Court affirmed that sale deeds executed prior to acquisition notice determine market value for compensation, despite lower court's dismissal based on purchase timing.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

1. We have heard Mr. P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were the owners of the land that they had purchased on 29.10.1997 under registered Sale-deeds which had been marked as Exs.C1 and C2. He would submit that it had come to his knowledge that the land was subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Land Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by issuance of a notice under Section 4(2) of the Act prior to the purchase made by the appellants. Thereafter, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published and an award came to be passed on 25.03.1998 fixing the compensation @ Rs.43,403/- per acre.

3. He would submit that the Sale-deeds, viz. Exs.C1 and C2, were subject matter of a proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, which came to be concluded in the year 2007, wherein the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) under the Indian Stamp Act had arrived at a market value of Rs.14.25 per square feet.

4. He would contend that the market value of the land as arrived at by the Statutory Authority on the date of execution of the Exs.C1 and C2 alone would be the value that ought to have been awarded for the lands which had been acquired. Hence, the appellants have preferred an appeal as provided under the Act and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants holding that the lands under Exs.C1 and C2 had been purchased by the appellants after the issuance of notice under Section 4(2) of the Act and hence, based upon a subsequent sale deed, the value could not be taken.

5. He would submit that the appellate Court had also held that the Sale-deeds, under which the appellants had purchased the property, are without bonafide. That apart, it is the case that the Court below had also held that except the documents under which the appellants had purchased the lands, no other documents have been placed to substantiate the claim of the market value of the lands.

6. He would submit that the compensation that is to be paid for the lands acquired should be fair and reasonable. He would further submit that the guideline value, that was fixed by the Statutory Authority, is made based upon the prevailing market value in the area. When one arm of the Government had arrived at a value of the lands, the other arm of the Government cannot contend that it would not be the fair market value of the lands.

7. He would submit that the concept of guideline value is to defeat the claim of the purchaser in undervaluing the property to unjustly enrich himself by paying a lesser stamp duty.

8. He would also rely upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court to persuade that a compensation could also be made at the guideline value that was prevailing at the time of acquisition. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court in granting the appellants the compensation as per the stamp duty, that was fixed by the Statutory Authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, for the lands that have been acquired.

9. Countering his arguments, Mrs.S.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the lands have been purchased by the appellants after the acquisition proceedings have been initiated. She would further submit that the original land owners did not have any objections in the acquisition p