1957 Supreme(Mad) 327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Panchapakesa Ayyar and Mr. Justice Ganapatia Pillai
The State of Madras by the Collector of Madras
Versus
Balaji Chettiar
Appeal Nos. 100 to 105, 107 to 122, 124 to 130, 219, 243, 270 to 272, 297, 300, 312, 313, 375 to 377, 414 to 417, 605, 612 to 628 1044 and 1087 of 1953.
Decided On : 05 December 1957
Important Points
Act Referred
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23, S.23(1), S.23(2)
MADRAS CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST ACT : .
Headnote
The Government Pleader (B. V. Viswanatha Ayyar), R. G. Rajan, C. Rangaswami Ayyangar, T. R. Sundaram, R. Desikan, M.S. Sethu and T. Ramakrishna, for the State.
K. Rajah Ayyar, V. Tyagarajan, V. C. Gopalaratnam, N. R. Raghavachariar, S. E. Sankara Ayyar, V. Ganapathi Ayyar, T.G. Nagaswami Ayyar, J. Nagarajan, S. Rangaswami Ayyangar, T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar, S. V. Venkatasubramaniam, K. Srinivasan, P. R. Varadarajan, S. K. Ahmed Meeran, M. Khaja Mohideen, M. Karunakara Nambiar, T. R. Srinivasa Ayyar, M. Natesan, T. S. Rangarajan, S. Ramanatha Davey, V. K. Ramanatha Ayyar, Pais, Loho and Alvares, S. R. Krishnamacharya, D. R. Krishna Rao, M. Subramania Sarma, V. N. Srinivasa Rao, C. S. Rajappa, Subramaniam and Rajagopal, K. G. Manickavasagam, P. Thandavakrishnayya Naidu, S. P. Rajabathar, V. V. Raghavan, V. Srinivasan P. Ram Reddi, V. Venkatarama Reddy, S. Ramayya Nayak, D. N. Narasaraju Y. Suryanarayana, M. R. Narayanaswami, A. Nagarajan, A. Visivanathan, V. Somasundarani C. Santhanamurthi Naidu, K. Soundararajan and T. Krishnaraja Naicker, for the Claimants in the various cases.
The Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands into two groups “the developed group” and “the undeveloped group”. The “developed group”, called group I, by him, comprised the lands which had already amenities, or which were in the immediate vicinity of amenties like water, under-ground drainage electricity, etc., and were small plots which could be easily built on. They were also level The “undeveloped group” , called group II by him, consisted of bigger plots not having,the amenities, and not in the immediate vicinity of the amenities The Land Acquisition Officer valued the group I lands at Rs. 1,550 per ground, and the group II lands at Rs. 1,050 per ground. He gave only Rs. 650 per ground for 2 grounds and odd in A.S. No. 297 of 1953. He did not also award the 15 Per cent. solatium for compulsory acquisition. The claimants took out references under section 18.
The learned Judge, after considering the relevant sale-deeds exhaustively gave Rs. 2,000 per ground for group I lands, and Rs. 1,500 per ground for group II lands He has added in the judgment that all the parties agreed to the grouping and the gradation. He gave also the 15 percent. solatium for compulsory acquisition, under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, holding that even though the actual award itself in this case, and the taking of possession were after 27th February 1951, when the new City Improvement Trust Act had abolished the solatium, still the 15 per cent, solatium should be given, because the Land Acquisition proceedings had been begun earlier, and the valuation had to be as on the date of the section 4 (1) notification which was 24th August, 1948, long before the abolition He gave also certain sums for superstructures, wells, etc., and made certain deductions for levelling up in the case of low-lying lands. These details will be considered later, wherever necessary, in the respective appeals.
The Government have filed 31 appeals (of which 29 appeals are covered here) not only attacking the award of the 15 percent. solatium for compulsory acquisition, but also attacking the market value as enhanced by the learned Judge below. The claimants have filed 15 independent cross-appeals, in appeals filed by the Government, and two memoranda of cross-objections. They have also filed an appeal (A.S. No. 375 of 1953) where the Government have not filed any appeal. In all, there were 32 land cases. All of them are completely covered by the 31 appeals filed by the Government and by A.S. No. 375 of 1953 filed by the claimant. So, all the parties who were before the Court below and before the Land Acquisition Officer are before us to-day.
The other big scheme of acquisition may be referred to as the Mowbray’s