IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 849, 851 to 854, 964 to 973, 975 to 979 and 982 to 985 of 2008, 894 to 896 and 922 to 924 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2008, 1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2009 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., represented by its Chief Manager, Hosur. .. Appellant in A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 849, 851 to 854 of 2008 and 894 to 896 of 2009 Land Acquisition Officer (Power Grid)/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur. .. Appellant in 964 to 973, 975 to 979 and 982 to 985 of 2008 and 922 to 924 of 2009 Vs. 1.S.V.Nanjunda Chetty .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.836 and 982 of 2008/Claimant Jayaramappa .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.837 and 983 of 2008/Claimant Suseela .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.838 and 984 of 2008/Claimant Venkatesalu .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.839 and 985 of 2008/Claimant Makkamma .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.840 and 964 of 2008/Claimant Harish .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.841 and 965 of 2008/Claimant Ramachandran .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.842 and 966 of 2008/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.S.V.Lakshminarayana Chetty 2.S.V.Srikanta Gupta .. 1st and 2nd respondents in A.S.Nod.843 and 967 of 2008/ Claimant K.Ramachandaran .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.844 and 968 of 2008/Claimant S.V.Pandarinath .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.845 and 969 of 2008/Claimant 1.Chinnappa 2.Puttappa .. 1st and 2nd respondents in A.S.Nos.846 and 970 of 2008/ Claimant 1.Chinna Gooniappa 2.Venkataraman .. 1st and 2nd respondents in A.s.Nos.847 and 971 of 2008/ Claimant Chinna Gooniappa .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.848 and 972 of 2008/Claimant Nagaraj .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.849 and 973 of 2008/Claimant Vediappan .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.851 and 975 of 2008/Claimant Nanjamma .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.852 and 976 of 2008/Claimant Chinna Yuvappa .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.853 and 977 of 2008/Claimant Savithri .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.854 and W/o. Sampath 978 of 2008/Claimant Sampath .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.979 of 2008/Claimant Venkataramanappa .. 1st respondent in A.s.Nos.894 and 922 of 2009/Claimant Peria Yuvappa .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.895 and 923 of 2009/Claimant Pappanna .. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.896 and 924 of 2009/Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Land Acquisition Officer, (Power Grid) and Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur. .. 2nd Respondent in A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 842, 844,845,848, 849, 851 to 853, 854 of 2008, 894 to 896 of 2009 and 3rd respondent in A.s.Nos.843,846,847 of 2008 The Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Hosur. .. 2nd respondent in 964,965,966,968,969,972, 973, 975 to 979 and 982 to 985 of 2008 and 922 to 924 of 2009 3rd respondent in A.s.Nos.967,970, 971, of 2008 A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 849 and 851 to 854 of 2008, 964 to 973, 975 to 979 and 982 to 985 of 2008 are preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against judgments and decrees made in various LAOPs in LAOP No.13 of 2001, 15/01, 16/01, 17/02, 21/01, 22/01, 24/01, 25/01, 27/01, 28/01, 29/01, 31/01, 32/01, 33/01, 35/01, 36/01, 37/01, 38/01, 39/01 respectively, dated 04.12.2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur. A.S. Nos.894 to 896 and 922 to 924 of 2009 are preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against judgments and decrees made in LAOP Nos.26,30 and 40 of 2001, dated 25.04.2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur. For Appellants : Ms.Rita Chandrasekar for M/s.Aiyer and Dolia in A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 849, 851 to 854/2008 and 894 to 896 of 2009 Mr.V.Ravi, Spl. G.P.(AS) in 964 to 973, 975 to 979 and 982 to 985 of 2008 and 922 to 924 of 2009 For Respondents : Mr.P.Mani for R-1 in A.S.Nos.836 to 839 of 2008 and for R-1 in A.S.Nos.840 to 842, 844,848 to 854 of 2008 and for RR1 and 2 in A.S.Nos.843, 846 and 847 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) for R2 in A.S. Nos.836 to 839, 840 to 842, 844,845,848, 849, 851 to 853, 854 of 2008 and 894 to 896/2009 for R-3 in A.S.Nos.843,846,847 of 2008 Mr.P.Mani, for R-1 in A.S.Nos.964, 966, 969, 971 to 973, 975, 978 and 979 of 2008 and 922 and 924 of 2009 Ms.Rita Chandrasekar for M/s.Aiyer and Dolia for R-2 in A.S.Nos.964 to 966, 968, 969, 972 to 979/2008 and for R-3 in A.S.Nos.967, 970 and 971/2008 COMMON JUDGMENT Heard both sides. There are two sets of appeals in these batch of cases. One set of appeals were filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Power Grid)-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur (for short LAO), who is the acquiring authority. The second set of appeals were filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (for short PGCI) represented by its Chief Manager, Hosur, which is the requisitioning body. The table given below will show the number of LAOPs and the corresponding appeal suit numbers indicating in parenthesis either LAO or PGCI showing the respective appeals filed by them and the name of the claimants connected with such appeals. Sl .N o Claimant Name A.S.No. LAOP No. Date of order in LAOP 1 S.V.Nanjunda Chetty A.s.No.836 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.982 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.13 of 2001 4/12/07 2 Jayaramappa A.S.No.837 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.983 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.15 of 2001 -do- 3 Suseela A.S.No.838 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.984 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.16 of 2001 -do- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl .N o Claimant Name A.S.No. LAOP No. Date of order in LAOP 4 Venkatesalu A.S.No.839 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.985 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.17 of 2001 -do 5 Makkamma AS No.840 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.964 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.21 of 2001 -do- 6 Harish AS No.841 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.965 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.22 of 2001 -do- 7 Ramachandran AS No.842 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.966 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.24 of 2001 -do- 8 S.V.Lakshminara yana Chetty S.V.Srikanta Gupta A.S.No.843 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.967 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.25 of 2001 -do- 9 K.Ramachandaran A.S.No.844 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.968 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.27 of 2001 -do- 10 S.V.Pandarinath A.S.No.845 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.969 of 2007 (LAO) LAOP.28 of 2001 -do- 11 Chinnappa Puttappa A.S.No.846 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.970 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.29 of 2001 -do- 12 Chinna Gooliappa Venkataraman A.S.No.847 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.971 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.31 of 2001 -do- 13 Chinna Gooliappa A.S.No.848 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.972 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.32 of 2001 -do- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl .N o Claimant Name A.S.No. LAOP No. Date of order in LAOP 14 Nagaraj A.s.No.849 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.973 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.33 of 2001 -do- 15 Vediappan A.S.No.851 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.975 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.35 of 2001 -do- 16 Nanjamma A.S.No.852 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.976 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.36 of 2001 -do- 17 Chinna Yuvappa A.S.No.853 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.977 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.37 of 2001 -do- 18 Savithri A.S.No.854 of 2008 (PGCI) A.S.No.978 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.38 of 2001 -do- 19 Sampath A.S.No.979 of 2008 (LAO) LAOP.39 of 2001 -do- 20 Venkataramanapp a A.S.No.894 of 2009 (PGCI) A.S.No.922 of 2009 (LAO) LAOP.26 of 2001 25.04.2008 21 Peria Yuvappa A.S.No.895 of 2009 (PGCI) A.S.No.923 of 2009 (LAO) LAOP.30 of 2001 -do 22 Pappanna A.S.No.896 of 2009 (PGCI) A.S.No.924 of 2009 (LAO) LAOP.40 of 2001 -do- 2.The lands of claimants situated in Nallaganakothapalli and Marudandapalli villages were acquired for the purpose of transmitting power from NTPC, Thalcher to Kolar, Karnataka and also to distribute the Tamil Nadu's share of its power from the Central pool by establishing 400/220 KV Sub Station in that place. On request made by the PGCI, the acquiring authority published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, dated 10.12.1997. An extent of 61.41 acres of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lands were sought to be acquired in Marudandapalli as well as Nallaganakothapalli villages coming under Soolagiri Block of Hosur Taluk. Enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with by invoking the emergency clause vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Energy Department, dated 1.9.1999. Thereafter, following due procedure, the Award No.1 of 2000(F) came to be passed on 31.10.2000. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.31500/- per acre together with other statutory payments. 3.The land owners/claimants herein were aggrieved by the lower rate of compensation. Therefore, they filed their objections. In view of their objections, the mattes were referred for determination of the market value of the lands under Section 18 to the jurisdictional reference court, which in the present case is the Sub Court, Hosur. The Reference Court registered the references as various LAOPs (indicated in the tabular column given in para 1) and recorded evidence. The judgments were pronounced on two different dates, i.e. 04.12.2007 and 25.4.2008. The reference court by its judgment enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Wherever there were standing trees found, they were also given separate compensation. Aggrieved by the same, these appeal suits were filed. 4.In the first batch of cases, i.e. in LAOP Nos.13,15,16 and 17 of 2001, common evidence was recorded in LAOP No.13 of 2001. Before the court below, on behalf of claimants, four witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.4. On their side, two documents were filed as Exs.C.1 and C.2. They are two registered sale deeds, dated 10.9.1999 and 15.10.1999. On the side of the acquiring authority, one V.Chennakesava Babu, the then Sub Collector of Hosur was examined as R.W.1. On their side, four documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4. On the basis of these evidences (both oral and documentary) the court below pronounced a common judgment, dated 04.12.2007. 5.In the second batch of cases, i.e. in LAOP Nos.21,22,24,25,27,28, 29,31 to 39 of 2001 (16 LAOPs), a joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in LAOP No.25 of 2001. Before the reference court, on behalf of claimants, five witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.5. On their side, four documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. Exs.C.1 and C.2 are the very same documents relating to sale deeds, dated 10.9.1999 and 15.10.1999 recorded in the previous batch of cases. On the side of the acquiring authority, the very same Chennakesava Babu was examined as R.W.1. On their side, the very same documents which were filed in the earlier cases, were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4. On the basis of these materials, a common judgment was pronounced on 04.12.2007. 6.Subsequently, the reference court tried LAOP Nos.26,30 and 40 of 2001 jointly. In that case, common evidence was let in in LAOP No.40 of 2001. On the side of claimants, one witness was examined as C.W.1 and three documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3. Exs.C.1 and C.2 are the sale deeds relied upon in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the earlier batch of cases and Exs.C.3 is the judgment pronounced in the earlier batch of cases in LAOP No.13 of 2001, dated 04.12.2007. On the side of the acquiring authority, the very same Chennakesava Babu was examined as R.W.1 and the very same documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4. 7.As found from the Award proceedings, acquiring authority collected statistical datas from the Sub Registrar Office at Soolagiri for the period from 1.4.1997 to 4.4.2000 which were three years before the date of Section 4(1) notification. He had considered as many as 160 sale transactions. Those transactions related to the lands which were classified as dry lands in the revenue records. Out of 160 sale transactions, the authority discarded 74 cases on the plea that those lands were located 1.6 Kms. away from the land which are acquired. He also further rejected 41 cases as soil, 'Tharam' and classification of those lands were differing. He had also discarded 31 other cases on the ground that they were lease deeds or loan transactions or partition deeds and hence they are not reliable indicators in arriving at the market value. Further, he rejected 7 other cases on the ground that either they were considered as thope or covered by gift deeds or wet lands or were sold as house sites. He took Serial No.116 as the data land and it was in Survey No.346/2A2 covered by sale deed No.1396, dated 8.9.1999. It was claimed that the said land was 200 meters away from the lands under acquisition and the soil, tharam and classifications were similar to the lands under acquisition. The said land which was to an extent of one acre and classified as unirrigated dry land was sold at Rs.35,500/-. Since there was a Well, deducting the value for the Well, it was calculated that the value of the said land would be Rs.31500/- per acre or Rs.77805/- per hectare. This was taken as the basis for arriving at the compensation for the lands acquired from the Marudandapali village. 8.In respect of lands at Nallaganakothapalli village, the authority considered 114 sale transactions and discarded all of them. He found that in 73 cases, the lands were situated beyond 2 Kms and in 17 cases, lands were situated 1.6 Kms away and they were sold for exorbitant rate for commercial purpose. In 7 cases, he rejected them on the ground that they were wet lands. In 1 case, it was found that there were trees and Well in the land. In 13 cases it was found they were sold for forming a factory and considered highly exorbitant. In 3 cases, it was found to be sold as house sites. Therefore, all the 114 sale transactions the authority rejected and only adopted the valuation given as data land (marked as Ex.R.4) taken from the other village Marudandapalli. 9.Though the acquiring authority considered that they were dry lands but number of lands under acquisition, i.e. Survey Nos.315/1C2, 315/1F2, 315/2B, 315/1E2, 315/2A, 333/1C, 335/1B, 333/2A, 335/1F, 334/1, 334/2A, 334/2B, 335/1C, 335/2, 336/2, 337/2A2, 341/3A1, 341/3A2A, 337/2A3, 337/2B3, 338/2A2, 341/3A3, 341/3A4, 341/4A and 338/2B, there were standing trees including Mango, Tamarind and Coconut. It was factually wrong on the part of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the acquiring authority to state that some of the data lands were rejected as they were thope or they were sold as house sites. In any event, the court below considered the evidence let in by both sides and Exs.C.1 and C.2 on one side and Ex.R.4 sale deed filed by the acquiring authority on the other side and gave its factual findings. 10.The then Sub Collector who was examined as R.W.1 in his cross examination made the following admissions. He agreed that some of lands are adjacent to National Highways and the other lands are adjacent to Tar road leading to the village. He also admitted that in some of lands, there were coconut trees and irrigation facilities were available. In most of lands, they were having irrigation facilities and were growing vegetables. In one land, pipe line was found laid to bring water and it had irrigation facilities. He also feigned ignorance about the existence of a Steel factory adjacent to the land but admitted on the Eastern side, there was a Tiles factory. He also admitted that in the statistical data provided in Ex.R.3, Serial Nos.7,17,29 and 37 were purchased for commercial purposes and likewise, Serial Nos.45 and 82 were also purchased for establishing a factory. He also admitted that lands were situated in the road leading from Hosur to Soolagiri at a distance of 20 Kms. 11.The reference court held that Ex.C.1, dated 10.9.1989 the sale deed between Ramadoss Naidu and Girishbabu found in Sl.No.96 in the statistical data was considered by the acquiring authority, but as to why the said land was not considered as the data land for the purpose of fixing the compensation, there was no satisfactory explanation on the side of R.W.1. Though it was contended that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were exemplars of sale of small plots, there was no denial about its genuineness or the bonafide nature of those transactions. The court below considered that Ex.C.1 was situated closer to the land which is acquired and it can be seen from Ex.R.2, topo plan of the village and the sale deed came into existence six months prior to Section 4(1) notification. In that, the sale consideration was Rs.5 lakhs per acre. Though claimants demanded Rs.20 lakhs per acre, there was no supporting document for making such a claim. Therefore, the court below safely relied on Ex.C.1 and the fact that the land was acquired for the purpose of locating a Sub Station by PGCI. The market value of the land was considered as Rs.5 lakhs. Further, the court below held that sufficient deduction towards development charges should be made. Therefore, for the lands which are adjacent to the road, deduction of 25% and those far away from the road, deduction of 30% was to be made towards development charges. In essence, in the first set of cases, the rate of compensation was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- per acre and for the second set, it was fixed at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Since there were fruit bearing trees in the land and also other trees which are useful for other purposes, the court below fixed Rs.4000/- towards fruit bearing trees and for younger trees, Rs.2000/- was fixed. Thus the compensation which was determined was directed to be paid along with 30% solatium and additional compensation at the rate of 12% and also statutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest payable. The judgments rendered in three batch of cases as set out above is now under challenge in these appeals. 12.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) contended that Exs.C.1 and C.2 are not comparable lands and the acquired lands were undeveloped lands. The rate fixed by the reference court was excessive. The compensation fixed by the LAO as per Exs.R.1 to R.4 alone should have been relied upon. The deduction made towards development charges are more insignificant and deduction of 53% or 65% should have been granted. The genuineness of Ex.C.1 and C.2 were also not established. 13.Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for PGCI, elaborately contended that people of that area were aware that there was going to be a Sub Station and thus, the land value were boosted. Exs.C.1 and C.2 had come into existence only on the basis of their awareness about the location of the proposed Sub Station. She also submitted that Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are exemplars of sale of small plots of lands and should not form the basis. She further submitted that Exs.C.1 and C.2 were transactions between the family members themselves and should not be made as the basis for determination of market value. But Ex.R.4 data land alone is comparable. The finding that it was not agricultural land and were fit to be used as construction of building and factory was not based upon evidence. 14.In support of her contention, the learned counsel for PGCI relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Raofuddin Vs Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2009 (14) SCC 367. She relied upon the following passages found in paragraphs 14 and 11 from the said judgment which are as follows: "14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a landowner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. 11. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise." 15.But in the very same judgment, it must be noted that the Supreme court in paragraph 16 has held that in case of a well considered decision of the reference court, the interference by the higher court in an appeal is very limited. Hence the following passage found in paragraph 16 may be usefully extracted below: "16. The following observations of this Court in Food Corpn. of India v. Makhan Singh (1992 (3) SCC 67) are quite apposite: (SCC pp.75-76, para 15) “15. This Court as the last court of appeal, will ordinarily not interfere in an award granting compensation unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Besides, generally speaking, the appellate court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. See in this connection Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras (1975 (2) SCC 730)6. Added thereto are other rules of prudence that the courts do not treat on a par land situated on the frontage having special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area, or to compare smaller plots fetching better price with large tracts of land. See in this connection Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991 (4) SCC 195).” Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that this Court can interfere." 16.The learned counsel for PGCI further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 to justify that the burden of higher compensation is primarily on the claimants and they had failed to discharge their obligation. In this context, she placed reliance upon the following passages found in paragraphs 29 and 32 which are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "29. It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996 (11) SCC 542) this Court held that the claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this very case, this Court stated the principles of awarding compensation and placed the matter beyond ambiguity, while also capsulating the factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority(2007 (7) SCC 614) and the Court held as under: (SCC p.620, para 12) “12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award.” Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such