IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :23.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU A.S.Nos.164 to 168 of 2001 and C.M.P.NOS.4980 TO 4982 OF 2004 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode District .. Appellant in all appeals Vs. 1.C.Ramasamy .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.164 of 2001 T.Selvaraj .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.165 of 2001 T.Chenthil Kumar .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.166 of 2001 C.Somasundaram .. 1st respondent in A.S.No.167 of 2001 2.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division II) Ltd. Chennimalai Road, Erode, rep. By its Managing Director (R2 impleaded vide order dt.30.12.2003 in CMP Nos.15349,15345 of 2001, dt.5.9.2003 in CMP No.15346 of 2001, dt.30.12.2003 in CMP No.15347 of 2001 .. 2nd Respondent in A.s.Nos.164,165,166 and 167 of 2001 1.K.Thangamuthu (deceased) 2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division II) Ltd. Chennimalai Road, Erode, rep. By its Managing Director (R2 impleaded vide order dt.30.12.2003 in CMP No.15348 of 2001) 3.T.Parvatham 4.T.Selvaraj 5.T.Senthilkumar (RR3 to 5 brought on record as LRs of deceased R-1 vide order dated 20.4.2010 in CMP Nos.645 to 647 of 2010) .. Respondents in A.S.No.168 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ These appeal suits have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode made in LAOP Nos.14,16,17,18 and 15 of 1996, dated 30.4.1999. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy for 1st respondent in AS Nos.164 to 167/2001 for RR3 to 5 in AS No.168 of 2001 Mr.T.Chandrasekaran for R2 in all appeals COMMON JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for appellant, Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for 1st respondent in AS Nos.164 to 167 of 2001 and for respondents 3 to 5 in AS No.168 of 2001 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for second respondent in all appeals. 2.In these five appeals, the appellant is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District. All these appeals were filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgments and decrees of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode made in LAOP No.14 of 1996, dated 30.4.1999. 3.The lands belonged to private respondents/claimants situated in various sub divisions in Survey Nos.227 in Attavanaipidariyur village were sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a depot for the then Jeeva Transport Corporation. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 13.3.1991. After conducting Section 5-A enquiry and Section 6 declaration, an Award was passed in Award No.3/1993, dated 28.10.1993. The acquisition officer fixed Rs.1,99,000/- per acre as compensation. Since the claimants/land owners were aggrieved by the lower rate of compensation, they raised objections. Therefore, the matter was referred for determination of the market value by the Reference Court. The Additional Sub Court, Erode took all the references and registered as LAOP Nos.14 to 18 of 1996 and conducted a joint trial. The Reference Court fixed the compensation on the basis of square feet rate. It awarded Rs.23/- per sq.ft. and also for the loss of access Rs.1000/- and Rs.300/- for the trees. It also granted solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the statutory requirement. As against the common judgment and decree, the present appeals were filed. 4.Printed copies of the pleadings as well as select documents were prepared and circulated. Original records also was circulated by the Registry for reference by this court. 5.The ground taken by the appellant is that determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.ft. was on the higher side. The acquiring authority had taken into account all relevant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ factors as per Ex.R.1. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, four witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.4 and six documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.6. Ex.C.1 is the permission granted for constructing a Cinema theatre. Ex.C.2 is the approved plan. Exs.C.3 to C.5 are all registered sale deeds. Ex.C.6 is the topo plan. On behalf of the acquiring authority, former RDO Mr.M.Sivasankaran was examined as R.W.1. On his side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. Ex.R.1 is the sale deed which was data land by which compensation was fixed. 6.The reference Court framed the following issues: (a)Whether the demand of the claimants for enhanced compensation was justified? and (b)if so, what should be the rate of compensation? 7.The Reference Court on a consideration of the evidence (both oral and documentary) noted the following aspects of the case. It found that the acquiring authority considered 97 sale deeds which took place in the village from 1.3.1990 to 31.5.1990 and took note of the sale relating to Survey No.172/2 to an extent of 1 acre and 30 cents of the data land. In that land there was a sale consideration for Rs.1,99,500/-. But with reference to claimants, it was found from their evidence that the land in question was surrounded by commercial complex and residential colonies and situated in Chennimalai. The land was situated in Chennimalai to Perundurai Road on the southern side. On its Northern side, there was a godown by the Food Corporation of India, Wedding hall, theatre, Sub Registrar Office, State Bank of India situated. On its Eastern side, Thiyagi Kumaran daily market, Senco Cooptex office, CSI Hospital, Weaver centre, Kumarappa High school, Raja Rice Mill, Kandappa Rice Mill, Mariappa Nagar, Nachimuthu Polytechnic Hostel, Factory and Girls Higher secondary school were all situated. The road is leading to Bangalore Madurai Highways. Even on the Southern side, there were residential colonies. These facts were brought to the notice of the court by appointment of the Advocate Commissioner and his report, dated 9.12.1997. 8.The Reference Court also found that the land does not require any further development for any construction activity. Reliance placed upon the data land situated in Survey No.172/2 cannot be comparable. On the other hand, Ex.C.5 relates to Survey No.226/18 which is adjacent to the acquired land and the sale deed dated 24.5.1991 showed that it was sold for Rs.35.92 per sq.ft. This was not taken note of by the acquiring authority. The Reference Court also found that out of 97 transactions found in the statistical data, except 20 rest of them were sold as house sites and the sale was effected only on the basis of rate per square feet and not as block rate. It also found that for the purpose of constructing a Cinema theatre, permission was obtained from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government and marked as Ex.C.1. It was also found that the statistical data shown in Serial No.95 is Ex.C.5 wherein the land was sold two months before Section 4(1) notification at the rate of Rs.35.92 per sq.ft. Similarly, in statistical data at Serial No.92, the sale deed showed the rate at Rs.29.76 per sq.ft. Though the acquiring authority rejected Ex.C.5 and fixed the compensation by stating that it was one kilometer away from the acquired land, the same was not true. On the other hand, it was proved that the date land was situated at the end of the Town and away from the acquired land. It was also found that the land as per Ex.C.4 was sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. within four weeks. It that is taken note of, the rate of appreciation of the land cost had gone to Rs.6/- per sq.ft. within 45 days. Therefore, the court below found that the compensation will have to be awarded only on the basis of the square feet. Further, going by the transactions in that area and the nature of the land, it awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.ft. Thus it ordered compensation together with all statutory amounts to be paid. 9.The ground raised by the appellant was that it was wrong to state that it was situated in Bangalore Madurai Highways and there is no Bangalore Madurai main road. Exs.C.4 and C.5 are not similar to Tharam and other aspects. Further, deduction of 1/3rd as development charge instead of 40% or 50% was not correct. The finding that there was steep rise in the land cost was not borne out by records. 10.However, it must be stated that no where the court below had stated that it was situated in Bangalore Madurai Main road. But it only stated that the road in which the lands are situated leading to that Highways. The report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly shows that it was already a developed land, in which case the question of further development will not arise. The court below also considered that the data land was far away. 11.The Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others reported in 2007 (9) SCC 447 has held that if lands are already developed, the question of any development charge will not arise. In paragraph 30, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "30.We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons V. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 422 and Land Acquisition Officer V. Nookala Rajamallu (2003) 12 SCC 334 had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, highway, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs.250 per sq.m with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest, etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs.59,192 as fixed. IA No.1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for. " 12.With reference to appreciation of land costs, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another reported in 2008 (14) SCC 745 = 2009(2) MLJ 78 (SC). In paragraphs 13 and 14, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "13.Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors – situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation if market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14.In the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same." 13.Further, the Supreme Court in its recent decision in Sangunthala (dead) through LRs Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661, after referring to the guidelines prescribed under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, held that the purpose of acquisition is very much relevant in awarding the compensation. Further, after quoting with approval the judgment in Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2008 (2) SCC 568), with reference to the riding factor in determining the market value, in paragraph 36 held as follows: "36.In Atma Singh V. State of Haryana it was observed that: (SCC p.572, para 4) "4....The expression 'market value' has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when let out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding principle would be the conduct of an hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and that of a purchaser who, in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not of an anxious purchaser dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale nor a fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities." 14.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the court below. Hence all Appeal Suits will stand dismissed. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.54303 4 cc To Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate, SR.53499, 53500,53502,53503 IN A.S.Nos.164 to 168 of 2001 jrg(co) pmk.18.7.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/