1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :30.04.2009 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.Nos.140 to 166 of 2006 and M.P(MD)Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2006. 1.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Special Minor Irrigation Programme, Virudhunagar. : Appellant/Referring Officer in all A.S Vs. Karuppiah : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.140/2006 Mariyappan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.141/2006 1.Muthiah 2.M.Arumugam : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.142/2006 Alagar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.143/2006 1.Karuppiah 2.Palani 3.Katturaja : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.144/2006 Alagiri Devar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.145/2006 Chinna Muthiayan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.146/2006 Kandasamy : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.147/2006 Pitchai Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.148/2006 Silambu Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.149/2006 Pappammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.150/2006 Raja Nagulu Chettiyar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.151/2006 Vettai Moopper : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.152/2006 Meenammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.153/2006 Seeniyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.154/2006 Mayandi : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.155/2006 Maya Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.156/2006 S/o.Muthiah Thevar Maya Thevar s/o.Sangili Thevar : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.157/2006 Malaichamy Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.158/2006 Ganapathi Thevar : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.159/2006 Rajamani : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.160/2006 Marriyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.161/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 1.Sangu Muthu 2.Muthiah S/o.Silambu Thevar : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.162/2006 1.Chinna Muthiah S/o.Arumugam 2.Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam 3.Malaiyandi S/o.Arumugam : Respondents/Claimants in A.S.163/2006 Guruvammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.164/2006 Ayyammal : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.165/2006 Velan : Respondent/Claimant in A.S.166/2006 Prayer:- These Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the common judgment and decree dated 09.12.2002 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.125,116 to 124,126 to 138, 283 to 286 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Aruppukottai. For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh in All A.S.Nos Addl. Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Kadar Karai in A.S.Nos.140,141, for.Sakkaravarthi 143,147,148, 150 to 159, 161 & 165/06 For Respondent in A.S.145/2006 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan COMMON JUDGMENT The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Special Minor Irrigation Programme, Virudhunagar, is the appellant in all the appeals. 2.The following Lands in Mallanginar village of Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhungar District, were acquired for the purpose of formation of new channel under the Chennamatti Anaikattu Scheme under 4(1) notification dated 03.10.1991. S.No. Survey No. Extent (in hectare 01. 77/2B2 0.09.0 77/3B2 0.09.0 77/5A1 0.04.0 02. 101/6A 0.03.0 03. 102/3B1 0.11.5 04. 94/1B7A 0.00.5 05. 102/3A1 0.22.0 06. 101/1B2 0.03.0 102/1C1 0.04.5 101/4A 0.10.0 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 07. 94/1B2B 0.06.0 08. 94/1B5A 0.01.5 09. 101/3B 0.04.0 10. 102/2B1 0.06.5 11. 89/6A1 0.01.5 12. 327/3A 0.00.5 13. 77/5B 0.04.0 77/6A 0.05.0 78/3B 0.06.5 14. 89/2A2 0.15.5 89/3C2 0.06.5 15. 75/5A 0.06.0 77/1B1B 0.00.5 77/9B2 0.08.5 16. 75/4B4B 0.07.0 17. 89/6A2A 0.01.5 18. 325/2G1 0.02.5 19. 94/1B6A 0.01.0 20. 325/1A2 0.03.0 325/1B2 0.00.5 325/1D2 0.10.0 21 327/4A1 0.00.5 22. 325/2A2 0.04.0 ½ 23. 76/6E2 0.10.5 24. 94/1B4A 0.06.0 25. 325/2A2 0.04.0 26. 325/2E1 0.05.5 27. 76/6C2 0.05.0 76/6D1 0.12.5 76/AB1B 0.01.5 3.The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with the legal formalities, passed an award in his Award Proceedings No.1/93-94 dated 30.06.1993 by considering various documents and fixed the market value at Rs.7,170.97/- per hectare for punja land and Rs.10638.14/- per hectare for 'garden punja'. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants/respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.Nos.125, 116 to 124, 126 to 138, 283 to 286 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Aruppukottai. The learned Principal Sub Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,980/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed by the appellant. 4.Before the lower Court, all the L.A.O.Ps were jointly tried and common judgment was pronounced and evidence was let in L.A.O.P.No.125 of 2001 and that was taken as common evidence. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the side of the respondents/claimants, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.125 of 2001 examined himself as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked and on the side of the appellant, one witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. 5.The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the enhancement of compensation fixed by the lower Court at Rs.1,980/- per Cent is justified or not? 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, appearing for the appellant contended that the Referring Officer after considering 38 sale deeds and after taking into account the quality, tharam and theervai of those lands involved in those 38 sale deeds and compared the same with the quality, tharam and theevai of the acquired land selected the land in Survey No.75/3B, which was sold on 01.10.1990 at the rate of Rs.7,717.97/- per hectare and on that basis fixed the market value of the acquired land and therefore, the enhancement by the lower Court is highly arbitrary, excessively and liable to be set aside. 7.On the other-hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.S.Kadar Kari would contend that the lands are situate adjacent to Mallanginar village, which is a panchayat union having more than 10,000 houses and the acquired lands are surrounded by Government Higher Secondary School, Primary Health Centre, Veterinary Hospital, Cinema Theatre, Match Box Industries and the acquired lands are punja lands and potential house sites and the Referring Officer without taking into account the various factors stated above has selected the land, which is not situate nearer to the acquired land. He further contended that the witness examined on the side of the appellant also admitted about the population of Mallanginar village and the Madurai-Virudhunagar via. Mallankinar goes nearer to the acquired land. 8.On the side of the respondents, 11 sale deeds were marked and they are from 24.05.1990 to 11.09.1991. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sub Judge, though the sale deeds Ex.C1 to C9 were earlier to the date of publication of the 4(1) notification, lands were sold for exorbitant prices and 1-1/2 months prior to the acquisition, the land was sold under Exs.C10 and 25 days prior to the acquisition, land was sold under Ex.C11 and those lands were sold at the rate of Rs.3,052/- per Cent. Under the earlier sales covered under Exs.C1 to C8, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.3,052/- to 4,983/-per Cent. Therefore, it is seen from the various sale deeds that the neighbouring lands were sold for more than Rs.3,000/- per Cent one year prior to the date of 4(1) notification and around the time of notification, the lands were sold for Rs.2,822/- per Cent and that was taken into consideration by the lower Court for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 9.Further the lower Court analyzed the evidence of R.W.1 and has come to the conclusion that R.W.1 fixed the market value on the basis of the classification made 40 years earlier, whereas the sales under Exs.C1 to C4 would prove that the value of the lands not less than Rs.2,822/- per Cent in and around the date of notification and took into consideration the value at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 Rs.2,824/- per Cent for fixing the market value of the acquired land. In my opinion, the reasons stated by the lower Court for fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,833/- per Cent is slightly on the higher side. 10.The lower Court after fixing the market value at Rs.2,833/- per Cent having regard to the nature of the property, which is undeveloped deducted 1/3rd toward development charges and arrived at the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,980/- per Cent. 11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that in a similar case, lands were acquired for the same purpose viz. formation of small minor irrigation project and the connecting channel in Mandhoppu village, Virudhunagar District, this Court in A.S Nos.362 to 364 of batches fixed the market value at Rs.1,500/- per Cent dated 09.09.2003. 12.In my opinion, the conclusion of the lower Court for the value of the land covered under Exs.C10 and C11, which were at the rate of Rs.2,822/- per Cent can be taken into consideration for arriving at the market value of the acquired land may not be correct. The reason is those sales were one or 2 months prior to the notification and there is every possibility of inflating of the prices. Hence, in my opinion, taking into consideration of all these aspects, the market value of land acquired for the purpose of acquisition can be tentatively fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Cent and after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges the market value can be fixed at Rs.1,500/- per Cent. In the judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.362 to 364 of 1994 batches, relating to neighbouring village lands, the Division Bench of this Court also arrived at Rs.1,500/- per Cent and it was also agreed by the respondents counsel that they have no objection for fixing the same value for the acquired land also. 13.Hence, the market value of acquired land is fixed at 1,500/- and the appeal is partly allowed. In other aspects, the decree and judgment of the lower court is confirmed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(R) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai 2.The Section officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai er rl/3c – 7.8.2009 A.S.Nos.140 to 166 of 2006 and M.P(MD)Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2006. 30.04.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/