IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 10.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.219 of 2000 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Vandavasi .. Appellant/Referring Officer vs Rosebai Ammal .. Respondent/Claimant Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1996 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Arani. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader (A.S.) For Respondent : Mr.N.Venkatakrishnan JUDGMENT This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Arani in LAOP No.10 of 1993. 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. To cut short the long narration of facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, I would like to portray and parody the relevant facts which are necessary and germane thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 39 cents in S.No.343/3 in Birudur Village, Vandavasi for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award assessing a sum of Rs.120/- per cent towards compensation. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimant C.W.1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. On the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B9 were marked. 5. The trial Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.120/- per cent to Rs.665/- per cent. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Government filed this appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The Reference Court simply relied on Ex.A2 which emerged only two days anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification and that is against the trite proposition of law. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.120/- to Rs.665/- per cent. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterating the grounds of appeal would detail and delineate the facts to the effect that Ex.A2 which emerged two days anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification cannot be taken as one reflecting the true market value and even one third deduction was not effected from it towards development charges and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Court. 9. However, the learned counsel for the land owner would draw the attention of this Court to Ex.A1, which is a replica of Ex.A3 and develop his argument to the effect that even during the month of February, per cent of land was sold in a sum of Rs.1,445/- in the nearby area and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is comparatively far lesser than that. Accordingly, he prays for confirming the enhancement as ordered by the Reference Court. 10. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, ex facie and prima facie, it is clear that the Reference Court was not justified in simply relying upon Ex.A2, a sale deed which emerged only two days anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification. The current ratiocination of Hon'ble Apex Court would look askance at such sort of placing reliance on documents which emerged just anterior to the publication of Section 4 (1) Notification. No doubt, in certain circumstances, even documents which emerged subsequent to Section 4(1) Notification was relied upon. In this connection, I would like to cite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 [Administrator - General of W.B. vs. Collector, Varanasi], the gist and kernel of the said decision would run thus: "Subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquistion can be taken into account for purposes of determing whether as on the date of acquisition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further, under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuation in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. But, this principle can be applied to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. However, the criteria as found set out in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and it is quite obvious. 11. A bare perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court would clearly exemplify that it simply discarded Exs.A1 and A3 on the sold ground that the sale contemplated therein refers to a small extent of land and it cannot be a guiding factor for assessing the compensation. In my considered opinion, the ratiocination adhered to by the Reference Court is not acceptable in view of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] (2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] (3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] (4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] (5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others] 12. It is therefore clear from the ratio decidendi that could be deduced from the Hon'ble Apex Court decisions that even a sale deed relating to a small extent of land can be relied upon, provided it is not a cooked-up document and furthermore necessary deduction should be effected towards development charges from out of such valuation arrived at based on such sale deed. The sale as contemplated in Ex.A1 emerged during February, so to say, on 13.02.1991, relating to an extent of 1505 sq.ft. of land in S.No.335, which is very close to the land acquired in S.No.343/3 in the same village. It is also to be noted that Ex.A2 also refers to a land in S.No.335 itself. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the value as contempated in Ex.A1 cannot be simply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discarded on the ground that it refers to a small extent of land and that there is nothing to show that Ex.A1 is a document brought about for boosting up the valuation of the land in that vicinity so as to get enhanced compensation. 13. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, the area in which the land acquired is a fast developing area. The learned counsel for the land owner also would highlight placing reliance on the records available before this Court that the land acquired is situated adjacent to Vandavasi Town. Hence accordingly if Ex.A1 is considered, it is glaringly evident that an extent of 1505 sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which means per square foot was sold in a sum of Rs.3.32p and per cent of land works out to Rs.3.32 X 435 = Rs.1,444/-. It is an admitted legal position that one third of the amount should be deducted towards development charges and accordingly if viewed, the remaining two third comes to Rs.963/- per cent. However, the trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.665/-, which is lesser than the formula arrived at above. There is no cross appeal also. Accordingly, I am of the view that no interference with the judgment and decree of the Reference Court is required, even though the Reference Court did not adhere to the reasons as adhered to supra by this Court. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the enhancement of the compensation from Rs.120/- per cent to Rs.665/- per cent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gms To The Subordinate Judge, Arani. Copy to The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.51612. A.S.No.219 of 2000 VM(CO) RVL 29.10.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/