Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Dharmalingam (died) & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme), Chennai – Respondents
S.A. No. 597 of 2016
Decided on : 05-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :N.R. Anantha Ramakrishnan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Y.T. Aravind Gosh, Additional Govt. Pleader.
The highest compensation principle should be applied in determining the market value of acquired land, and the entitlement to solatium and interest is governed by the statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 - Section 13 - 4(2), 4(1), 10(2), 12, 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 - Sale Deeds, Market Value, Solatium, Interest - Ex.P1, P4, P5 - Highest Compensation Principle
Fact of the Case:
The land was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978. The landowner appealed for higher compensation, presenting multiple Sale Deeds as evidence. The Subordinate Judge rejected the initial Sale Deed and fixed the value of the land based on other Sale Deeds. The landowner appealed for solatium and interest, and disputed the valuation of the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Subordinate Judge erred in not awarding solatium and interest as per the relevant legal provisions. The court also held that the highest compensation principle should be applied in determining the market value of the acquired land.
Issues: Valuation of acquired land, entitlement to solatium and interest
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the highest compensation principle, emphasizing the importance of considering the Sale Deed reflecting the highest value and the entitlement to solatium and interest as per the statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the compensation was fixed at Rs.18,67,272/- with the landowner entitled to 15% solatium and 6% interest as provided under the relevant sections of the Acts.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, praying to modify the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2008 passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Ponneri thereby fixing the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.6000/- per cent as claimed in CMA No.13 of 2001 before the lower court.)
This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.
1. This Appeal is at the instance of the land owners whose lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978. Notice under Section 4(2) of the said Act was published on 30.11.1998. It was followed by a notification under Section 4(1) on 02.01.1999. An extent of 1.96.5 hectares equivalent to 4 acres and 84 cents situate in Survey No.144 of Thandalacherry Village, of Gummidipoondi Taluk was sought to be acquired for provision of free house sites to Adi Dravidars of Thandaalacherry Village. By an award dated 19.03.1999, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.298.50 per cent along with all attendant statutory benefits, viz. 15% solatium and interest at 6%. The Land Acquisition Officer took a Sale Deed dated 08.01.1998 under which the land in Survey No.189/15 of the said Village measuring about 2 acres and 11 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.63,000/-. On the strength of the said document, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the compensation as stated above.
2. Complaining that the compensation was low, the land owner preferred an Appeal in CMA No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri. Before the Sub Court, the land owner produced at least five Sale Deeds relating to lands situate in various Survey Numbers in the said Village. Apart from examining himself, the land Owner examined one Palani, an independent witness also to prove the Sale Deeds. There was no oral or documentary evidence let in by the acquiring Authorities.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge upon examination of the evidence on record faulted the Land Acquisition Tahsildar for adopting the value in the Sale Deed dated 08.01.1988, which was with reference to Survey No.189/15, since the land in Survey No.189/15 was situate inside and it was a land locked property, whereas, the land in Survey No.144, viz., the acquired land was abutting the road and there was a direct access from the Sathyavedu - Kavaraipettai Road to the land in Survey No.144. The Court also took note of the fact that the award Officer had in his award itself observed that the land acquired is ready for being occupied as house sites without any further improvement and the beneficiaries have also sought for allotment of this land only.
4. After rejecting the document relied upon by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, the learned Subordinate Judge examined the documents produced by the claimant before him, viz., Exhibits P1, P4 and P5. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected Ex.P1, which related to Survey No.209 and accepted Exhibits P4 and P5, which related to Survey No.206. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that the acquired land is similarly situate with the land in Survey No.206. After so observing the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,744/- per cent, basing his conclusion on the Sale Deeds Exs. P4 and P5 which reflected the said value for an extent of 9 cents each that was sold under those two documents.
5. The learned Subordinate Judge, however did not award any solatium. Claiming that the learned Subordinate Judge should have adopted the value reflected in Ex.P1 and awarded solatium at 15%, the land owner has come up with this Appeal.
6. The following questions of law were framed at the time of admission.
(a) Whether the Court below and the respondent herein were right in not awarding 30% solatium to the appellant for mandatory acquisition for the appellant’s land as envisaged under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Wel
