IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.06.2009 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Appeal Suit No.39 OF 2001 The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare Tirupathur. Appellant/Referring Officer v. 1.Meganathan 2.Senthilnathan 3.Sasiritha Respondents / Claimants Appeal Suit filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order dated 25.11.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No.7 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Additional Government Pleader(AS) For Respondents: Mr. V.Raghavachari JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25.11.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No.7 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur. 2. The agricultural land over an extent of 6.11 acres in S.No.166/1B1B in Chickanam Kuppam village, Vaniyampadi Taluk, Vellore District has been acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor most backward people. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 31.7.1996. After complying with due formalities land has been taken possession and award dated 26.2.1998 in Award No.7/97-98 has been ultimately passed after hearing objections of the land owners. For passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has collected statistics of 66 data sale deeds, which are all prior to the issuance of Section 4(1) notification. After taking into consideration of the lie of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land and the distance from the lands under acquisition and the tharam of those lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the sale deed in respect of S.No.37 as a data land for the purpose of determination of the compensation. The said sale deed was dated 11.11.1994 over an extent of 0.20.0 hectares sold for a sum of Rs.7,000/- under document No.2973/94 which is equivalent to Rs.35,000/- per acre. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the said land covered under the document is in conformity with the tharam and other aspects of the land, under acquisition and the land was also situated nearer to the land under acquisition. On that basis, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre. Though there were several coconut trees standing in the land under acquisition, it could be seen from the award that 53 coconut trees were yielding at the time of Section 4(1) notification and the claimant has also agreed before the authorities to receive the compensation in respect of 53 yielding trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the trees at the rate of Rs.200/- per tree. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation for the land at Rs.2,13,850/- at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre and Rs.10,600/- for the 53 coconut trees at the rate of Rs.200/- per tree and has granted other statutory components, i.e., 30% solatium of Rs.67,335/-, 12% additional amount at Rs.41,523/- in all Rs.3,33,308/-. The claimants not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer requested for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and as such the matter has been referred to Sub-Court, Tirupathur for determination of the compensation. The reference Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,90,248/- per acre for land and Rs.400/- per coconut tree in respect of 53 coconut trees and ultimately enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,94,615/-. The Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved with the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court filed the present appeal. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the revenue assailed the enhancement of compensation on the ground that the enhancement in respect of the land is very whimsical. The extent of the land covered under Ex.C.1 is only 1680 sq.ft., out of 10 cents which is in S.No.136/1A/F; the land under acquisition is situated in a village and even assuming for a moment that the area is stated to be a developed area, as many house came up nearer and abutting the main road, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court by taking into consideration of Ex.C.1 and reducing from it 20 percent of the value is very high. The Reference Court itself stated that the value referred to in the document in Ex.C1 cannot be an acceptable one, that for the development of the land the 30 percent value has been deducted and that in respect of the largeness of the land compared to the land under Ex.C.1, no deduction is granted and that may be considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. On the other hand, Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent very strenuously contended that the Reference Court, not only deducted 20%, but also further 30 per cent deduction has been given, having regard to the nature of the land and the admitted fact that schools and several buildings around the acquired land have been accepted to be there. So, the land is not only having potential for improvement but also has to be regarded as a developed land. In such circumstances, the order requires no re-consideration and no deduction can be made in this case. 5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 6. An extent of 6.11 acres has been acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. It is an admitted case that though there are certain houses stated to be in existence on either side of the acquired land, that the lands are classified as agricultural lands in the revenue records and it is also a further admitted fact that the acquired lands are in the village only. Hence, we do not find any illegality of the order of the reference Court in deducting 20 percent and addition of 30 percent for the development charges. However, having regard to the largeness of the area acquired, no deduction has been made by the Reference Court. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, KAMMARAPALLY VILLAGE VS. NOOKALA RAJAMALLU reported in AIR 2004 SC 1031, wherein it was held that when the lands acquired by Government for providing house sites to weaker sections of people were agricultural lands, their value would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of lands acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price, the profits on the venture etc., are to be made., vide ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR, AIR 1988 SC 943, SAHIB SINGH VS. AMRITSER IMP. TRUST, AIR 1982 SC 940 and SHIVADEVAMMA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, AIR 1996 SC 2886. After elaborating what were stated in the earlier cases referred to above, the Supreme Court has ultimately granted 53 percent deduction of the land acquired in similar set of facts. 7. It is very well settled proposition where large area of land is the subject matter of acquisition, the rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Useful reference can be had to the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015, Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by L.Rs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AIR 1977 SC 1560 and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. LAO, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892. 8. However, it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for small plots could not be the basis for fixation of the rate. In cases where there is no other material available for determination of the compensation, it is open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court to compare the price paid for small plot of land. However, in such cases, necessary deduction or adjustments have to be made while determining the price. When the extent is so large, one cannot expect that the willing purchasers would purchase the land for the price a lesser extent was sold. Even the seller would reduce the price when the extent is so large. Hence, having regard to the largeness of extent covered under the acquisition proceedings, some deduction would balance the interest of both the parties, in our considered view. Vide Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by L.Rs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1560 and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. LAO, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892. 9. Having regard to the facts of the present case, particularly the finding of the Reference Court that the value reflected in Ex.C1 is not acceptable and the further fact that 50% of the value has already been deducted, and for the reasons stated above we are of the view that a further deduction of 10 percent from the value of the land fixed by the Reference Court for largeness would balance the interest of either parties. In respect the value of the coconut trees, we are not able to take a different view as no argument was advanced against such fixation of value. Hence, the value of the land enhanced by the Reference Court is hereby reduced by 10 percent. With this modification the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there is no order as to costs. usk Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: The Subordinate Judge Tirupathur. Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mr. V. Raghavachari, Advocate SR No.22810 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.22461 VSV(CO) SR/9.7.2009 A S No.39 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/