market rate was very high in the area during the time of acquisition.
8. The witnesses examined on the side of the claimants have also highlighted the importance of the locality, the potential of the land, income which have they have been receiving from the land as well as the locational advantages of the property.
9. The Reference Court on a consideration of Ex.C.18 marked on the side of the claimants was of the opinion that the value of property in the area has gone up to Rs.65/- per sq.ft. The Reference Court also render
1. State Of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Kumari Devi AIR 1996 Sc 3370
3. Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 = 2007 (14) Scale 109
4. Revenue Divisional Officer – Cum- L.A.O. V. Shaik Azam Saheb Etc. 2009(1) Scale 545
5. Faridabad Gas Power Project, Ntpc Ltd. Etc. V. Om Prakash & Ors.
6. The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr.
9. Kasthuri vs. State of Haryana
10. P.S.Krishna and Co. Pvt.Ltd., v. The Land Acquisition Officer
14. Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. 2003) 10 SCC 525
16. H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004(2) SCC 184
17. Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and anr. (2004) 10 SCC 745
2. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789
8. Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer
12. Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat 1995(5) SCC 422
13. Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu (2003) 12 SCC 334 = (2003) 10 SCALE 307
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.