1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :17.04.2009 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.(MD)No.252 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar. :Appellant / Referring Officer -Vs- Shanmughakani :Respondent / Claimant Prayer:-This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 made in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant:Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,Government Advocate Respondents :Mr.Shanmugakani, Party-in-person JUDGMENT The Special Tahsildar(L.A), Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar, is the appellant. 2.The lands belonged to the respondent to an extent of 1.24.5 hectares were acquired by the appellant, by issuing Section 4(1) notification, dated 09.08.1995 and possession was taken over on 24.04.1997 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed an award in Award No.4/96-97 dated 20.02.1997 fixed the market value at Rs.23,030/- per hectare. The claimant not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the case was referred to Sub Court, Sivakasi, in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2006. 3.Before the learned Sub Judge, Sivakasi, the claimant examined himself and two witnesses and marked 4 documents. On the side of the appellant, one witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. The learned Sub Judge after analyzing both the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,000/- per Cent. The appellant aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation filed the appeal. 4.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation awarded by the lower Court is justified or not? 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Ex.R5, a Division Bench judgment of this Honourable Court passed in A.S.No.81 to 87 of 2002 in the case of The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Special Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar, wherein the market value of similar land was fixed by this Honourable Court at the rate of Rs.600/- per Cent and contended that the land, which was acquired in this case, is also situate nearer to the land, which was subject matter of the appeal in A.S.Nos.81 to 87 of 2002, (Ex.R5) and therefore, the same value is to be fixed for the acquired land also. It is seen from Ex.R5, the lands acquired in that appeal were also for the purpose of Special Minor Irrigation Project and the survey number of the land is also 586 and its sub-division. The village in also same at Vadapatti. Section 4(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 notification is also same in these appeals and that appeals covered under Ex.R5. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader requested that the same value can be fixed for the acquired land also in this appeal. 6.Per contra, the respondent, who appeared as party-in-person, pleaded that he has filed Exs.C1, C2 and C3, which would show that the properties in the nearby area were sold for a sum of Rs.4,000/- and above per Cent and therefore, the learned Sub Judge has correctly fixed the market value at Rs.1000/- and there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the learned trial Judge. 7.In this case, the Acquisition Officer has considered 64 documents and after rejecting 63 documents on various grounds has taken into consideration the land in Survey No.560/1A, which was mentioned as Item No.13 in the list of documents, considered by him and arrived at the figure of Rs.23,030.30/- per hectare, which works out to Rs.90/- per Cent. On perusal of the rough sketch filed by the appellant and marked as Ex.R3 I find that the data land considered by the Acquisition Officer is situate, east of the acquired land and in between the acquired land and the data land, there are lands in Survey Nos.571, 572 and 573. It is seen from the various sale deeds considered by the Acquisition Officer, serial No.35 relates to document No.798 dated 16.03.1995 in respect of Survey No.572 of an extent of 0.48.0 hectare and that was sold at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. That document was rejected by the Acquisition Officer on the ground that it is situate one mile away from the acquired land. The reason given by the Acquisition Officer is not correct as the land in Survey No.572 is adjacent to the acquired land and it is nearer to the acquired land, than the data land considered by the Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer ought to have considered the sale deed in respect of Survey No.572 for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 8.The lands covered under Exs.C2 & C3 are situate, according to the respondent, at a distance of less then 1 km and therefore, those lands ought to have been taken into consideration for fixing the market value. The respondent further contended that while arriving at the market value, the Acquisition Officer as well as the Court should have taken into consideration the value of neighboring lands and select the highest value for fixing the market value and should not have taken the lowest value especially when the lands were compulsorily acquired by the Government against the wishes of the owner. No doubt, it is true that while fixing the market value of the property, the Court has to consider the price, which a willing vendor might reasonable expect to receive from the willing purchaser but at the same time disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must be disregarded. The potentiality land is also to be considered and certain principles have been enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court while fixing the market value, in a judgment reported in 2003(4) Supreme Court Cases 481 in the case of Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India, that the requisites for a sale to merit consideration as a comparable sale are: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii)it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv)it should possess similar advantages” 9.Therefore, while considering the market value to be fixed for the acquired land, the lands adjacent to the land can be taken into consideration and other lands, which possess similar advantages can also be considered. 10.In this appeal as stated above, the land in Survey No.572 was sold for Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare on 16.03.1995, and the land is situate adjacent to the acquired land. Therefore, in my opinion, the value of that land in Survey No.572 can be safely construed as representing the correct market value and if that is taken into consideration, the market value of the acquired land will be only 600/- per Cent. This market value is also accepted by the division Bench of this Honourable Court in A.S.81 to 87 of 2002, which is covered under Ex.R5. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Sub Judge has erroneously fixed the market value at Rs.1000/- per Cent and it has to be reduced to Rs.600/- per Cent and accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.600/- per Cent and the respondent is entitled to claim Rs.600/- per Cent. 11.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the decree and judgment of the trial Court is modified and the valuation of the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.600/- per Cent. In other aspects, the order of the trial court is confirmed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Project, Virudhunagar. +3CC to Mr.T.Shanmugakani, Advocate. SR.No.7331. er RP/21.04.09/1P/6C. A.S.No.252 of 2008 17.04.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/