IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.Nos.400 and 401 of 1994 The Special Tahsildar (LA) Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-IV, Thiruvallur Taluk Chengalpattu MGR District .. Appellant/Referring Officer in both the appeals Vs. Maryappa Nadar .. Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.400/94 K.Perumal .. Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.401/94 Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur and made in LAOP Nos.891 and 890 of 1987 dated 07.05.1993. For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) in both the appeals For respondents : Mr.K.S.Lakshmikumaran in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1993 made in LAOP Nos.891 and 890 of 1987 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. A resume of facts that are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 17.04.1985 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the lands measuring an extent of 2.13 acres and 0.04 cent respectively in Survey No.118 in Kannammapettai Village, Tiruvallur Taluk. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 15.06.1987 assessing compensation in a sum of Rs.40/- 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 trial Court, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. CW1 and Exs.C1 to C13 were marked. On the side of the respondent, one Sathyanarayanan was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1500/- per cent. 5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred these appeals on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: Without any basis, the Sub Court simply relied on Ex.C7, which emerged some seven years and three months anterior to Section 4 (1) Notification and notionally gave 10% increase for several years and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,500/-, which warrants interference by this Court. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court's assessment of compensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1500/- per cent is justifiable and proper. 7. At the hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS), would correctly and convincingly draw the attention of this Court to Ex.C7 dated 04.01.1978 whereas the Section 4 (1) Notification is dated 17.04.1985. As such there was a gap of seven years and three months between the time, where for the document Ex.C7 should not have been taken as the sample deed for assessing the compensation. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the land owners would submit that the Sub Court correctly relied on Ex.C7 because in the Kannamapettai village, neither the land owners nor the land acquisition Officer could gather sales statistics, and in view of the same, no sales having emerged during the relevant period. 9. It is ex-facie and prima facie clear from that the sales statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the documents filed by the land owners that only relating to Movur Village sales particulars were available. Accordingly, if viewed, Ex.C7, which emerged seven years and three months anterior to Section 4 (1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Notification should not have been relied on by the Sub Court and the Sub Court should have gone for some other document available in the sales statistics itself furnished by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further more, Ex.C7 is relating to a small extent of plot area in Movur habitation area and it cannot be taken as the sample for assessing the agricultural land acquired for Krishna Water Scheme. Hence, I am having no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court in enhancing the compensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent based on Ex.C7. 10. The learned Government Pleader would correctly draw the attention of this Court to the sales statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer and in all fairness the learned Government Pleader himself would submit that among the 76 sales particulars gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, item No.34 only refers to the agricultural land having been sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per cent and that could be taken as the criterion for assessing the compensation. 11. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. Item No.34 is relating to Survey Nos.294, 295/7 and 296/1 in Movur village referring to a total extent of 10 cents, which was sold for a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 28.04.1984. It is therefore crystal clear that the agricultural land per cent was sold in a sum of Rs.300/- per cent. It is quite obvious that from 28.04.1984 till 15.06.1987, the date of award three years elapsed and for each year 10% increase could be given, taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 533 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others). An excerpt from it would run thus: "6. The lands which are the subject-matter of these appeals are acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of prices in regard to these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5% increase in the market value in respect of the lands in these appeals. In the result these appeals are also allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 per bigha + 5% escalation. The respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs. Civil Appeal No.4157 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the result this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,550 per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs." if we work out, over and above Rs.300/- and 10% increase for three years, if added, it comes to Rs.399/- and it could be rounded off to Rs.400/-. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the entire land of the land owners have been taken away and the same may be considered for enhancement. 13. I am of the considered opinion that the 30% solatium and also interest on solatium would meet the ends of justice. As such that would take care of the compuslory nature of acquistion involved in the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, no deduction need be made towards development charges. Here the land acquisition is not for habitation purpose but only for the purpose of laying canal to take Krishna water. Hence, from out of this Rs.400/- no amount need be deducted towards development charges. Further more, this Court awarded only agricultural value to the land acquired and not plot value. In such a case no deduction at all has to be made from the sum of Rs.400/- per cent as assessed by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court in awarding the enhanced compensation of Rs.1500/- per cent is reduced to Rs.400/- per cent. I make it clear that the land owners are entitled to all statutory benefits. For 'Well' a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded since as per the well settled proposition of law for well alone separately no compensation need be given, the same shall stand deleted. A sum of Rs.100/- was awarded towards loss of income and for loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compulsory acquisition and that also shall stand deleted as it is obvious that the same is untenable, and a sum of Rs.1000/- awarded towards super structure shall stand confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Vj2 Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur • 2 ccs to Mr. K. S. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate SR No. 41310, 41309 • 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.40920 A.S.Nos.400 and 401 of 1994 SS(CO) SR/8.9.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/