SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Mad) 137

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RATNAM
Director of Survey cum Lend Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry & Others
Versus
Mohammed Chouse & Others
Appeal Nos.743 of 1980 etc
Decided On :Decided on : 01-03-1983

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants: Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry.
For the Respondents:S. Sridevan, G. Masilamani and J. Jagannathan, Advocates.

Sales of normal sites in the locality are best evidence.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 18, 23 and 24-Duty of the Court in determination of compensation of the land acquired by Government-Held, claimants to be given the most advantageous market price.

       

Judgment :-

Ratnam, J.

We have resorted to a group disposal of all these appeals, not because common questions of fact or law arise for decision in these appeals, but on account of the judgments appealed against being vitiated by one or more of errors and infirmities common to them all. The judgments appealed against are so unsatisfactory that we have also been provoked into a restatement of the basis of the procedure in relation to references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the manner in which they should be dealt with and disposed of by the courts. Broadly and briefly stated, for the purpose of various housing schemes, provision of house sites to Harijans, for construction of ESI dispensary and staff quarters, for widening the Tindivanam Road, for the formation of by-pass road (east coast road) and for assignment of free house sites to the landless labourers in the rural areas, large extents of land situate in Kurumbapet, Saradapet, Olandai, Thattanchavadi, Ouigaret, Murgambakkam, Ariyankuppam, Temgathittu, Kuruvinathan and Goodapak-kam were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, were dated 21st October, 1975, 1st February, 1974, 2nd March, 1976, 1st September, 1979, 27th March, 1971, 9th April, 1974, 4th April, 1978, 18th May, 1976, 18th October, 1977, 28th September, 1976, 11th May, 1976 and 29th June, 1977 respectively. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the acquired lands prayed for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands at figures, which varied considerably from owner to owner. On the basis of the sales statistics, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the market value of the acquired lands at different figures viz. Rs.45 per acre, Rs.34.47 per kuzhi, Rs.338.98 per acre, Rs.854.70 per acre, Rs.206.93 per kuzhi, Rs.488.88 per acre, Rs.430 per acre, Rs.394 per acre, Rs.250 per acre, Rs.196.48 per acre, Rs.339 per acre, and Rs.251.71 per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation of the market value of the lands acquired, several claimants sought a reference to court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Sub court, Pondicherry, determined the market value of the lands acquired at different rates, viz. Rs.373.56 per acre, Rs.373 per acre, Rs.130 per kuzhi, Rs.5,918 per acre, Rs.2,000 per kuzhi, Rs.2.50 per sq.ft., Rs.3.50 per sq.ft., Rs.6.50 per sq.ft., Rs.3.25 per sq.ft., Rs.800 per kuzhi, Rs.500 per kuzhi and Rs.373.80 per acre. Complaining that the method as well as the manner of fixation of the market value of the acquired lands by the court below is erroneous, the State has preferred these appeals.

2. The learned Government Pleader contended that in the process of ascertaining the market value of the acquired properties for the purpose of awarding compensation to the owners thereof, the court below had proceeded on the basis of documents, which had not been marked in evidence and with reference to guidelines which had not been brought into evidence and with reference to post-section 4(1) notification sales also. In addition, it was also pointed out that in some cases, the court had proceeded to adopt the guideline values of house sites with reference to the wet and dry lands acquired, while the guideline values with reference to the lands acquired were available. Further, it was also brought to our notice that in a few of the cases, the court below had not awarded the solatium and interest as contemplated by the statute. Yet another defect was also brought to our notice in that in some of the cases, the court below had not incorporated at the end of its judgment a chronological index of the documents marked as evidence in the proceedings and a list of witnesses examined and therefore, there was no knowing as to on what documents and oral evidence, if any, the court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand, counsel appea






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top