IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.1032 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.15449 of 2004 The Land Acquisition Officer Mahe .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. Anitha Sanalkumar .. Respondent/Petitioner Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition, Mahe in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2001. For Appellant : Mr.T.Murugesan Government Pleader (Pondicherry) For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition, Mahe vide its judgment dated 18.11.2002 in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2001, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 03.11.1997 intending to acquire the lands in R.S.No.10/5 in Mahe totalling an extent of 6 ares of garden land for the purpose of constructing an Office cum residence of Superintendent of Police, Mahe and a VIP suite. After complying with the procedure, the land acquisition officer acquired the land and passed the award assessing the compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in a total sum of Rs.10,60,579/- at the rate of Rs.1,035/- per sq.meter. The land owner being aggrieved by it got the matter referred to the sub Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the one Sanal Kumar examined himself as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the respondent RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.1,035/- per sq.meter to Rs.1,450/- per sq.meter by placing reliance on the earlier award passed by the same Sub Court in LAOP No.5 of 1999 dated 13.02.2001. 5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: The Reference Court was not justified in simply placing reliance on the earlier judgment of its own and awarded such enhanced compensation without making any independent approach. Accordingly the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Court. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in awarding an enhanced compensation from Rs.1,035/- per sq.m to Rs.1,450/- per sq.m. 7. Learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would reiterate the same and develop his argument to the effect that the Reference Court should have asked for sample sale deeds, before disagreeing with the award passed by the land acquisition officer whereas the learned counsel for the land owner would convincingly submit that the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance on Ex.A3, the certified copy of the previous judgment dated 13.02.2001 and in enhancing the compensation. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination by the Government, between one land owner and another land owner and that too, in respect of the lands acquired in one and the same place where the sub division numbers alone differ. I, therefore, could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the land owner. 8. Perused Ex.A3, which would highlight and demonstrate that Section 4(1)Notification relating to the previous case was published on 14.11.1997 whereas in the present case it was on 03.11.1997. Even though the earlier LAOP was relating to a subsequent 4(1) Notification nonetheless, it was disposed of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earlier than in the present case relating to which, the judgment was rendered to by the Sub Court on 18.11.2002. 9. Hence, the Reference Court relied upon the earlier judgment in the said LAOP. There are catena of decisions to the effect that the Reference Court could rely on the previous decision rendered by it. The sketch would clearly demonstrate that the land involved in this case is in Survey No.10/5 whereas in the previous case, the land acquired is in survey No.10/4, which was acquired for constructing a primary school; and in the present case the land is acquired for constructing police Superintendent's office as well as residence with VIP suite. Even though, I could see no infirmity in the reference Court's approach in choosing Ex.A3 as the base for assessing the compensation, nonetheless, I could see one flaw in the judgment rendered by the Reference court as it failed to take into consideration the development charges. My mind is redolent with the following Apex Court's decisions: (1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] (2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] (3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] (4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] (5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others] The perusal of the judgments would indicate and exemplify that when a large extent of land is taken up for habitation purpose or for other purpose, there should be some deduction. However, the rate of deduction could differ from case to case depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. The learned counsel for the land owner would submit that in this case, the land acquired is a developed land and in such a case for the purpose of constructing police office cum residence with VIP quarters, no deduction towards development charges need be made. Whereas the land acquisition officer's statement would be to the effect that there is only a lane and no motorable road. But, the fact remains that the land acquired is mostly a developed one as it could be seen from the form of reference itself as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Particulars of land acquired: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Old Survey Re-Survey Extent of Structures Trees No. No. H-A-Ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 507,Mahe 10/5,Mahe 0-06-00 1. One house 1. Coconut tree - 11 Nos. 2. Compound 2. Coconut Plant - 1 No. Wall-one 3. Jackfruit tree - 1 No. 3. One well 4. Mango tree - 2 Nos. 5. Arecanut tree - 8 Nos. 6. Wild trees - 4 Nos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Sub Court also gave a detailed finding that the area acquired is in a well developed area and the area acquired itself is a developed one, over which there is no contra evidence. 11. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, the land acquired is almost a developed land and the fact also remains that the entire Mahe area is a hilly area where construction could be raised straightaway without spending much amount for deep foundation, etc. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that deduction of 10% towards development charges would meet the ends of justice and it is obvious and axiomatic from the whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures placed before the lower Court that for the purpose for which acquisition has been made, not too many service roads and facilities are required but only a minimum extent of land should be set apart for beneficial use of the land acquired. 12. There is also one other infirmity in the judgment of the Reference Court in awarding compensation for the trees. When the Sub Court had granted compensation treating it as a plot area, the question of awarding compensation for the trees would not arise and it is a trite proposition, which requires no elaboration. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court is modified as under: "There shall be 10% deduction from the value assessed by the Sub Court and the sum of Rs.13,418/- awarded towards compensation for trees also shall stand deleted. In other aspects, the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Vj2 Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Special Judicial Officer/ The Subordinate Judge for Land Acquisition Mahe 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, Advocate SR No. 38921 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Pondicherry SR No.38796 A.S.No.1032 of 2003 KA(CO) SR/13.8.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/