IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 25.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.Nos.730 and 789 of 1995 and Cross Objection Nos.117 and 12 of 1996 The Revenue Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Office, Cuddalore ... Appellant in AS.No.730 of 1995 and Respondent in Cross Objection No.117 of 1996 The Special Officer, Land Acquisition, SIPCOT, Cuddalore 1. ... Appellant in AS.No.789 of 1995 and Respondent in Cross Objection No.12 of 1996 Vs. N.Sivabakkiam Ammal ... Respondent in AS.No.730 of 1995 and Cross Objector in Cross Objection No.117 of 1996 1. N.Sivabakkiam Ammal 2. N.Subramanian 3. N.Ganesan ... Respondents in AS.No.789 of 1995 and Cross Objectors in Cross Objection No.12 of 1996 Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in LAOP Nos.114 and 113 of 1989 respectively dated 30.09.1994. Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against A.S.Nos.730 and 789 of 1995 and against the judgment and decree made in LAOP Nos.114 and 113 of 1989 respectively dated 30.09.1994 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate of Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellant in O.S.No.730/95 and for respondent in Cross Objection No.117 of 1996 :: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondent in O.S.No.730/95 and for Cross Objector in Cross Appeal No.117 of 1996:: No appearance For appellant in O.S.No.789/95 and for respondent in Cross Objection No.12 of 1996 :: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondents in O.S.No.789/95 and for Cross Objectors in Cross Appeal No.12 of 1996:: No appearance C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in LAOP Nos.114 and 113 of 1989 respectively. Cross Objections are filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation for the lands acquired in LAOP Nos.114 and 113 of 1989 dated 30.09.1994 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader. There is no representation on behalf of the claimants. 3. The quintessence of the facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands measuring an extent of 78 cents and 92-1/2 cents in S.Nos.101/1, 101/2 and 101/3; and S.No.101/4 respectively in Pachiyankuppam Village, Cuddalore Taluk for the purpose of providing land to SIPCOT so as to set up an industrial estate. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in a sum of Rs.50/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimant, in A.S.No.730 of 1995, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. In A.S.No.789 of 1995, on the side of Claimant, C.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court exhibits. 5. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation to a tune of Rs.1,000/- per cent. 6. Being dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The Sub Court simply enhanced the compensation upto Rs.1,000/- per cent without any objective basis. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for reducing the compensation. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation upto Rs.1,000/- per cent. POINT: 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument that the compensation fixed by the Sub Court was higher. However, he would cite the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.04.2003 in A.S.Nos.368 of 1998 etc., batch. An excerpt from it would run thus: "13. Vast extent of lands have been acquired for the purpose of locating the SIPCOT industrial complex in Cuddalore Taluk, particularly in Pachankuppam, Kudikadu, Semangkuppam and adjacent villages. As a first phase, vast lands were acquired in and around the year 1981. The lands acquired under the first phase have been developed and industries have been setup. For extension lands covered by the present appeals have been acquired under the second phase. Therefore, the lands adjacent to those acquired lands have been already developed. The lands are in between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cuddalore-Chidambaram Road and the Railway line. The acquired lands in the present case are not on the Cuddalore-Chidambaram main road, but in the vicinity and part of the acquired land is adjacent to the road and has to be reached through the other lands. The lands were being used only for the purpose of cultivating dry crops. It is true that the adjacent area consequent to the industrialisation has developed, but these lands remain as agricultural lands as on date of 4 (1) Notification without projects. But we should not lose sight of the potentialities of the lands. 14. The Court below has taken into consideration of Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 8.12.83 wherein 60 cents of lands have been sold for Rs.36,000/= comprised in survey No.308/2 and other subdivisions, which works out to Rs.600/= per cent. But survey No.308/2 and part are located in a different locality and on the other side of the road. In the absence of any other sale deed, a comparison of the acquired land to Ex.A-1 sale deed may not be proper but it cannot be avoided. In respect of lands covered by Ex.A-2 award in LAOP No.115/89, market value has been fixed at Rs.750/= per cent, but it is in respect of lands though located in the same revenue village, but in a different location. Ex.R-4 is a copy of the award in LAOP No.225/84 where the market value has been fixed at Rs.750/= per cent, but it is in respect of lands located in Pachangkuppam village, a different village close to Cuddalore Municipal Town. 15. We have to point out that the learned Subordinate Judge has not considered the oral evidence elaborately nor the learned Subordinate Judge has referred to Exs.A2, A-3 or R-4 in detail with reference to survey numbers concerned or date of Section 4 (1) Notification or the basis on which the value has been fixed in those LAOPs. That apart, the award in those LAOPs were the subject matter of appeal. The counsel on either side is not able to state as to what happened to those LAOPs. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on Exs. A-2, A-3 and R-4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. Taking into consideration of Ex.A-1, though it is located on the other side of the road and in a different locality, passage of time and on a comparison of the potentialities of the lands and the fact that the adjacent lands have been developed as industries by SIPCOT, a State Undertaking, on the facts of the case, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.730/= per cent." 9. As such, it is crystal clear that in Cuddalore District, vast extent of land was acquired for SIPCOT to set up an industrial estate, particularly in Pachiyankuppam, Kudikadu, Semangkuppam and adjacent villages. The cited Division Bench judgment is relating to the land acquired in Kudikadu Village, which is adjacent to Pachiyankuppam Village in which the lands were acquired so far as these L.A.O.Ps. are concerned. As such, I am of the considered opinion that Section 4(1) notifications relating to the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court is relating to the year 02.09.1985 and 08.09.1985 and so far as Section 4(1) notification relating to these appeals was made on 02.08.1985. It is therefore clear that such judgment of the Division Bench could rightly be applied to the facts of this case, as the Division Bench itself after considering the pros and cons of the matter held that the lands acquired in Kudikadu Village as well as Panchanguppam are all areas having the same features more or less. Hence in such a case, I am of the opinion that fixing of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,000/- by the Sub Court has to be set aside and the compensation has to be fixed in a sum of Rs.730/- per cent as assessed by the Division Bench of this Court. 10. In the result, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court is modified to the effect that compensation is fixed at a sum of Rs.730/- per cent. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of and the claimants are entitled to other statutory benefits as per law. No costs. 11. In view of the order passed in A.S.Nos.730 and 789 of 1995, the Cross Objection Nos.117 and 12 of 1996 are also closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddaore. Copy to The section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 40191 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 40188 A.S.Nos.730 and 789 of 1995 VSV (CO) kk 14/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/