IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12-11-2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN A.S. No. 668 of 1999 A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002 and Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 A.S. No. 668 of 1999 Chinnu @ Munusamy .. Appellant Versus 1. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri 2. The Secretary Regulated Market Committee Dharmapuri .. Respondents A.S. No. 652 of 2002 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer (LA) Dharmapuri 2. The Secretary Regulated Market Committee Dharmapuri .. Appellants Versus P.M. Vadivel .. Respondent A.S. No. 653 of 2002 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer (LA) Dharmapuri 2. The Secretary Regulated Market Committee Dharmapuri .. Appellants Versus Chinnu @ Munusamy .. Respondent Cross Objection No.7 of 2003 P.M. Vadivel .. Appellant Versus 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Dharmapuri 2. The Secretary Dharmapuri Market Committee Dharmapuri .. Respondents A.S. No. 668 of 1999: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. A.S. No. 652 of 2002: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. A.S. No. 653 of 2002: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003:- Cross Objection filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. A.S. No. 668 of 1999 For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Muralidharan For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Special Government Pleader A.S. No. 652 & 653 of 2002 For Appellants : Mr. Ravi Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr. D. Sivakumaran Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 For Appellant : Mr. D. Sivakumaran For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Special Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. RAJENDRAN, J) The claimant has filed A.S. No. 668 of 1999 against the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri has filed A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002, against the judgment and decree passed in LAOP No. 15 of 1994 and L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 has been filed by the claimant in A.S. No. 652 of 2002. All these matters arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 07.04.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in LAOP No. 15 of 1994 and 68 of 1996, hence, with the consent of counsel for both sides, all the appeals as well as cross objection are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of establishment of Regulated Market Committee, the Government sought to acquire the lands situate in Parvathanahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The lands of the claimants comprised in Survey No. 657/2A and 657/1B1 etc., to an extent of 1.07.0 Hectares and 1.05.5 Hectares respectively were also sought to be acquired for the said purpose. Ultimately, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.09.1988 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharmapuri. After complying with the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an Award No.1/90 dated 06.12.1990 fixing the value of the land at Rs.49,400/- per hectare. According to the claimants, the value fixed by the Land Acquision Officer was very meager, therefore, they sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Sub Court, Dharmapuri and the same were taken on file as L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1994 and 16 of 1996 respectively. The Reference Court, after taking into considertion the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the land value at Rs.15/- per square feet in respect of both the cases. The details of the lands acquired from the claimants and the compensation amount awarded are extracted hereunder:- AS No. LAOP No. Extent Survey LAO Sub Court of land No. 652/02 15/94 1.07.0 Hec 657/2A Rs.20000/- Rs.6,53,400 CO 7/03 per acre per acre (Rs.150/- per Sq.ft.) 653/02 68/96 1.05.5 Hec 657/1B1 - do - - do - 668/99 etc., 3. Before the Court below, common evidence was let in by both sides. On behalf of the Claimants, CW1 to CW3 were examined and Exs. C1 to C5 were marked, which are sale deeds ranging from the period 1986 to 1991. On behalf of the Appellant, one Parivel was examined as RW1 and Exs. R1 to 4 were marked. 4, It is seen from the records that Exs. C1 to C3 were prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Exs. C4 and C5 are subsequent to the said notification. The reference Court, taking into consideration Ex.C3, the document executed one year prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, has arrived at the value at Rs.30/- per square feet. Taking into consideration that Ex.C3 is in respect of a smaller extent of land, gave deduction at 50% for development purpose and awarded the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.ft., Aggrieved against such fixation of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002. Aggrieved against the deduction given at 50% by the reference Court, one of the claimants namely P.M. Vadivel has filed Cross Objection No.7 of 2003. Another claimant namely Chinnu @ Munusamy has filed an independent appeal in A.S. No. 688 of 1999 against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. 5. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The point for consideration in these appeals as well as Cross Objection is (i) whether the value fixed by the Reference Court is correct and proper? and (ii) Whether the deduction given by the reference Court at 50% is excessive? 6. Mr. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that Ex.R3 is a sale deed dated 30.12.1987, which is one year prior to the notification dated 12.09.1988 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Under Ex.C3, an extent of 200 sq.ft., was sold at Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the Reference Court ought to have made separate deduction for the smaller extent of land apart from deduction charges for development of the area. He further argued that Exs. C1 to C2, though relate to an extent of 1200 sq.ft., the value arrived there was Rs.30/- per sq.ft., yet it cannot be the criterion for fixing the valuation in respect of larger extent of land, especially, in this case, a total extent of 2.40 acres and 2.60 acres respectively were acquired. It is further stated that the Court below has erroneously held that the data land is situated far away from the acquired land. A perusal of Ex.R4, topo sketch of the area, will make it clear that between the data land and the acquired land, there is only one survey number different and the distance is not too far. Further, as per the data land sale deed, per acre land was sold at Rs.20,000/- whereas, the value fixed by the reference Court is Rs.15/- per square feet, which is exorbitant. Lastly, it was contended that the data land sale deed is of the year 1987 which is prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, whereas, the documents relied on by the reference Court, Exs. C1, C2 and C3, are dated 15.05.1986, 21.05.1986 and 06.05.1986 respectively. When the sale deed executed one year prior to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, namely Ex.C3, there is no need for the reference Court to rely on the earlier sale deed, which is more than two years old. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants specifically argued that the acquired lands are situated in a very important locality. The lower Court has not clearly stated the difference between the data land and the acquired land. What was stated is data land was far away from the main road, whereas, as per Ex.R4, topo sketch, it is clear that the acquired lands are situated on the main high road abutting the road but the data land is situate much far away from the main road and therefore it is quite natural that the land which are abutting the main road will definitely fetch good price. The claimants would further specifically contend that the sale deeds Exs. C1 to C3 are executed more than two years prior to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and therefore the presumption would be that these documents could not have been executed for any other purpose. Furthermore, Exs. C1 and C2 relates to 1200 sq.ft., and 1400 sq.ft., of lands, especially in that area, even as per the sale statistics filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, out of 46 sale transactions, more than 30 sale transactions are in respect of smaller extent of lands and the lands are sold as house sites or housing plots. Therefore, the smaller extent of land only denote that already those areas have been converted into housing plots and sale transactions took place as house sites or housing plots, hence, the valuation, as reflected in Ex.C1 to C3 are proper and correct. The sale transactions reflected in Ex.R3 in respect of data land is for a large extent of more than 1.40 acres, therefore, the valuation arrived at Rs.20,000/- per acre is less and this cannot be a criteria for arriving at the value by the land acquisition offiicer especially when the lands are sold as housing plot. Furthermore, neither in the evidence nor in the documents Exs. C1 to C3, it could be proved that those documents are executed for any other purpose or to defeat the claim of the Government. In the evidence, it was proved that Exs. C1 to C2 are in respect of those extent of lands, which were originally sought to be acquired, later on, some of the lands covered in those documents were released from the purview of acquisition as per the order of the Court. Therefore, the claimants pray for dismissal of A.S. Nos 652 and 653 of 2002. 8. The only contention of the claimants in the cross objection as well as the independent appeal in A.S. No. 668 of 1999 is that the valuation of Rs.30/- per sq.ft., arrived at by the Reference Court is correct, but the reference Court has reduced the valuation by giving 50% towards deduction which is illegal and unsustainable. The Court cannot summarily grant such huge percentage of deduction, especially, when there is clear evidence that the area was already developed, the lands have been converted into housing plots and housing sites and there are housing colonies, office buildings, schools have come into existence. Furthermore, the acquired lands have been situate abutting the main road, therefore, the question of deduction will not arise. If at all, 10% deduction can be given and the deduction given at 50% is illegal andunsustainable in law. 9. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the both parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that Ex.R3 relied on by the acquisition officer for fixing the valuation at Rs.20,000/- per acre, cannot be a reasonable one as it is in respect of a land having larger extent. In this case, if we analyse the topo sketch and plan produced by the acquiring officer, Ex.R4, it is clear that the lands acquired are abutting the main high way, whereas, the data land is situate away from the main road. Apart fom this, out of the 40 sale deeds compared by the acquisition officer, in only one sale deed, the higher value is reflected and it was sold on acre basis. Therefore, the valuation, arrived by the land acquisition officer based on that document cannot be treated as a correct value for the land acquired by the Government. Furthermore, it is common nature that the land, which are abutting the main road will definitely fetch more value when compared to the lands which are situated far away from the roads. The land, which was covered under Ex.C3 was originally acquired, but subsequently, it was released from the purview of acquisition as per Court orders. The lands covered in Exs. C1, C2 and C3 are situate near to the acquired land. Based on the value mentioned in Exs. C1 to C3, the reference Court has fixed the value at Rs.30/- per sq.ft., Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that these documents Ex.C1 to C3, taken into consideration by the Reference Court, for the purpose of fixing the compensation, cannot be said to be illegal, hence, the valuation as arrived at by the Court below at Rs.30/- is reasonable and Rs.20,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is two low. 10. The next point is when the lands were acquired for establishment of regulated market committee, whether, deductions are to be granted towards developmental charges. After acquiring the lands, the Government has to necessarily provide infrastructural amenities for achieving the purpose. Merely there is existence of road, that by itself would not make it possible for the entire area to be used in a proper manner and the government has to make some development. The only objection made by the counsel for the claimants is towards 50% deduction. As per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District vs. Jaganathan Gounder and another) 2009 5 MLJ 2, as far as deductions are concerned, following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (Revenue Divisional Officer cum L.A.O. vs. Shaik AzamSahab) 2009 1 Scale 545 it was held that 40% would be a fair and reasonable deduction in case where the development has to necessarily take place for the purpose of putting the land into use for which it was acquired. Therefore, in this case, giving 40% deduction would be fair and reasonable. At the same time, in the very same decision, in respect of value being arrived at on the basis of the sale deed, in respect of smaller extent of land, following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Atma Singh (dead) through LRs and others vs. State of Haryana and others) 2008 2 SCC 568, the Division Bench has held that further deduction of 20% can be given so as to reduce the value in accordance with law. Therefore, adding 20% more to the original deduction of 40% towards development charges, totalling 60% deduction is to be made, which would be a proper and correct valuation. Taking into consideration Ex.C3, sale deed, wherein the value was fixed at Rs.30/- per sq.ft., reduced by 40% by way of deduction and 20% for development by way of further deduction, being the value fixed on the basis of documents relating to smaller extent of land, totalling 60% deduction if applied, the valuation would come to Rs.12/- per sq.ft., which would be the reasonable and correct value for the acquired land. The petitioner in Cross Objection or the claimant/appellant in A.S. No. 668 of 1999 have not made out any case to substantiate that the deduction is excessive, whereas, as per the decision mentioned above, definitely, the value need to be given necessary deductions as facilities for drainage, water and road have to be provided by the government. Similarly, in view of the value being arrived at on the basis of smaller extent of land, the need for further deduction is justified. Hence, the issue is answered against the claimants. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Government in A.S. Nos. 652 and 653 of 2002 are partly allowed and A.S. No. 668 of 1999 and Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 filed by the claimants are dismissed. No costs. The value of the lands is reduced from Rs.15/- to Rs.12/- per square feet with all other statutory benefits of 30% solatium and interest on solatium. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to deposit the amount, as ordered by this Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of the LAOP Nos. 15 of 1994 and 68 of 1996 On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. (F.M.I.K.J.,) (B.R.J.,) 12.11.2009 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To The Subordinate Judge Sub Court Dharmapuri F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J and B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh A.S. No. 668 of 1999 AS Nos. 652 and 652 of 2002 and Cross Objection No. 7 of 2003 12.11.2009