IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.945 of 1996 1.Venkatachala Naidu (Died) 2.Kannammal 3.Geetha 4.Suguna 5.V.Elangovan ... Appellants/Claimants (Appellants 2 to 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide order dated 11.01.2008 and 15.02.2008 made in C.M.P. Nos.57 to 59/2008) Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District ... Respondent/Referring Officer This Appeal has been filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) as amended by Act 68 of 1984) as against the Judgement and Award (Decree) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District made in L.A.O.P.No.59 of 1994 dated 16.07.1996. For Appellants : Mr.M.Sriram For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (A.S) JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the judgement and award (decree) dated 16.07.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.59/1994. The Government has acquired an extent of one acre out of the total extent of 4.56 acres comprised in old Survey No.13/3B1 (new Survey No.13/13B/1D) in Thukkapettai village, Chengam Taluk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruvannamalai District (formerly part of North Arcot District) for the purpose of constructing a Telephone Exchange. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.03.1984. Out of the one acre land acquired by the Government for the above said purpose, 5½ cents was the property belonging to the Appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer, during the award enquiry collected particulars of as many as 143 sales that took place within three years prior to the date of 4 (1) notification, but relied on the sale deed bearing document no.1867/82 dated 26.07.1982 pertaining to Survey No.9/4A1 as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property, fixed the market value at Rs.300/- per cent (which comes about 69 Paise per square foot) and awarded a total compensation to the appellant herein as follows:- Market value of 5½ cents at the rate of Rs.300/- per cent Rs.1,650.00 Solatium at 30% on the above said amount 495.00 Increase in the market rate @ 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award 775.50 ----------- Total Rs.2,920.50 ----------- 2. As the appellant herein was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed more amount as compensation, a reference was made to the Sub- Court, Tiruvannamalai under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.59/1994. Before the Referring officer as well as the Court to which the reference was made, the appellant herein put forward a claim for the award of compensation at the rate of Rs.175/- per square foot. The appellant/claimant had also made a claim of Rs.31,400/- as compensation for the superstructure, namely, a building built up- to the basement level. The claim was resisted by the respondent contending that the correct market value was adopted for awarding compensation for the land acquired by the Government and hence no revision of the compensation could be made. It was also contended therein that though there was a building up-to the basement level on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, subsequent to the said Notification, the appellant/claimant dismantled the structure and when the award enquiry was conducted and the date on which the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, there was no structure present in the land concerned in this appeal and hence the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of compensation for the superstructure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. During the enquiry before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, one witness was examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on the side of the appellants herein/claimants. One witness was examined and B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the Respondent/Referring Officer. At the conclusion of the enquiry, on an appreciation of evidence and after going through the entire materials available on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, fixed the market value of the property acquired at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot relying on an award passed in another L.A.O.P. (L.A.O.P.No.6/1990) concerning another piece of land comprised in the very same Survey Number acquired under the very same award and awarded enhanced compensation as indicated below: Value of property at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot for 5½ cents Rs.14,355.00 Solatium at 30% 4,306.50P Increase in market value at 12% from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award or the date on which possession was taken over by the Government, whichever is earlier 3,301.65P ------------ Total Rs.21,963.15P ------------ Amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.2,920.50P Enhanced of compensation awarded in the L.A.O.P. is Rs.21,963.15P The said amount was directed to be paid along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of award of the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. Not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the appellant/claimant has approached this court by way of present appeal. 4. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal are:- 1)whether the value adopted by the Court below for the acquired land is far below the actual market value? 3)Whether the court below has committed an error in not accepting the sale noted in Sl.No.28 of the Sale data prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the sample sale reflecting the actual market value of the property acquired? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5)Whether the appellant are entitled to enhanced compensation? If so to what extent? 5. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the Appellants and the rival submissions made by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. Points 1 to 3: 6) The erstwhile owner of the land which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of putting up a Telephone Exchange has come forward with this appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment and award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.59 of 1994 dated 16.07.1996 on a reference made to the said Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The bone of contention in this appeal seems to be the basis on which the market value of the property acquired should have been fixed. Though more than 143 sales have been scrutinized by the Land Acquisition Officer, item 70 in the sale data alone was taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge on the reference made to him by the Referring Officer, disagreed with the Land Acquisition Officer so far as the selection of the data sale was concerned. The learned Subordinate Judge took note of an earlier LAOP namely, L.A.O.P.No.6/1990, in which the market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot in respect of another piece of land within the very same Survey Number. The learned Subordinate Judge in the said former LAOP relied on the admission of the witness examined on the side of the Referring Officer that the guideline value as on the date of 4(1) Notification was Rs.6.35 per square foot. However, taking into consideration the fact that when the rate per square feet is to be adopted for a larger extent namely 61½ cents in the said LAOP, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai chose to allow a deduction of 35 paise per square foot and fixed the market value for the entire extent of 61½ cents at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot. The same rate was applied by the learned Subordinate Judge in the case on hand unmindful of the fact that the property acquired from the appellants herein/claimants was a smaller extent, namely 5½ cents 7) In case of such smaller extents no deduction for developmental charges/open space to be made as would be done in case of larger extent. 8) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the acquired land in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990, was a larger extent, namely 61½ cents and the said deduction was made for the open space to be left if the same was to be converted into house sites. Similar situation does not arise in the case on hand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because, the property concerned in this case is only a small piece of land which was admittedly a house site even before acquisition. Therefore, even if the market value adopted by the Subordinate Court in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990 could be adopted in the present case, it should have been adopted without allowing any deduction from the above said market value, namely Rs.6.35 per square foot. In addition to the submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the particulars found in Sl.Nos.25 to 28 in the chart containing the sale data produced by the Land Acquisition Officer. Of course, as per the sale data in Sl.Nos.25 to 27 it has been shown as if the land in the very same Survey number land was sold at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot. The rates ranges from Rs.4.99 to Rs.6/- per square foot. Yet another sale relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant is the one found in Sl.No.28 of the sales data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has noted therein that as per the said document a sale had taken place at the rate of Rs.21/- per square foot. Unfortunately, neither the appellants herein/claimants nor the Respondent herein/Referring Officer produced copies of any one of the above said sale deeds. 9) Of course copy of the data sales relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was produced. But the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the said sale deed as not reflecting the correct market value, as the property sold there under could not be equated with the acquired land besides, the land being situated at a far off place. In addition to the same, the learned Subordinate Judge has also found that the said land did not have the facilities like proximity to the main road. The said finding has not been challenged by the Respondent/Referring Officer. The selection of the market value adopted by the very same court in respect of another piece of land situated in the very same Survey Number has also not been challenged by the Respondent/Referring Officer. Hence, we cannot find fault with the learned Subordinate Judge for his selection of the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990 as the basis on which the acquired land concerned in this appeal should be valued to find out its market value. The admitted guideline line value was taken as the basis in the LAOP No.6/1990 for fixing the market value. While coming to the conclusion that the basis on which the market value was ascertained for the other piece of the land comprised in the very same Survey Number should also be the basis of assessment of the market value of the land concerned in the case on hand, the learned Subordinate Judge, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellants, has forgotten the important fact that the deduction allowed therein should not have been made in the case on hand, as the property concerned in the case on hand is only a small piece of land compared with a larger piece of land concerned in the other LAOP. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the admitted guideline value as on the date of 4 (1) Notification should be the basis on which the market value of the property should be calculated. At the same time this Court is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also of the view that the deduction of 35 paise per square foot allowed in the former case should not have been allowed in the case on hand and the market value should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.6.35 per square foot without any such deduction. Based on the above said finding regarding the market value, the compensation to which the appellant/claimant is entitled to is calculated as under. Market value of the property at the rate of Rs.6.35 per square foot for 5½ Cents 15,192.40P Solatium at 30% 4,557.70P Increase in market value at 12% from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award or the date on which possession was taken over by the Government, whichever is earlier (from 14.03.1984 to 25.01.88, date of award) 7,044.00 Total 26,794.10P Rounded off to 26,794.00 Amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as per his award Rs.2,920.50P Enhanced compensation to the appellant entitled to is Rs.26,794.00 The above said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.09.1998, the admitted date of taking possession pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Officerthe date of the Land Acquisition Officer Award for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realisation. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Award of the learned Trial Court is modified by fixing the total amount of compensation at Rs.26,794/- in L.A.O.P.No.59/1994 as against Rs.2,920.50. 11. After taking the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the enhanced compensation is fixed at Rs.23,873.50P which amount shall be paid with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the admitted date of taking possession (05.09.1998) and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. asr To 1. The Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai. Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 18308 1 cc to Mr.M. Sriram, Advocate, Sr. 18320 A.S.No.945 of 1996 ASM (CO) kk 10/6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/