1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A.(MD)No.66 OF 2011 The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Officer (ADW) Ramanathapuram. : Appellant/Respondent/ Referring Officer Vs. Varatharajan S/o.M.R.Ramasamy Perumbacheri Village Elayankudi Village Sivagangai District. : Respondent/Appellant/Claimant PRAYER: Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in LACMA No.16 of 2000 dated 21.03.2007 on the file of Sub- Ordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram which was filed against award No.2/2000-2001 by the Special Tahsildar (ADW) Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Government Advocate For Respondent : No appearance J U D G M E N T This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 21.03.2007 made in LACMA No.16 of 2000. 2. 5.57 Acres (2.25.5 hectares) of land comprised in S.No.933/1B in Ponnagar, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District was acquired for Harijan Welfare Scheme under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978)(hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The prescribed authority, namely, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer (ADW), Ramanathapuram fixed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act, at Rs.150/- per cent and awarded a total amount of Rs.96,083/- as compensation to the land owner, namely, the respondent herein. 3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the prescribed authority, the land owner, namely, the respondent herein preferred an appeal on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, under Section 9 of the said Act. The same was taken on file in LACMA No.16 of 2000. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, after enquiry, allowed the appeal and fixed the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 value as on the date of 4(1) notification at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent, allowed solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value in accordance with Section 7(2) of the said Act and also directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit in accordance with Section 12 of the said 'Act'. The learned Subordinate Judge also directed proportionate cost to be paid to the appellant before the lower Court, who is the respondent in this second appeal. 4. Aggrieved by and challenging the said decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, dated 21.03.2007, the State through the Land Acquisition Officer has come forward with the present second appeal under Section 13 of the said 'Act'. 5. The arguments advanced by Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate represented the appellant were heard. The copies of the judgment and decree of the Court below and other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also taken into consideration. 6. To prefer an appeal, which is termed a second appeal against the decree passed by the Court dealing with LACMA under Section 9 of the above 'Act', two conditions must be fulfilled. They are: (1) the amount determined by the prescribed authority, namely, the Land Acquisition Officer should exceed Rs.50,000/- in accordance with Section 9 of the above said 'Act' r/w Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules 1979. (2) Such an appeal is subject to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and hence it must involve a substantial question of law. 7. Section 13 of the said Act deals with a further appeal to the High Court from the decree of the Court to which the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. It reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, a second appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decision of the Court under this Act, if the amount as determined by the prescribed authority exceeds such sum as may be prescribed.” 8. Rule 8 gives the nomenclature of such an appeal to the High Court, as a second appeal. Section 13 of the 'Act' expressly makes the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 applicable to second appeals in land acquisition matter under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. Section 100 CPC says that an appeal against the appellate decree shall lie to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Therefore, even in a land acquisition matter under the provisions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, a second appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge shall be entertained by the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Unless the appellant is able to show that a substantial question of law is involved, the High Court cannot interfere with the decree passed by the Court below. 9. In the case on hand, except the contention that the Subordinate Judge has fixed an amount which was more than 10 times of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification and that while making comparison of a smaller piece of land with a larger piece of land, the Court below allowed only a deduction of 20%, which according to the appellant is on a lower scale, no other ground has been raised by the appellant to challenge the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 10. Let us now consider whether these questions will assume the character of substantial questions of law. At the outset, this Court wants to point out that the fixation of the market value as on the date of 4(1) notification was based on sale deeds pertaining to adjacent lands which took place prior to the date of 4(1) notification with time gap of three years and hence there is no possibility to make an inference that those sales could have taken place with a view to boost the market value contemplating acquisition of the neighbouring land in the near future. Notice under Section 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 was published in the District Gazette on 08.01.2000. Under Ex.A1, a property which situates on the north of the acquired land was sold more than 2½ years prior to the date of 4(1) notice. The said sale took place in respect of 5 cents in S.No.936/3A in and by a document registered as document No.374/97, dated 03.04.1997. The rate per cent as per the said document comes to Rs.2660/-. Similarly, as per Ex.A2 sale deed bearing document No.328/99, dated 15.04.1999, four cents of land comprised in S.No.1026/2, which lies on the south of the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs.2650/- per cent. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in taking into consideration those two documents, especially, when authenticated copies of other sale deeds showing sales that have taken place in the vicinity of the acquired land nearer to the date of 4(1) notice has not been produced. No wrong has been committed in relying on the said documents as reflecting the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification. In fact, the Court below ought to have taken a higher value reflected in those two documents. However, the Court below has chosen to fix the market value of the acquired land before allowing deduction on the ground that a larger property is sought to be compared with a smaller piece of land and fixed the market value at Rs.2,500/- per cent, which is less than the amount reflected in Ex.A1 and less than even the amount reflected in Ex.A2. Therefore, the appellant cannot have any grievance, much less a valid grievance, against the fixation of market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,500/- before allowing deduction either for developmental charges or for the reason that a smaller piece of land is compared with a larger piece of land. For forming a lay out some amount has to be spent and certain space has to be left out as streets and open space for making large pieces https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 of land into smaller pieces of land consisting of either house sites or industrial sites. In short, when large area of land is acquired and its value is sought to be fixed taking its potentialities to be developed into small sites either residential or industrial, then, certain percentage is to be deducted when the sale in respect of smaller piece of land developed into pucca house site or industrial site is made on the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 11. It is neither the case of the appellant nor the evidence of the appellant that the properties concerned in Exs.A1 and A2 were pucca house sites in an approved lay out. When the sale in respect of a land adjacent to the acquired land is taken on the basis of fixation of the market value of the acquired land, which is of a larger extent and the market value is sought to be fixed taking into account the potentiality of the land to be developed into house sites or industrial sites, then only the deduction towards developmental charges have to be made. Such deductions may range from 20% to 50%. It is a known fact that Rameshwaram is an island, wherein there is scarcity of land. Therefore, minimum percentage allowed by the Court below as deductions towards developmental charges cannot be termed unreasonably low. The Court below is very much justified in holding that allowing a deduction of 20% towards developmental charges shall be sufficient. This Court does not find fault with the above said decision of the Court below as the said decision is neither infirm nor defective and it cannot be termed perverse. There is no question of interfering with the decision of the Court below to fix the market value of the acquired land taking the rate reflected in Exs.A1 and A2 as the basis. So far the other statutory benefits are concerned, admittedly, they have been allowed strictly in tune with the provisions of the 'Act' and no grievance is aired by the appellants in this regard. This Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this case. Therefore, this Court decides to dismiss the second appeal at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Officer (ADW), Ramanathapuram. 2. The Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.9186) S.A.(MD) No.66 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 RR 17.02.2011 NSV/6.5.11/4P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/