IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date : 09.12.2009 THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI S.A.No.891 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Sathiyamangalam ... Appellant/ Land Acquisition Officer Vs. 1.Subramaniam, S/o. Palani Gounder 2.Subramaniam, S/o. Chinna Gounder 3.Dhandapani 4.Periya Ramasamy Gounder 5.Chinna Ramasamy Gounder 6.Pongisamy ... Respondents/ Claimants Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.No.22 of 2001 dated 6.12.2005 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam modifying the award made in Award No.7/2000-2001 dated 16.2.2001 passed by the Special Tahsildar. (Adi Dravidar Welfare). Sathyamangalam. For Appellant : Ms. Bhavani Subbarayan Special Government Pleader (CS) For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam JUDGMENT This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment in C.M.A.No.22 of 2001 dated 6.12.2005 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam enhancing market value of the land acquired from Rs.57,831/- p.a to Rs.80, 435/- p.a. 2.Brief facts which led to filing of Second Appeal are that an extent of 1.07 acre of land situated in S.No.40/10, 40/12, 40/14 and 40/16 in Kadathur Village was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to homeless Adi-Dravidars under the Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (hereinafter shortly called as Act 31/78). Under the provision of the Act 31/78, Section 4(1) notification was published in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Gazette No.55 dated 18.8.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer after due adherence to all statutory provisions under the Act 31/78 passed an award in Award No.7/2000-2001, dated 16.2.2001. The market value for the land acquired was fixed at Rs.57,831/- per acre. In arriving at the said market value, the Competent Authority had taken Ex.B2-data sale deed dated 14.8.2000 under which 0.33.5 Hectare of land in S.No.92/3 was sold for Rs.48,000/-. Award was passed for Rs.71,161.04 as under:- At the rate of Rs.57,831/- per acre - Rs.61,879.17 Solatium @15% - Rs. 9,281.87 --------------- Total Rs.71,161.04 --------------- 3. Being aggrieved by the fixation of market value, the respondents filed an appeal in CMA.22/2001 under Section 9 of the Act 31/78 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam for enhancement of compensation claiming Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Lower Court held that property covered under Ex.R2 sale deed (dt.14.8.2000) has same fertility and same valuation to be adopted and the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced compensation at Rs.80,435/- per acrel. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2005 and the value was enhanced and fixed at Rs.80,435/- per acre for the agricultural land acquired by the Government. The Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.98,975.25 as under:- At the rate of Rs.80,435/- per acre - Rs.86,065.00 Solatium @ 15% - Rs.12,909.80 --------------- Total Rs.98,975.25 --------------- 4.In this Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: (i)"Whether the Court below had erred in not appreciating the provision of Sec.8 of the Act 31/78 wherein it is made clear that in the fixation of determining the amount of compensation, the purpose for which the land acquired shall not be a criteria and nature of land on the date of 4(1) notification shall be a criteria for determining the compensation? (ii)Whether the Court below is correct in awarding interest at 15% upto the date of taking possession when the statutory provision of Act 31/78 provides only for uniform interest rate of 6% per annum?" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned Government Pleader Ms.Bhavani Subbarayan submitted that Court below erred in taking the sale deed dated 12.06.2000 (Serial No.42 in Ex.R2) as the document for arriving at the market value. It was further argued that for developmental charges, deduction was not made. Reliance was placed upon (2003) 12 SCC 334 [Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, A.P Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others]. It was contended that in the said case Supreme Court allowed deduction at the rate of 53% and while so, Court below erred in not making any deduction for development charges. 6.Learned counsel for respondents Mr.T.Murugamanickam submitted that as per Ex.A1, even by direct negotiation, value was fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre and while so, the market value fixed at Rs.57,831/- per acre was very low. It was further argued Court below rightly taken Serial No.42 in Ex.R2 as the sale deed for fixing the market value at Rs.80,435/- per acre. It was further submitted that the value of Rs.80,435/- per acre fixed by Court below itself is very low and no deduction need be made. 7.An extent of 1.07 acres in S.No.40/10, 40/12, 40/14 and 40/16 were acquired under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for providing housing colony to Adi-Dravidars. In his evidence claimant Subramaniam has stated that the acquired lands are situated on the western side of North-South Kadathur-Arasoor Main Road. CW1- Subramaniam has further stated that acquired lands and respondents' other lands were irrigated by bore-well and that the respondents have been cultivating wet crops. In his evidence, RW1 – Special Tahsildar has also admitted about availability of water resources for cultivation of respondents' lands. The land in Serial No. 46 in Ex.R2 – S.No.92/3 was taken as data land. For the data land in sale deed dated 14.08.2000, land in S.No.92/3 – 0.33.5Hec. was sold for Rs.48,000/- and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed value of the land at Rs.57,831/- per acre. 8.In his evidence, first respondent-CW1 has stated that the data land in S.No.92/3 is at far distance and that the same cannot be taken for comparison. Further CW1 has stated that about one furlong away from the acquired lands on the eastern side of same Kadathur-Arasoor Road, about 2 acres of land was acquired for construction of Police Quarters and Police Station. As seen from Ex.A1 (dt.20.11.2000), two acres of land was purchased for Rs.2,50,000/- i.e., per acre valued at Rs.1,25,000/-. Sec.4(1) notification was issued on 18.08.2000 whereas Ex.A1 sale deed (dt.20.11.2000) was after publication of Section 4(1) notification and therefore Court below rightly declined to take Ex.A1 sale deed for fixing the market value at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.The claimant have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar is not adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification under Sec.4 of the Act. Claimants are to adduce evidence to the fact that on the relevant date,market value of the land in question was such at which the buyer and the seller are willing to sell or purchase the land. Determination of the market value of the land depends upon facts and circumstances of each case, amongst them would be the price of the land, amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The area of the land, nature thereof advantages and disadvantage occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property. 10.Ex-R2 – certificate issued by Special Tahsildar containing list of sale deeds between 1.8.99 to 18.8.2000 in and around the location of acquired lands. Serial No.42 sale deed (dt.12.06.2000) in Ex.R2 is the sale deed executed by one Ramasamy and others infavour of one Thiruvenkateswaran selling 0.18.5 Hectres for Rs.37,000/- i.e., Rs.80,435/- per acre. As against Serial No.42, in the remarks column it is stated as under:- "xnu kz; tadk;. xj;j juk;. jPh;it (Similar Land) bfhz;l epykhFk;. jw;fhy re;ij kjpg;g[f;F gpujpgypf;ff; Toa fpuak; vd;gjhy; njh;t[ bra;ag;gl;lJ " Since S.No.39/3 sold under Serial No.42 is similar land, lower Court has rightly taken that document for fixing the market value at Rs.80,435/-. As held in (2003) 12 SCC 334 [Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, A.P Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others], the principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: i.When sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); ii.it should be a bona fide transaction; iii.it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and iv.it should possess similar advantages. The above factors are present in Serial No.42 sale deed (dt.12.06.2000) and therefore Court below rightly taken as a comparable case. Fixing of market value at Rs.80,435/- cannot be said to be on the higher side warranting interference. 11.Learned Special Government Pleader Ms. Bhavani Subbarayan contended that the learned Subordinate Judge awarded flat rate of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.80,435/- per acre without giving any deduction for developmental charges. Placing reliance upon (2003) 12 SCC 334 [Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, A.P Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others], it was contended that for determining the value of agricultural land, deduction should be made in respect of developmental expenses, interest on the outlays and the Lower Court erred in not allowing any deduction for developmental charges. 12.In (2003) 1 SCC 354 [Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana], the Supreme Court held as under:- "In cases of those land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, in this case taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land for construction of residential and commercial buildings, the deduction made was only 20%" 13.Deduction for development charges ought to be adequately provided for, but it varies from place to place, area to area and amount of developments which are required to be carried out and thus there cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. 14.In the present case, lands covered by the acquisition are located on the western side of Kadathur-Arasoor Main Road. As pointed out earlier, nearby lands were acquired for construction of Police Quarters and Police Station. Having regard to the acquisition of neighbouring areas for construction of Police Quarters and houses, the acquired land has potential value for being used as building site. Having regard to location and potentiality of the land, in the present case, no deduction need be made. 15. Further, in this case the lands were acquired only for formation of housing for Adi-Dravidars. The lands were acquired in 2001 and award was passed on 16.2.2001. For all these years, the claimants could not get the benefit of enhanced compensation. As per the interim order in M.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 22.10.2007, Appellant has deposited Rs.50,000/- to the credit of C.M.A.No.22 of 2001. So far the claimants were not to able to enjoy fruits of compensation awarded. As per Sec.12 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act interest for enhanced compensation was awarded only at 6% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, passage of time at this distant point of time, this Court is not inclined in making deduction for developmental charges. 16.15% Solatium was awarded to the claimant. Under Section 12 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 6% p.a is the prescribed rate of interest. Learned Subordinate Judge awarded interest at 6% p.a on the enhanced compensation amount. Based upon Serial No.42 sale deed (dt.12.06.2000) in Ex.R2 and having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands, learned Principal Subordinate Judge rightly enhanced the compensation of Rs.57,831/- to Rs.80,435/- per acre. No justifiable grounds are made out in the Second Appeal warranting interference. 17.In the result, the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.No.22 of 2001 dated 6.12.2005 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam enhancing the compensation and award of interest and solatium are confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. Claimants/ respondents are entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited to the credit of C.M.A.No.22 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam immediately on receipt of copy of this judgment. Balance amount payable has to be deposited by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Sathiyamangalam within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit of balance amount, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the balance amount so deposited. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. gpa To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam 2. The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Satiyamangalam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Copy to The Record Keeper VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to M/s. Murugamanikkam, Advocate, SR. 67372 1 cc to Spl. Government Pleader, SR. 67240 S.A.No.891 of 2007 KS (CO) kk 4/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/