Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3177
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
Eswaran & Others
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam
A.S.No.155 of 1999
Decided on : 01-09-2008
For the Appellants:Ch.Pandian, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V. Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS).
The legal point established is that post-notification transactions can be relied upon for compensation assessment only if there is evidence of stability in market prices and no upsurge in price after the notification.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, Section 4(1)
Fact of the Case:
The government intended to acquire land for the Highways Department. After the land was acquired, the landowners sought enhanced compensation, which was partially granted by the trial court. The landowners appealed for further enhancement based on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference Court's approach in granting 10% increase in compensation was justified, and no further interference with the assessment of compensation was warranted. However, the court partially allowed the appeal by enhancing the compensation for the built-up portion of the land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landowners were entitled to more compensation than what was enhanced by the reference Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from previous judgments to determine the compensation increase, emphasizing the need for evidence and stability in market prices for post-notification transactions to be relied upon for compensation assessment.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed by enhancing the compensation for the built-up portion of the land, while the rest of the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed.
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 9. 1997 passed in L.A.O.P.No.49 of 1996 by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
The Government vide Notification dated 8. 1992 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 0.01.0 hecters in Survey No.1092/1A, 0.05.0 hecters in Survey No.1096/1A in Periyar District, Bhavani Taluk, Andhiyur Village, for the purpose of Highways Department. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 27. 1995 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.136/- per cent.
4. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. During enquiry, before the trial Court the second claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and marked Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 were marked on claimants side. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one Pauldurai was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court awarded the compensation of Rs.510/- in respect of the land acquired in S.No.1092/1A apart from ordering Rs.1,075/-towards trees and Rs.7,500/- towards sand resources and a sum of Rs.2,956/-in respect of the land acquired in S.No.1096/1A and Rs.1,625/- towards trees.
6. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the claimants preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
.(a) The reference Court failed to appreciate even the admitted evidence on the side of the claimants.
.(b) The reference Court failed to take into consideration the potentiality of the land.
.(c) The reference Court erred in not taking into consideration the documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A3 on the side of the claimants.
Accordingly the appellants prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the land owners are entitled to more compensation than what was enhanced by the reference Court?
8. The learned counsel for the land owners would develop his argument that the reference Court, even though had not taken into account Ex.A1 should not have simply enhanced the compensation by 15% only and it should have further enhanced it.
9. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the reference Court, even though correctly had not relied on Ex.A3-the sale Deed dated 111. 1992, which emerged subsequent to the publication of 4(1) Notification, nonetheless arbitrarily enhanced the compensation by 15% and even then no cross-appeal has been filed or any appeal has been filed by the Government.
10. The learned counsel for the land owners also would submit that the reference Court was not right in awarding only a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards the built up portion in the land acquired by the Government.
11. The perusal of the judgment and the relevant records would clearly demonstrate that Ex.A3-the sale Deed dated 111. 1992 emerged subsequent to the publication of 4 (1) Notification dated 8. 1992. There is no basis for relying upon Ex.A1 as the criterion to enhance the compensation.
12. No doubt I am fully aware of the fact that the Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 = 1988 (2) SCC 150 = 198 (2) SCJ 387 = 1988 (1) JT 529 [Administrator - General of W.B. vs. Collector, Varanasi] held that even the document, which emerged subsequent to 4(1) Notification, could be relied upon under such conditions, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
Sale transactions subsequent to preliminary notification in respect of land acquired can be relied
