Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2425
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vellore
Versus
Kuppammal & Others
A.S.Nos.406 of 1999, 68 of 2000, 980 of 2001, 1200 and 1201 of 2001, 1207 and 1208 of 2001, 237 of 2002, and 1043 of 2003
Decided on: 15-07-2008
For the Appellant:V. Ravi, Spl. Govt Pleader (AS), Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Margabandu, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of sale deeds in determining the market value of acquired land, the deduction towards development charges, and the potential value of the land in the vicinity.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4(1) Notification - AS.No.406/1999, AS.No.68/2000, AS.No.980/2001, AS.No.1200/2001, AS.No.1201/2001, AS.No.1207/2001, AS.No.1208/2001, AS.No.237/2002 - The court discussed the validity of the compensation awarded by the Sub Court and the relevance of sale deeds in determining the market value of the acquired land. The court also considered the deduction towards development charges and the potential value of the land in the vicinity. The judgment modified the compensation and statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring various parcels of land for providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. The Sub Court ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to Rs.1000/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer appealed against this decision, arguing that the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on certain sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deeds relied on by the Reference Court reflected the true market value of the acquired land and that the lower court was justified in enhancing the compensation. However, the court also noted that some amount should be deducted from the market value towards development charges, and modified the compensation and statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to Rs.1,000/- per cent, and whether the sale deeds should be relied upon in determining the market value of the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deeds reflected the true market value of the land and justified the enhancement of compensation. However, the court also emphasized the need for deduction towards development charges and modified the compensation and statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court.
Final Decision: The judgments and decrees of the Reference Court were modified, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. The court ordered the Government to deposit the modified amount within a specified period.
The above appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 14. 1997, 212. 1997, 23. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 22. 2001, 14. 1997 respectively of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in LAOP Nos.17, 8, 9, 21, 19, 18, 23, 12, 20 of 1993 respectively. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing for the appellant.
3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus:
The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring :
.(i) the land in Survey Nos.195/A1 and 19/5A2 measuring an total extent of 0.66 cent land in AS.No.406/1999
.(ii) the land in Survey No.19/2A measuring an extent of 0.39.0 Hectare land and the land in Survey No.19/2B measuring an extent of 0.01.5 Hectare land, totally 0.40.5 Hectare land i.e. 1.00 acre land in AS.No.68/2000
(iii) the land in Survey No.5/1 B1 measuring an extent of 0.56.5 Hectare land i.e 1.39 cent and the land in Survey No.5/2A measuring an extent of 0.27.5 Hectare land i.e. 0.68 cent in AS.No.980/2001
(iv) the land in Survey No. 17/3 measuring an extent 0.18.0 hectare ie.0.44 cent land in AS.No.1200/2001
.(v) the land in Survey No. 18/1 and 18/2 measuring an extent of 0.22.5 hectare land in AS.No.1201/2001.
.(vi) the land in Survey No. 18/3 B measuring an extent of 0.36.5 hectare land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1207/2001.
(vii) the land in Survey No. 17/3 A measuring an extent of 0.44 cent land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1208/2001.
(viii) the land in Survey No. 19/4 measuring an extent of 0.60.5 hectare land (1.50 Acre) in AS.No.237/2002
(ix) the land in Survey No.19/8 C measuring an extent of 0.15 cent and Survey No.19/8 H-1 measuring an extent of 0.30 cent and totally 0.45 cent of land in Abdullahpuram Village, Vellore for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award assessing a sum of Rs.100/-per cent towards compensation. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. During enquiry before the Sub Court,
.(i) on the side of the claimant/land owner, one Arumugam was examined as C.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-5 were marked in AS.No.406 of 1999.
.(ii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner herself was examined as C.W.1 and one C.K.Murugesan was examined as C.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in AS.No.68 of 2000.
(iii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one S.Rajendiran and P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in AS.No.980/2001.
(iv) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1200/2001.
.(v) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner herself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1201/2001.
.(vi) On the side of the claima
