Market value for land compensation must reflect current urbanization factors despite previous classifications as agricultural.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the award dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in L.A.O.P. No. 56 of 2001. The appellants before this court are Union of India and the Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.

3.The acquisition in question pertains to land measuring 00.02.47 Are in T.S. No. F/2/17/4D/5, situated at Karaikal, which was acquired for the purpose of establishing the II Market and Sandhai at Karaikal. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.06.1998, and the Land Acquisition Officer originally fixed compensation at Rs. 60,000/- per Are, based on the guideline value.

4.The claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Upon reference, on a comprehensive appraisal, the reference Court noted that, although classified as nanjai, the acquired parcel lies in a rapidly urbanizing belt abutting the Thirunallar Road– Bharathiyar Road corridor and established layouts such as Murugaram and Ravanna Nagars, and therefore possesses clear non-agricultural potential; preferring market evidence over guideline rates, it evaluated contemporaneous proximate sales (Exs. P1–P9) . The learned Additional District Judge, after considering oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs.P1 to P9, determined that the proper market value should be Rs. 76,022/- per Are arrived at by adopting a genuine sale instance dated 11.08.1997, where 1 Are was sold for Rs. 95,027.62, and deducting 20% towards development charges. The Court also awarded 30% solatium, 12%

additional compensation under Section 23(1A).

5.Aggrieved by this enhancement, the appellants contended that the lower court erred in relying on a small sale deed between relatives, treating wetlands as developed plots, and failing to apply higher deductions of 30– 50% for development. They also argued that future potential cannot be considered for compensation and that the sale relied upon was speculative, made after the inspection by the Land Acquisition Officer.

6.Points for Determination:

(i)Whether the Reference Court’s adoption of Rs.95,027.62 per Are as the base (with 20% deduction) is sustainable on the evidence and law?

(ii)Whether any further deduction or reduction is warranted in light of the appellants’ grounds?

7.It is now well settled through a long series of appeals arising from the very same acquisition scheme that this Court has consistently taken a view in several connected appeals relating to the Karaikal Market acquisition, including A.S. Nos. 518, of 2010 (Batch) dated 08.12.2020 and A.S. No. 335 of 2010, dated 08.12.2020 & 08.11.2022 respectively. In those judgments, this Court upheld the same valuation of Rs. 76,022/- per Are, holding that the lands, though classified as Nanjai, were no longer agricultural but formed part of an urbanized locality with several layouts, roads, and civic developments.

8.The Court in A.S. No. 518 of 2010 observed that the exemplar sale deed used by the reference court was bonafide, executed within nine months before the notification, and that the deduction of 20% was both fair and consistent with established principles. It was also noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had ignored 200 genuine sale deeds and fixed an arbitrary value based on guideline rates. It is stated as follows:

“11. Several data sale deeds have been referred to. All the lands are classified as Nanjai lands. It indicates that the lands have permanent irrigation facility through Government source. However, it is admitted by both sides that the lands are not used for any agricultural purpose. This would only suggest tha