Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3039
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupattur
Versus
Govindhasamy & Others
Appeal Suit Nos.45 to 52 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2010
Decided on : 27-07-2010
For the Appellant: V. Ravi, Spl. G.P.
For the Respondents:D. Veerasekaran for TNHB, S. Parthasarathy, Sr. counsel for P.S. Kothandaraman, Advocate.
The burden of proof of the true value of the acquired property is on the State, and the Reference Court does not act like an appellate authority but as an original court.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Neighbourhood Scheme - Land Acquisition Act - Section 18(1), Section 54 - A.S.Nos.811 to 817 of 1997, A.S.Nos.805 to 812 of 2006 - The judgment discussed the compensation awarded, statutory amounts payable to the claimants, and the burden of proof on the State for determining the true value of the acquired property.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of land for a Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The landowners raised objections to the low rate of compensation, leading to references under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of market value by the Reference Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Reference Court awarded compensation at a certain rate, which was challenged by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Division Bench of the Court allowed the appeal and fixed the market value at a different rate, considering statutory amounts payable to the claimants.
Issues: The issues included the determination of market value for the acquired land, the statutory amounts payable to the claimants, and the burden of proof on the State for determining the true value of the acquired property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Reference Court does not act like an appellate authority but as an original court, and it is open to the parties to let in appropriate evidence to determine the correct market rate of the value of the land. The burden of proof of the true value of the acquired property is on the State.
Final Decision: All the appeal suits were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel for P.S.Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the land owners/claimants in all the appeals filed against various judgments and decrees passed by the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Thirupathur.
2. The following table will indicate the number of the LAOPs, the corresponding appeals and name of the claimants.
Sl.No.
L.A.O.P. NO. APPEAL NOS.
NAME OF CLAIMANTS
1
74 of 2002
45 of 2010
1. Govindhasamy
2. Srinivasan
3. Arichandran
4. Paramasivam
2
100 of 2002
46 of 2010
1. Jeyammal
3
101 of 2002
47 of 2010
1. Thangavelu (died)
2. Murugan
3. Srinivasan
4. Devan
5. Raja
6. Sundaram
7. Rani
8. Vasantha
9. Jagadeshwari
10. Vanitha
(R2 to R10 are brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased sole respondent as per order
dt.127. 2010 in M.P. No.3/2010)
4
102 of 2002
48 of 2010
1. Kuppammal
2. Sundarrajan
3. Ravi
4. Ulaganathan
5. Amudha
5
103 of 2002
49 of 2010
1. Mani
6
104 of 2002
50 of 2010
1. Samraj 7 105 of 2002 51 of 2010
1. Samyanathan 8 107 of 2002 52 of 2010
1. Theiyyanai
2. Vedi
3. Raman
4. Jeyapaul
5. Meganathan
6. Ashokan
7. Vasu
8. Kannammal
9. Sakunthala
3. The acquisitionwas made on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirupathur for formation of a Neighbourhood Scheme. The Neighbourhood Scheme consists of developing the plots into housing plots and selling it to the needy public both as constructed houses as well as vacant lands. A 4(1) Notification was issued by the State Government and published in the Gazette on 112. 1983. After following the due procedure, the lands came to be vested with the State Government.
4. With reference to the compensation, in the award passed by the acquiring authority, it was indicated that the land of the respondent/claimants will be paid Rs.96.15 per Cent for the dry land and Rs.99.50 for manavari dry land and Rs.110/-for irrigated dry land. Admittedly, all the lands in question are coming under the Phase I of the Neighbourhood Scheme and subsequently the acquisition was also done for Phase II of the Neighbourhood Scheme. In this case, we are concerned with only Phase I Scheme. The affected land owners raised objection with reference to the low rate of compensation. Therefore, the references were made under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of market value by the jurisdictional Reference Court and finally it was allotted to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupathur. The references were registered as various LAOPs as indicated above.
5. A joint trial was conducted. The evidence was let in LAOP No.74 of 2002. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, 17 persons gave deposition and were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.17. On their side, 3 documents were marked and recorded as ExC.1 to C.3. Curiously, on the side of the acquiring authority, neither any witnesses were examined nor any records were produced. Ex.C.1 is the Sale Deed dated 5. 1982. Ex.C.2 is the Sale Deed dated 22. 1984. Ex.C.3 is the Sale Deed dated 112. 1984. Admittedly, Ex.C.1 is the only document which would come into existence before the date of 4(1) Notification. The Reference Court took the exception to the acquiring authority not examining any witnesses.
.6. Only the judgment of this Court was produced with the consent of the parties, namely A.S.Nos.811 to 817 of 1997 in the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tirupathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District vs. A.P.Gnanaprakasam and others. The Reference Court held that in the judgment passed by the Division Bench, the compensation relates to the award No.2/87 dated 11. 1987. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the acquiring authority, the claims were made before the Refere
