IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.12.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN A.S.No.364 of 1998 1. S.M. Kandasamy 2. M.Rathinasamy Both sons of Muthusamy Gounder No. 261, Ayapallithottam Kottuveerampalayam Sathyamangalam Taluk Erode District .. Appellants/claimants Versus The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer Gobichettipalayam Erode District .. Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1997 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam. For Appellants : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT The claimants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1997 made in L.A.O.P.No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettypalayam. 2. The Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) of The Land Acquisition Act on 25.06.1992 for acquisition of the lands comprised in survey No.84/1 to an extent of 1.25 acres or 0.50.3 hectares situated in Village No.31, Kottuveerampalayam, Sathyamangalam, Erode District for the purpose of construction of Head works and treatment work under Sathyamangalam water supply improvement scheme. The lands of the claimants in Survey No.84/3 to an extent of 0.50.5 hectares was also sought to be acquired. After complying with the formalities, an award was passed on 11.10.1993 fixing the compensation for the acquired lands to an extent of 1.25 acres at Rs.76,172/-. The Land Acquisition Officer, taking into consideration the data sale deed in survey No.71/1 and 71/2, Ex.B5 dated 23.08.1990 fixed the value for the acquired lands. The data sale deed was shown as item No.24 in the sale statistics taken by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved against the said fixation of land value, the claimants have sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly reference was made and it was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettypalayam. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have marked Exs. C1 to C7 and CWs 1 to 5 were examined. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Exs. A1 to A6 were marked and one Arumugam, Village Administrative Officer was examined as RW1 and Velayudam, Retired Revenue Divisional officer was examined as RW2. The Reference Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced by both sides, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.61,500/- per acre to Rs,1,00,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied by the enhancement made by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement. 4. Heard both the parties. The points for consideration in this appeal are "1.whether the enhancement made by the Reference Court is not in accordance with law 2.Whether any deductions have to be given in respect of the compensation fixed by the Reference Court" 5. Before the Reference Court, it was contended by the claimants that the acqired lands are fit enough for conversion into house site, there are houses situate in and around the acquired lands, very near to the acquired lands the river Bhavani is flowing and Sakthi Bannari Road is situate. Further, there are schools, lorry sheds and other important buildings, including Municipal office are located in and around the acquired lands. It was further contended that Exs. C1 to C3 reflect the true and correct value for the acquired lands and therefore, the claimants prayed for fixing a sum of Rs.25,000/- per cent as compensation. It was also contended that the lands in and around acquired lands were sold at the rate of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per cent during the relevant time and therefore fixing Rs.25,000/- per cent would be reasonable. It was further contended that the claimants have examined CW2 to CW5, who are the adjoining land owners, through whom documents have been marked to show that 4 cents of land were sold at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent during the relevant period in the area in question as they were treated as house-sites. Therefore if the sale transactions produced by the claimants in Ex.C1 to C3 are considered, the value of the acquired lands can easily be fixed at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent 6. Contra, before the Reference Court, it was contended on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that the lands to an extent of 0.50.5 hectares out of 2.06.0 hectares in Survey No.84/3 were acquired from the claimants for the purpose of providing water construction of Head works and treatment work under Sathyamangalam water supply improvement scheme. For the purpose of fixing the value for the acquired lands, sale statistics relating to three years prior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) was taken from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sathyamangalam and accordingly 114 sale transactions have been taken up for consideration. After consideration of the same, the transactions reflected in Serial Nos. 23 and 24 were found suitable and equivalent with the acquired lands and therefore based on the value reflected therein, the value for the acquired lands have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore it was contended that the value fixed for the acquired lands reflect the true and correct market value prevailing as on that date and prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued that the documents Exs. C1 to C7 were produced before the Reference Court to show that the value of the acquired lands during the relevant point of time will not be less than Rs.25,000/- per cent and therefore Reference Court ought to have fixed the value based on Exs. C1 to C7. The Reference Court ought to have accepted the documents produced by the claimants under Exs. C1 to C7 which are registered prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court ought to have taken note of the value reflected in Exs. C1 to C7 and more compensation ought to have been awarded. When the Reference Court has concluded that the data land sale deed is not having the same tharam and locational advantage as that of the acquired lands, it ought to have given adequate amount as compensation considering the evidence available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the claimants further pointed out that Ex.C1 is a sale deed dated 21.09.1990 in respect of 4 cents land which was sold for Rs.80000/-. Ex.C2 is a sale deed dated 15.11.1990 wherein 4 cents of land was sold for Rs.80,100/-. Similarly Ex.C3 is a sale deed dated 28.10.1992 wherein 5 cents of land has been sold for Rs.95,000/- and the market value is shown as Rs.1,10,500/-. Ex.C4 is a sale deed dated 09.04.1990 wherein 4 cents of land was sold for Rs.29,000/-. Then Ex.C5 is a sale deed dated 16.06.1990 wherein 4 cents of land was sold along with a well for Rs.8,200/-. Ex.C6 is sale deed dated 22.03.1991 whereunder the value of the land to an extent of 3/4 cents with a well and a 10 HP Motor valued at Rs.10,000/- were sold for Rs.15,500/- . Lastly Ex.C7 is a sale deed dated 12.04.1991 wheeunder 216 sq.ft of land was sold for Rs.5,000/-. In order to substantiate the above documents, on behalf of the claimants, PW2, PW3, PW4, who are vendors of Exs.C2 to C4 for were examined. In their cross-examination there was no suggestion made to show that those documents were created for the purpose of acquisition proceedings. Moreover, those documents have come into existence two years prior to the 4(1) notification. Therefore, the documents filed on behalf of the claimants need not be rejected and it can be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the valuation. In any event, the compensation awarded by the Court below is very low and not in accordance with the market value prevailing by then. 9. As far as deduction is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimants would state that the Reference Court has not granted any deduction since the purpose of acquisition is only to put up a water tank and there is no necessity for any development charges to be incurred by the Government. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Contra, the learned Government Special Pleader vehemently argued that the court below has rightly not given credence to Exs. C1 to C3 which are relating to smaller extent of 4 cents of land sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent and it cannot be taken into consideration at all in view of the fact that the land acquired was an agricultural land. It was not developed land and it has not been converted as house-sites. There is no potentiality of the acquired lands for being converted in to house-site. Merely because the adjacent lands were sold for higher rates, that by itself would not amount to seeking enhanced compensation on the basis of the valuation as per sq.ft basis. In this connection he relied upon the findings of the land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein the claimant himself has stated that ",e;epyk; g[";ir njhl;l g{kp vd;Wk; ,jpy; 0/05/5 bcwf;nlh; epyk; rj;jpak';fy efuhl;rpf;F ifafg;gLj;Jtjw;F ml;nrgiz VJkpy;iybad epy chpikahh;fs; bjhptpj;Js;shh;fs;" Therefore it was submitted that the request of the claimant at this point of time to rely upon documents Exs. C1 to C3, which relates to smaller extent 4 cents, 3 cents of land need not be considered at all and the amount awarded by the Reference Court is reasonable. 11. It is seen from the records that the claimants have produced Ex.C1 to show that the lands in the area have been sold at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent during the relevant period of time. The claimants have also produced Exs. C4 whereunder one cent of land was sold for Rs.5,000/-. Curiously, under Ex.C5, four cents of land was sold for a sum of Rs.3,200/ -. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the claim of the claimants that the lands in the area are being sold at Rs.20,000/- per cent cannot be the correct and true market value and on the basis of the same, the value for the acquired land cannot be fixed. However, the value reflected in Exs. C4 and C6 can be taken into consideration for fixing the price of the acquired lands. 12. Now taking into consideration the sale statistics and the topo-sketch of the area in which the acquired lands were situate, it is clear that the property in question is treated only as an agricultural land and it was not converted into housing plot. The potentiality of the land is one of the factors required to be taken into consideration for determining the valuation of the property. As stated by the Honourable Supreme Court, the value has to be determined by adhering to the principles "what a willing buyer would like to pay and what a willing seller would like to sell". Under those circumstances the only evidence available is the valuation in Exs.C5, C6 viz., wherein one cent of land was sold at Rs.800/- and another cent at Rs.1000/- per cent. Even in the data land sale in respect of Survey Nos.71/1 and 71/2, an extent of 1.84.0 hectars has been sold and on that basis, the valuation has been arrived at Rs.1,51,905/-. 13. In any view of the matter, taking into consideration the sale deed produced by the claimants themselves, especially Exs. C4 and C6, which in my view reflects the correct and fair value for the acquired lands, even though it relates to a smaller extent of land. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Singh(Dead) Through L.R.S and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supreme Court Cases 568 for determination of market value of large extent of land, on the basis of exemplars of small pieces of land, the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the small pieces of land could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court when no other document is produced either by the Government or by the Claimants for for determining the correct value of the property, the value reflected under Exs. C4 and C6 can be taken into consideration for fixing the price of the acquired lands. In order to prove the market value of the acquired lands, based on Exs. C4 and C6, the vendors of the document were examined to show that the area in question is fast developing. Further more the lands are situated very near to Sathyamangalam Municipality. 14. It is seen from the records that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Merely because it was an agricultural land, that by itself cannot be taken to hold that the lands are not having any potentiality. Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the potential value has to be taken into consideration especially in this case when there are prime properties situated in the adjacent area. Therefore, taking into consideration the over all evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the property in question can fetch easily Rs.2,00,000/- per acre 15. The learned Government Pleader argued on behalf of the requisition body also and contended that the property though situated in the town itself, it was only an agricultural land. But the fact remains the property is in the main town. The land would even fetch much more as beneficial house-sites. Hence when considering the enhancement, the court below ought to have taken into consideration the other factors viz., the potentiality of the conversion of the property into housing plot. When this potentiality is looked into the enhancement at Rs.1,000/- per cent by the court below cannot be a proper amount and taking into consideration the sale deeds and the evidences let in both parties, it is clear that the acquired lands are situate in the town itself the valuation can be arrived at Rs.2,000/- per cent instead of Rs.1,000/- per cent as fixed by court below. If the valuation is arrived at Rs.2,000/- per cent or Rs.2,00,000/- per acre the valuation would be proper and reasonable. Therefore in my considered view, the value of the acquired land can be enhanced from Rs.1,000/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Considering the fact the nature of the land, especially situated in the town and even the purpose for which it has been acquired i.e, to put up the water tank for service to the people residing therein, the value of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre is fair and reasonable. 16. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted the potentiality of the acquired land need not be gone into at this stage as the land as on date remains an agricultural land. Contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that when there are two sets of documents produced by the claimants to show the value of the lands at Rs.20,000/- per cent Rs.1,000/- per cent the court has to be take into consideration the best available price. No doubt the claimants have produced not only the documents but also examined PW2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to PW4 vendors of the document to prove the valuation. Under those circumstances as stated by the Honourable Supreme Court the principal "what a willing buyer would like to pay and what a willing seller would like to sell" has to be adopted in this case. The lower Court taking into consideration the documents C4 to C6 fixed the value on the basis of Ex.C6 at Rs.1,000/- per cent enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The Government has not preferred any appeal against the same. As far as the claimants are concerned, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement. Therefore, in order to strike a balance, fixing Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands will be fair and reasonable. 17. As far as the question of deduction is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the purpose of acquisition is only for the purpose of putting up a water tank construction and there is no necessity or need for any improvement to be made and only the tank has to be built. Therefore the Reference Court also rightly not granted any deduction 18. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and in all other respect, the judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. No costs. It is made clear that the appellant/claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits under Law. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar r n s To. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. 2. The Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam. + 1 CC to Mr.V.Bharathidasan,Advocate,SR.65967 A.S.No.364 of 1998 SGL(CO) EM/18.6.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/