IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:15.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.NoS.244 AND 246 OF 2002 The Special Tahsildar(LA) Housing Scheme, Hosur .. Appellant/referring Officer in both appeals -vs- 1. Srinivasan .. 1st Respondent/claimant in A.S.No.244 of 2002 1.Rajanna .. 1st Respondent/claimant in A.S.No.246 of 2002 2. The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Scheme Hosur ..2nd respondent in both appeals. These appeals are filed against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.517 of 1996 and L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996 respectively by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur dated 16.8.2000. For appellants : : Mr. V.Ravi AGP(AS) For respondents : : Mr. P.Jagadeesan-R1 Mr.D.Veerasekaran(TNHB)-R2 COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of an award passed in L.A.O.P.No.517 of 1996 and L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, dated 16.8.2000. 2. The Government through Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Housing Scheme have acquired 5.70.5 Hectares of land in Nelikilbetta Agraharam and in Rangapanditha Agraharam Village,2.41.0 Hectares of land totalling in all 8.11.5 Hectares of lands under Award No.11/94 dated 3.7.1994 for the purpose of formation of housing complex at Hosur by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme and in this regard, the Government Gazette No.473 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ( Housing and Urban Development Department) dated 25.3.1991 was published on 24.4.1991 in the State Government Gazette at page 11- 12. 3. Out of 5.70.5 Hectares of land in Nelikilbetta Agraharam Village in different survey numbers, the land bearing Survey No.2/2 measuring an extent of 1.38.0 Hectares was included in which the share of the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.517 of 1996 comes to 0.46.5 Hectares and an extent of 51.5 Hectares of land in Survey No.2/2 with a mud wall, stone revetment well and coconut tree belonging to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996. 4. After following the procedures and due formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, Housing Board Scheme, Hosur, has published Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter referred to Act) for the Government gazette on 24.4.1991 in page 11-12 and the same was published on 13.5.1991 in "Malai Malar" and "Ponmanam" newspapers and the gist of the Notification was published in the village on 5.7.1991. In Section 5 A Enquiry, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.517 of 1996 and the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996 have stated that they have no objection for the lands being acquired. But they claim a compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer, out of 43 sale deeds relating to the period from 5.7.1988 to 2.9.1991 in respect of Nelikilbetta Agraharam Village has rejected 42 sale deed and has taken into account, the sale deed dated 1.10.1990 in respect of 0.23.0 Hectares land which was sold for Rs.37,000/- and the said land was situated in the same area of land acquisition and the said land sand etc are similar to the sand of the acquisition land and in the said land, there is no well or building and therefore, this has been taken into consideration as the date sale deed and accordingly determined the compensation per hectare as Rs.1,60,870/- and for the land of 0.46.5 hectares belonging to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.517 of 1996, the compensation for the land was fixed at Rs.74,804.55ps with 30% solatium amount of Rs.22,441.36 and further sum of Rs.26,855.86ps was awarded as 12% additional market value and in all the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,102/- as compensation and in respect of claim in L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996, his land of 0.51.5 Hectares of land, compensation was fixed at Rs.82,848.05ps and sand pond, the value was fixed at Rs.550/- and for the value of one well , it was fixed at Rs.4,305/- and for the one fruit coconut tree and manila Tamarind tree totalling a sum of Rs.318/- was awarded and in all a compensation of Rs.1,46,028/ was determined. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed their objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal viz., The Subordinate Judge, Hosur. 5. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal,C.W.1 toC.W.4 were examined and Exs C1 to C8 were marked on the side of the claimants and on the side of the respondents, no one was examined but Exs R1 to R3 were marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The learned Tribunal, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and upon perusing the available materials on record passed a common award in L.A.O.P.Nos.517 to 519 of 1996 on 16.8.2000 fixing the market value at Rs.3,39,450/- per acre and accordingly for acquired land of 1.15 acre in Survey No.2/2(0.46.5 Hectares) awarded compensation of Rs.3,90,368/- and awarded 30% solatium amount of Rs.1,17,110/- and for the period from 5.7.1991 to 1.7.1994 viz., 1093 days, a sum of Rs.1,40,276/- (being the amount as additional market value calculated at the rate of 12% p.a.) and a total sum of Rs.6,47,754/- was awarded and after deducting a sum of Rs.1,24,102/-,balance amount of Rs.5,23,652/- as enhanced compensation was awarded and further in regard to L.A.O.P.No.519 of 1996, in respect of 1.27 acres of land (pertaining to Rajanna), it fixed the market value as Rs.3,39,450/- per acre and accordingly for 1.27 acres of land, it determined a sum of Rs.4,31,102/- and for the well and trees, it awarded a sum of Rs.5,173/- and in all a sum of Rs.4,36,275/- was awarded and 30% solatium of Rs.1,30,883/- was awarded and as additional market value of at the rate of 12% for the period from 5.7.1991 to 1.7.1994 awarded a sum of Rs.1,56,772/- and totalling a sum of Rs.7,23,930/- was awarded, out of which a sum of Rs.1,46,028/- which was received by the claimant already was deducted and the balance of Rs.5,77,902/- was awarded to the claimant as enhanced compensation. 7.The sale deeds bearing the highest value must be preferred to the rest as exemplars unless there are strong circumstances justifying the different course as per decision State of Madras-v- P.Seethammal and another(AIR 1972) Madras 170). It is well recognised that the Tribunals determining the compensation will have to take into the consideration not only the present purpose , or the present use to which the land is applied, but also any other purpose which is mere beneficial to which, in the course of events, it might within a fair and just period of time be, applied like that of an owner might do, if he, where bargaining with a purchaser in the open market, but due weightage must be given to the existing state of affairs and what is likely to arise immediately after the relevant date for valuation, though not to what will happen in the distant future. Admittedly, the compensation cannot be fixed or based on any speculation or surmises or suppositions or conjectures as the likelihood of the use to which the land may be put at a near future, or to any increase to the value of the land acquired, likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put into when acquired. Suffice it to point out that the prices cannot be fixed merely by assumptions or presumptions as opined by this Court. 8. It is to be pointed out that the land has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but its potential value also to be taken into account as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Smt.Tribeni Devi and others-v- The Collector, Ranchi(AIR 1972 SC 1417). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Added further, a person whose land has been acquired by the State is entitled to get the compensation and such compensation shall be as per market value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Shamal Bhai Lalu Bhai Patel-v- Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer(AIR 1977 SC 899). 10. As a matter of fact, the relevant date for fixing the market value of acquired land is the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act as per decision Jagat Singh-v-Haryana State(1996 LACC 60 PH). The crucial date for fixing the market value of acquired land is the date of publication of notification as per Section 4(1) of the said Act as per the decision in T.N.Electricity Board-v-R.Kandasamy (2003(2) LACC 396)(Mad). 11. It is an axiomatic fact in law that the Land Acquisition Officer shall award the market value to the land acquired by following the requirement of Section 23 of the said Act which enjoins that certain factors to be taken into account for awarding just and reasonable compensation. 12. This Court worth recalls the decision(DB) B.Sathi Reddy (died per Lrs) etc., etc.,-v- Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries) and another etc.,(2001(Suppl.)LACC 615 wherein it is held that 'merely following the procedure is not enough and ways and means are to be followed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act and to be followed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Court, since Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India requires that a person shall not be deprived of his property except by the authority of law.' 13. Be that as it may, in respect of the very same acquisition as per Section 4(1) Notification dated 24.4.1991, a Division Bench of this Court considered in a batch of appeals arising out of enhanced compensation made by the Reference Court in A.S.Nos.50,52,54 to 63 of 1999 etc batch on 17.9.2003 wherein at paragraph 16 has made the following observations. " We have also considered the oral evidence let in by either side as well as the documentary evidence. The fixation of market value by the learned Subordinate Judge is on the higher side and the learned Subordinate Judge reduced around 30% by way of deduction in respect of small extent of lands dealt under Exs. A1 and A2 or other sale deeds. But the learned Subordinate Judge has not deducted or taken into consideration of the deduction to be made for the development of the lands as house sites when once the lands are treated as potential house sites as such. What is dealt with under Exs A1 and A2 are of plots of 800 sq.ft or 1000 sq.ft or 2000 sq.ft which are being utilised for the purpose of putting up construction of house or commercial buildings.' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Also, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that in respect of first lot, it reduced the market value of Rs.5900 from one fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Rs.7,187/- and in regard to the second lot, it reduced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5,980/- to 4,750/- and in regard to the third lot, the market value was reduced from Rs 4,500/- to Rs.3,600/- and in respect of last and fourth lot, it reduced the market value from Rs.4,250/- to 3,400/-. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants cites the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.201 to 203 of 2000 dated 7.7.2009 wherein at paragraph 3, it has among other things observed as follows: "After so observing, 30% deduction has been given in respect of the lands which are adjacent to the Highways. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, the value has been arrived at Rs.6,75,900/- by the Land Acquisition Officer and 50% deduction has been given in respect of largeness of the area and compensation has been fixed at Rs.3,39,450 per acre. Having regard to the Judgment which has decided for the adjacent land in respect of the very same acquisition proceedings, and also the fact that the Reference Court has already reduced 50% of the value, we are of the view that another deduction of 20% as development charges would balance the interest of both sides. Hence, the value determined and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.3,349/- is hereby reduced to Rs.2,377/- and in respect of other aspect of the matter, there is no interference in the order of the Reference Court. With this observation, all the three appeals are disposed of." 15. In the light of the Judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos 201 to 203 of 2000 dated 7.7.2009(pertaining to L.A.O.P.Nos.748/1996, 514/1996 and 515/1996 dated 7.12.1998 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur) this Court fixes the compensation at Rs.2,377/- for the acquired lands in L.A.O.P.Nos.517 and 519 of 1996 by reducing the amount of Rs.3,349/- per acre fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge,(Tribunal) Hosur and in other respects is not interfering with the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur and affirms the same. 16. Before parting, this Court,determines the fee of the learned Additional Government Pleader(AS) and the learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as per Rule 12 of Legal Practitioner Fees Rules 1973. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. In the result, these appeals are disposed of by modifying the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur viz., The Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.Nos.517 and 519 of 1996 on his file. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. sg To 1. The Subordinate Judge,Hosur 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 2 ccs to Mr.P. Jagadeesan, Advocate, SR. 9603, 9604 A.S.NOs.244 & 246/2002 SSK (CO) kk 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/