Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Govindaraj, J.
The District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Narayani Narasa – Respondent
CRP (NPD) Nos. 1413 to 1425, 1432 to 1441, 901, 903 to 910, 912, 915, 918, 924 to 926, 928, 1592, 1593, 1595 to 1606, 1685, 1687, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730 to 1732, 1735, 1739, 1756 to 1758, 1762 to 1771, 1775 & 1802 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020
K.M. Venugopal, J. Balagopal Special Government Pleader, Vasudevan, A.C. Kumaragurubaran, Advocates.
Headnote:
The Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land by 60% over the market value fixed on the basis of comparative values of the sale deed and guideline rate at the relevant point of time, considering the rapid development and high demand for the land, and the escalation in prices. The Court also allowed a deduction of 15% towards development charges, considering the purpose of the land acquisition and the development condition of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired 18 Acres and 85 Cents of land for the formation of the Southern Sector Inner Ring Road between Velacherry and St.Thomas Mount. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.102/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved, the claimants raised objections and the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the sale deeds, arrived at the market value at Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,800/- and Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. respectively. The State challenged the enhancement of compensation by the Tribunal, while the claimants sought further enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the market value fixed by the Tribunal was not based on any specific method and was abrupt. The Court also found that the data document relied on by the Acquisition Officer did not reflect the true market value of the land. The Court further found that the land acquired was a very potential site within the City of Chennai and that the market value should be fixed on the basis of the highest exemplar among the sale transactions in that locality.
Issues: 1. What is the correct market value of the acquired land and what would be a fair and just compensation? 2. Whether deduction towards development charges to be allowed or not? 3. What is the quantum of compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The market value of the land shall be fixed on the basis of the highest exemplar among the sale transactions in that locality. 2. The deduction towards development charges shall be allowed only if the land acquired requires development for the purpose for which it is acquired. 3. The quantum of compensation shall be determined by applying the judicial experience and discretion to the market value fixed on the basis of the comparative values of the sale deed and guideline rate at the relevant point of time.
Final Decision: The Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land by 60% over the market value fixed on the basis of comparative values of the sale deed and guideline rate at the relevant point of time, considering the rapid development and high demand for the land, and the escalation in prices. The Court also allowed a deduction of 15% towards development charges, considering the purpose of the land acquisition and the development condition of the land.
ORDER :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP No. 64/2014 dated 21/10/2016 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court.)
1. The above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against common orders upon reference under Sec 20(1) of Highways Act (T.N. Act 34 of 2002) passed on different dates fixing variable compensation against acquisition of lands within the same locality under two notifications for acquisition within a short span. Considering the acquisition of larger extent of lands for the same project by the same authorities in the same locality, and against the common order, I would prefer to consider all the cases together and pass the common order.
2. Challenging the common order dated 24.11.2015 passed in LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 912, 915, 909, 910, 918, 924, 925, 926 and 928 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
3. Whereas, not satisfying with the quantum of compensation awarded on 24.11.2015 in LAOP Nos.61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 66/2012, 69/2012, 70/2012, 72/2012, 76/2012, 77/2012, 79/2012, 81/2012, 82/2012, 83/2012, 84/2012, 85/2012 and 86/2012 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the claimants have preferred the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1592, 1604, 1605, 1593, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1597, 1606, 1595, 1596, 1598, 1603 and 1599 of 2020 respectively.
4. Challenging the order dated 19.04.2017 passed in LAOP Nos. 66/2014, 18/2014, 33/2014, 14/2014, 35/2014, 53/2014, 5/2014, 12/2014, 32/2014, 28/2014, 63/2014, 44/2014, 20/2014, 26/2014, 31/2014 and order dated 21.04.2017 passed in LAOP No.21/2014, respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1735 and 1739 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
5. Whereas, not satisfying with the quantum of compensation awarded on 19.04.2017 in LAOP Nos.66/2014, 18/2014, 33/2014, 14/2014, 35/2014, 53/2014, 5/2014, 12/2014, 32/2014, 28/2014, 63/2014, 44/2014, 20/2014, 26/2014 and 31/2014 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the claimants have preferred the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1756, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 , 1775 and 1802 of 2020 respectively.
6. Likewise, challenging the order dated 14.03.2018 passed in LAOP.Nos.64/2014, 71/2012, 40/2014, 36/2014, 64/2012, 57/2014, 42/2014, 25/2014, 17/2014, 29/2014, 34/2014, 6/2014, 10/2014, 74/2012, 11/2014, 49/2014, 43/2014, 60/2014, 38/2014, 88/2012, 16/2014 and 4/2014 respectively, by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the land value, the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (NPD) Nos.1413, 1415, 1416, 1419, 1421, 1423, 1437, 1438, 1441, 1417, 1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1439 and 1440 of 2020 have been filed by the State.
7. Heard Mr.J.Balagopal, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the State in all the Revisions and Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in CRP (NPD) Nos.1413, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441 and 1732 of 2020 respectively, and Mr.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.C.Kumarakurubaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in CRP (NPD) Nos.901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 912, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 928, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731,
