IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date :: 03..03..2011 Coram :: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN A.S. No: 229 of 2009 and Cross Obj. SR. No: 23539 of 2010 The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Housing Scheme Unit – 1, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/Petitioner -vs- 1. V. Shanmugam 2. Chinnakkal @ Kaliammal 3. V. Selvaraj 4. Duraisamy 5. S. Savithri 6. Dhanalakshmi 7. S. Senthilvadivelu 8. M. Nooruddin 9. Rukmani 10. Sumathi 11. The Executive Officer Tamilnadu Housing Board Tadapad, Coimbatore. ... Respondents/Claimants 1 to 4 & 6 to 10 Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, in L.A.O.P. No: 127/2000 Dated 22.10.2007. For appellant : Mr. V. Ravi Special Govt Pleader (A.S.) For R.1 to R.4 & R.8 : No appearance For R.5 to 7 and 9 & 10 : Mr. D. Krishnakumar For 11th respondent : Mr. D. Veerasekaran Cross Obj. SR. No: 23539 of 2010 1. S. Savithri 2. Dhanalakshmi 3. S. Senthilvadivelu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Rukmani 5. Sumathi ... Cross Objectors -vs- 1. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Housing Scheme Unit – 1, Coimbatore. 2. V. Shanmugam 3. Chinnakkal @ Kaliammal 4. V. Selvaraj 5. Duraisamy 6. M. Nooruddin 7. The Executive Officer Tamilnadu Housing Board ... Respondents in the Tadapad, Coimbatore. Cross Objection Cross Objection under Section 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, in L.A.O.P. No: 127/2000 Dated 22.10.2007. For Cross Objectors : Mr. D. Krishnakumar For 1st respondent : Mr. V. Ravi Special Govt Pleader (A.S.) For R.2 to R.6 : No appearance For 7th respondent : Mr. D. Veerasekaran C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. Rajendran, J.) The State Government has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award in L.A.O.P. No: 127/2000 Dated 22.10.2007 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per cent taking into consideration the documents produced before the lower Court especially three documents namely Exs. A.1 and A.2 and also the judgment pertaining to the adjacent property which are produced as Exs. A.3 and A.4. 2. The main contention urged by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) is that in respect of very same property, more particularly for the very same scheme, when an award was passed fixing the value at Rs.2,500/- per cent that was challenged before this Hon'ble Court in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 and by a judgment dated 16.06.2010, this Court had reduced the award from Rs. 2,500/- per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cent to Rs. 1,875/- per cent. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the date of the notificationed issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in that case was 31.07.1995 whereas in the present case the date of such notification was on 20.04.1994 and therefore, the award of Rs.3,500/- per cent for this particular land – for the notification made earlier – is excessive and hence, the Government has come forward with this appeal, armed with the order of this Hon'ble Court. It is also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the lower Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant point namely for fixation of the value, if a lesser extent of land is covered under the document that should be eschewed and on that ground also it should be held that the value as fixed by the lower Court is excessive. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed this on the main ground that the Scheme itself is called Thudiyalur Vellakinaru Neighbourhood Scheme, Coimbatore, and though there are two villages namely Thudiyalur and Vellakinaru, it is a common neighbourhood scheme and in respect of the very same acquisition for the year 1991, the Tribunal had earlier fixed the sum of Rs.3,000/- per cent as compensation in L.A.O.P. No: 61 of 2001 which judgment was referred to and relied upon by the petitioner in the present case and marked as an exhibit in the lower Court itself. It is submitted that as against the said judgment made in L.A.O.P. No: 61 of 2001, there was an appeal preferred by the Government in A.S. No: 765 of 2005 in which also, this Hon'ble Court, by a judgment dated 10.02.2010 has fixed the value at Rs. 2,500/- per cent by reducing it from Rs. 3,000/- per cent as fixed by the Court below. If that be the case, in respect of the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1991, when this Hon'ble Court has fixed the value at Rs.2,500/- per cent, for the notification issued in the present case, which is in the year 1994, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sardar Jogendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 (17) S.C.C. 133, 10% increase for every year from the base price of Rs.3,000/- should be granted and if such a method is adopted it would increase by atleast Rs.3,500/- per cent which is the original amount granted by the Court below and, therefore, the compensation as fixed by the Court below can be confirmed and the appeal has to be dismissed. 4. Heard both parties. It is admitted that the notification, pertaining to the neighbourhood scheme, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued on 20.04.1994 and the value fixed by the Court below is at Rs.3,500/- per cent based on the judgment passed in L.A.O.P. No: 61 of 2001 wherein the Court below has fixed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per cent as compensation. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as against the judgment in L.A.O.P. No: 61 of 2001, an appeal has been preferred by the Government in A.S. No: 765 of 2005 and by a judgment dated 10.02.2001, this Hon'ble Court reduced the value from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per cent and in that case the notification is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the year 1991. An argument was raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that the judgment pertaining to A.S. No: 765 of 2005 relates to Thudiyalur Village whereas in the present case the Village concerned is Vellakinaru and though the Scheme is one and the same, they are two different villages and, therefore, for the present case we will have to only take into consideration the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 in which case the same village namely Vellakinaru has been considered and this Hon'ble Court has fixed the valuation at Rs.1,975/- per cent as compensation and this can be the only basis. In fact, he would also contend that in that judgment a further reference has also been made in respect of the notification dated 31.07.1995 for reducing the valuation from Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, when we analyse these two judgments, admittedly in the present case the village concerned is Vellakinaru and thus, the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 has to be taken for consideration. However, it is now stated across the bar that both Thudiyalur and Vellakinaru are adjacent villages and that a common scheme has been framed and in fact, the scheme carries both the village's name viz. Thudiyalur Vellakinaru Neighbourhood Scheme. For the notification issued in the year 1991 itself, this Hon'ble Court has fixed Rs.2,500/- per cent as compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent's argument is that atleast even if the relief cannot be granted as granted in A.S. No: 779 of 2005, the said enhancement of 10% per year which should be applicable after the other judgment had been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court in the second case namely A.S. No: 779 of 2005 can be granted. No doubt both the villages concerned are adjacent villages. Similarly it is no doubt true that the document which has been relied upon in this particular case namely A.S. No: 61 of 2002 had been produced before the Court and in that case a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per cent has been fixed as compensation. Ultimately, the lower Court having fixed the value at Rs. 3,500/- per cent, we may consider this case also in the light of the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 765 of 2005. But, inasmuch as the acquisition pertains to the very same village for valuation purposes we have to take the base price as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in respect of that village in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 at Rs.1,875/- per cent. We respectfully follow that judgment rendered by this Court in A.S. No: 775 of 2005. But taking into consideration the earlier notification, we only would like to follow the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sardar Jogendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 (17) S.C.C. 133, that 10% per year may be added for 3 years. If it is calculated as such for the 1st year for a sum of Rs. 1,875/- Rs. 188/- has to be added. So added, it would be Rs.2063/-. For the next year, another 10% namely Rs.207/- should be added with Rs.2,063/-. Then, it would be Rs. 2,270/-. For the last year, if a sum of Rs.227/- is added with Rs.2,270/- it comes to Rs.2,497/- which can be rounded off to Rs.2,500/-. This was the amount fixed as compensation in A.S. No: 779 of 2005. Since deduction have also been given at 32.5%, we are of the opinion that it is in confirmity with the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, this Court feels that at this point of time, it will be fair, reasonable and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appropriate to fix the valuation at Rs.2,500/- per cent reducing it from Rs. 3,500/- per cent. In the result, following the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 765 of 2005, this appeal is partly allowed by reducing the valuation to Rs.2,500/- per cent from Rs.3,500/- per cent and in all other respects, the award passed by the Court below is confirmed. Consequently, the Cross Objection is closed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar gp To 1. The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 1 cc to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate, Sr.No.15594 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.15667 1 cc to Mr.D.Krishna Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.15647 A.S. No: 229 of 2009 SP {CO} TP/10.5.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/