Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Mad) 3591

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition, Unit-1, Air Force Station, Thanjavur
Versus
Thaineesraj & Others
A.S.Nos.97 to 101 of 2005, 243 to 258 of 2005, 131 to 146 of 2005, 370 to 383 of 2005, 460 & 461 of 2005, 219 to 229 of 2005, 259 to 278 of 2005, 279 to 304 of 2005, 305 to 327 of 2005, 347 to 364 of 2005, 166 to 197 of 2005, 401 to 416 of 2005, 417 to 431 of 2005, 75 to 95 of 2005, 513 to 517 of 2004, 201 to 218 of 2005, 518 to 527 of 2004, 60 of 64 of 2005, 660 to 675 of 2004, 472 to 482 of 2004, 432 to 459 of 2005, 147 to 163 of 2005, 232 to 241 of 2005, 328 to 342 of 2005
Decided On :Decided On : 15-11-2007

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:So.Paramasivam, Additional Govt. Pleader. For the Respondents:R1 to R7, A. Rajendran, R8, M.K. Ramakrishnan, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the purpose and potentiality of the land, the relevance of sample sale deeds, and the application of statutory guidelines in determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act - 18, 53 of the Land Acquisition Act - The judgment discusses the valuation of land for setting up an Air Force Station at Thanjavur. The court considered the statutory guidelines for valuation and the relevance of sample sale deeds in determining the compensation. The court also emphasized the need to consider the purpose for which the land is being acquired and the potentiality of the land. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the valuation process and the application of legal principles in determining the compensation.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved appeals filed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in a land acquisition case for setting up an Air Force Station at Thanjavur. The appeals included claims for enhancement of compensation, and the court had to assess the valuation of the land based on Section 4(1) notifications under the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the valuation of the land should consider the purpose for which the land is being acquired and the potentiality of the land. It emphasized the relevance of sample sale deeds and the need to make deductions towards development charges. The court also addressed the issue of discrimination in awarding compensation and provided a detailed analysis of the valuation process.
Issues: The main issues included the valuation of the land for compensation, the relevance of sample sale deeds, the application of statutory guidelines, and the consideration of the purpose and potentiality of the land in determining compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of statutory guidelines for valuation, the relevance of sample sale deeds, the need to consider the purpose and potentiality of the land, and the requirement to make deductions towards development charges.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all the appeals by providing a detailed assessment of the compensation amounts and directing the government to deposit the amount with interest within a specified period.

Judgment :-

A.S.No.97 of 2005 has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 1997 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and accordingly, other appeals have also been filed with the prayers respectively. A.S(MD)Nos.164 to 169 of 2007 have been filed for enhancement of compensation as the Sub Court rejected the prayer for

enhancement in toto.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run thus:

The publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were made as under:

for acquiring a vast tract of a land for setting up Air Force Station at Thanjavur. Consequently, necessary steps were taken as per law for acquiring the lands and ultimately, the relevant awards emerged.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such passing of awards, quantifying the compensation various references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, have been made to the Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur. Consequently, the Principal Sub Judge assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,176/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Six only) per cent from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

4. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgments dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519 and 520 of 1999 and in A.S.Nos.416 to 418 of 1999, confirmed the judgment of the learned Sub Judge in assessing the value of the land at Rs.1,176/- per cent ultimately. The Government preferred Special Leave Petitions vide Nos.24578-24579 of 2004 before the Honourable Apex Court and in that the Honourable Apex Court passed order as under:

" ... Mr.N.N.Goswamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge the statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make it apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by consent, there are large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum awarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court. Those matters are still pending before the High court and if the same principle of valuation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. His contention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before the High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which sale deed had been produced as Annexure A-9, as an exemplar as well as the lands subject matter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the Court must value the land acquired having regard to its value applying the statutory guidelines. Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed is produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value. The value of such lands may be more or less depending upon their potentiality and location and having regard to other relevant considerations which the court has to keep in mind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

We appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the Award of the Reference Court of such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned judgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent."

5. These appeals pending before this Court were not the subject matter of the Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Apex Court. The Government by way of precaution made representation before the Honourable Apex Court and got direction as aforesaid that what the High Court decided on the earlier cited judgments need not be followed as precedents for deciding the present appeals.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents/land owners would submit that the present ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document