IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 28.07.2010 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Appeal Suit Nos. 889/2004, 927/2004, 993/2004, 994/2004, 1052/2004, 1109/2004, 1114/2004, 1125/2004, 1126/2004, 1127/2004, 1165/2004, 1167/2004, 1227/2004, 9/2005, 10/2005, 674/2005, 941/2005, 505/2006, 506/2006, 508/2006, 509/2006, 510/2006, 512/2006, 545/2006, 547/2006, 548/2006, 549/2006, 550/2006 , 557/2006, 873/2006, 227/2009, 572/2009 (with Cross Objection No.67/2009), 629/2009, 630/2009, 631/2009, 632/2009, 633/2009, 637/2009 and 705/2009 & CMP.12367/2004 in A.S.No.889/2004 CMP.19685/2004 in A.S.1167/2004, CMP.20376/2004 in A.S.No.1227/2004, CMP.13378/2004 in A.S.No.927/2004, CMP.10838/2006 in A.S.No.873/2006, M.P.No.1/2009 in A.S.705/2009, M.P.Nos.1/2009 in A.S.Nos.629 to 633/2009 A.S.No.889/2004: Union of India rep.by Secretary to Government Revenue Department Pondicherry .. Appellant/ Respondent in A.S.889/04 1st Appellant in A.S.927/04, 993, 994, 1052, 1109,1104, 1125 to 1127, 1165, 1167/04, 9/05, 10/05, 674/05, 941/05, 505/06, 506, 508 to 510/06, 512, 545, 547 to 550, 557, 873/06, 227/09, 572, 629 to 633, 637, 705/09. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board Cuddalore ...Appellant in A.S.1227 of 2004 The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Pondicherry ...2nd Appellant in A.S.927 of 04 The Deputy Collector (Rev) cum Land Acquisition) Officer Karaikal ...2nd Appellant in A.S.993, 994, 1052, 1109, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1114, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1165, 1167/04, 9/05, 10/05, 674/05, 941/05, 505, 506, 508, 509, 510, 512, 545, 547, 548, 549, 550, 557, 873/06, 227/ 572, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 637, 705/09 -vs- S.Duraisamy Reddiar .. Respondent in A.S. 889/04/ Claimant V. Rajagopal S/o. Late Vasudeva Naicker ...Respondent in A.S.927/04 Saraswathiammal W/o. Saminatha Mudliar ...Respondent in A.S.993/04 Latha @ Revathy W/o. Govindaraj ...Respondent in A.S.994/04 V. Gandhi @ Sivakami W/o. Velayutha Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.1052/04 M. Kalaivani W/o. Murugavelu ...Respondent in A.S.1109/04 1. Murugavel 2. Thirugnanam Sons of Samikannu Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.1114/04 A. Sivakumar S/o. Ambalavanan ...Respondent in A.S.1125/04 Nirmala W/o. Shanmugavelu ...Respondent in A.S.1126/04 1. Rajakumar @ Kumararaja 2. Rathinavelu @ Chandrasekar 3. Kumaravelu Sons & Legal heirs of Govindarasu ...Respondent in A.S.1127/04 V.S. Pakirisamy S/o. Subramania Pillai ...Respondent in A.S.1165/04 Latha @ Maheswari W/o. V.S. Packirisamy ...Respondent in A.S.1167/04 Thangavel S/o. Singara Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.1227/04 M. Kaliaperumal S/o. Muthusamy Padaiyatchi ...Respondent in A.S.9/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.S. Sudhandiravel S/o. Sundarasu Pillai ...Respondent in A.S.10/05 R. Lalitha W/o. Ramakrishnan ...Respondent in A.S.674/05 M.I. Muhamed Miskin Gandhi S/o.Muhamed Ismail Makkimaricar...Respondent in A.S.941/05 1. Tmt. Seethalakshmi S/o. Paneerselvam 2. Tmt. Poonguzhali D/o. Paneerselvam 3.Thiru Poovanam S/o. Paneerselvam ...Respondent in A.S.505/06 Tmt. Govindarajan W/o. Packirisamy ...Respondent in A.S.506/06 Tmt. Saroja W/o. Selvaraj ...Respondent in A.S.508/06 Packirisamy Mudaliar S/o. Kuppusamy Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.509/06/ Claimant Sundaravalli W/o. Jayaraman ...Respondent in A.S.510/06/ Claimant Vijayaraman W/o. Ramanuja Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.512/06/ Claimant T. Loganayaki W/o. Thiyagarajan ...Respondent in A.S.545/06/ Claimant Jothikannu W/o. Somanthan ...Respondent in A.S.547/06/ Claimant Sughandavananathan @ Regunathan S/o. Sourirajalu Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.548/06/ Claimant Sumathy @ Rajalakshmi W/o. Subramania pillai ...Respondent in A.S.549/06/ Claimant 1. S. Palaniya pillai S/o. Sivanseyal pillai 2. S. Ganapathy S/o. Siganseyal pillai ...Respondent in A.S.550/06/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Claimant Saraswathi W/o. Pitchai Padayatchi ...Respondent in A.S.557/06/ Claimant S. Thengovan S/o. S. Shanmugam ...Respondent in A.S.873/06/ Claimant Oli Kathija Natchial W/o. Thahamaickar ...Respondent in A.S.227/09 Claimant V. Rajakumari D/o. Sambasivam pillai (Late) ...Respondent in A.S.572/09/ Claimant Cross objector in Cross Appeal No.67/09 The Special Officer Sri Jadayupureeswarar samy Devasthanam T.R. Pattinam ...Respondent in A.S.629/09 Claimant The Present Trustee Arulmigu Sri Ragunathaperumal Sri Venkatesa perumal Devasthanam T.R. Pattinam ...Respondent in A.S.630/09 Claimant Arulmigu Sri Ragunathaperumal Sri Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam T.R. Pattinam ...Respondent in A.S.631/09 Claimant The Special Officer Arulmigu Verkollai Mariamman Devasthanam T.R. Pattinam ...Respondent in A.S.632/09 Claimant G. Veeraperumal Mudaliar ...Respondent in A.S.633/09 Claimant Mohaideen Fathima Natchial W.. M.A. Abdulkader Manicker ...Respondent in A.S.637/09 Claimant Sasi Kaladevi W/o. Sundaram ...Respondent in A.S.705/09 Claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in A.S.No.889/2004: Appeal Suit filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the III Additional District Judge, **Pondicherry dated 27.6.2002 in LAOP No.5 of 1999. Principal District Judge, Pondichrry dated 10.12.2001 and made in LAOP.No.11 /98 (A.S.927/04) Special Judicial Officer for Land Acquisition Karaikal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 28.12.2005 and made in LAOP.Nos.64/01, 102/2000, 35/2001, 12/2001, 63/2001, 108/2000, 54/2000, 11/2001, 10/2001 , 1/2001, 13/01 (A.S.Nos. 509/06, 510, 512, 547, 548, 550, 557, 558, 505, 506, 508/06) Additional District Judge, Karaikal dated 31.32003 and made in LAOP.Nos.109, 106, 65, 117/2000, 125, 47/2001, 110/2000, 124/2001, 25, 3, 41/2001, 103/00, 6, 69/01, 101/2000, 7/2001, 105/2000 (A.S.Nos.993, 994, 1052, 109, 1114, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1165, 1167/04, 9, 10, 674, 941/05 545, 549, 873/06) dated 30.3.2007 made in LAOP.No.12/2003 (A.S.227/09) dated 31.7.2007 made in LAOP.No.18/2003 (A.S.572/09) dated 23.8.2007 made in LAOP.No.1/2002 (A.S.629/09) dated 30.3.2007 made in LAOP.No.3/2002 (A.S.630/09) dated 23.11.2007 made in LAOP.No.4/2002 (A.S.631/09) dated 22.8.2007 made in LAOP.No.16/2002 (A.S.632/09) dated 27.4.2007 made in LAOP.No.18/2002 (A.S.633/09) dated 31.7.2007 made in LAOP.No.4/2003 (A.S.637/09) dated 30.7.2007 made in LAOP.No.35/2002 (A.S.705/09) I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore dated 12.7.2004 and made in LAOP.No.35/97 (A.S.1227/04) Mr.D.Srinivasan, Government Pleader, (Puducherry), assisted by Mr.E.Vijay Anand for Appellants in all appeals Mr.T.Susindran for contesting respondent/respondents in A.S.1125/04 A.S.Nos.1126/2004, 1127/2004, 1167/2004, 9/2005, 10/2005, 674/2005, 545/2006, 547/2006, 549/2006, 873/2006. Mr.R.Natarajan for contesting respondent/respondents in A.S.Nos. 993/2004, 994/2004, 1052/2004, 1109/2004, 1114/2004, 1167/2004, 941/2005, 505/2006, 506/2006, 508/2006, 509/2006, 510/2006, 512/2006, 547/2006, 548/2006, 550/2006 and 557/2006, 941/05. M/s.G.M.Mani Associates for respondent in A.S.No.889/2004 Mrs.K.M.Nalinishree for respondent in A.S.1165/2004 and A.S.1167/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.A.Murugan for respondent in A.S.1227/2004 Mr.S.Devanathan for respondent in A.S.705/2009 Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy for M/s.Sai Bharath Ilan for respondent in A.S.572/2009, A.S.632/2009 and A.S.637/2009 and for appellant in Cross Objection No.67 of 2009 Mr.T.P.Manoharan for respondent in A.S.227/2009 Mr.R.Karthikeyan for respondent in A.S.629/2009, 630/09 No appearance for Respondent in A.S.927/04 COMMON JUDGMENT Heard Mr.D.Srinivasan, Government Pleader, (Puducherry), assisted by Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Puduchery and Mr.T.Susindran, Mr.R.Natarajan, Mrs.K.M.Nalinishree, Mr.A.Murugan, Mr.V.Balasubramanian, Mr.S.Devanathan, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 2. These appeals are filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the various judgments and decrees passed by the Reference Court (In the present case the Additional District Judge, Karaikal), wherein compensation of Rs.4,832/- per Are was fixed. 3. The lands of the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of establishing Industrial Growth Centre at Polagam T.R.Pattinam Firka in Karaikal Area in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The aggrieved land owners objected to the different low rate of compensations at Rs.1,200/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, the matters were referred under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of market value by the Reference Court. The jurisdictional reference court registered the references as various LAOPs. 4. The following table will indicate the number of the LAOPs, the corresponding appeals. Sl.No. APPEAL No. L.A.O.P. No. 1 889/2004 5/1999 2 927/2004 11/1998 3 993/2004 109/2000 4 994/2004 106/2000 5 1052/2004 65/2000 6 1109/2004 117/2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. APPEAL No. L.A.O.P. No. 7 1114/2004 125/2001 8 1125/2004 47/2001 9 1126/2004 110/2000 10 1127/2004 124/2001 11 1165/2004 25/2001 12 1167/2004 3/2001 13 1227/2004 35/1997 14 9/2005 41/2001 15 10/2005 103/2000 16 674/2005 6/2001 17 941/2005 69/2001 18 505/2006 10/2001 19 506/2006 1/2001 20 508/006 13/2001 21 509/2006 64/2001 22 510/2006 102/2000 23 512/2006 35/2001 24 545/2006 101/2000 25 547/2006 12/2001 26 548/2006 63/2001 27 549/2006 7/2001 28 550/2006 108/2000 29 557/2006 54/2000 30 873/2006 105/2000 31 227/2009 12/2003 32 572/2009 & Cross Objection.67 of 2009 18/2003 33 629/2009 1/2002 34 630/2009 3/2002 35 631/2009 4/2002 36 632/2009 16/2002 37 633/2009 18/2002 38 637/2009 4/2003 39 705/2009 35/2002 5. Before the Reference Court, it was contended that the potential value of the land and the locational advantage were not taken into account. In particular, it was stated that in the very https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same area nearer to the acquired land, the authorities have acquired the lands for the purpose of handing over lands to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). The said lands were acquired for the purpose of establishment of Drilling Tool Yard Stores and production of Tool Yard Stores by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission and it was covered by Award No.4368/95/B11(2) dated 30.7.1999. In that award, the acquiring authority granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,793/- per Are. The said Award was not challenged either by the acquiring authority or by the requisition body as well as by the land owners and it became final. The said Award was marked as an Exhibit before the Reference Court on behalf of the claimants. Before the Reference Court, oral and documentary evidence was also let in. It is unnecessary to go into the details of such deposition and the various documents filed therein. It is suffice to state that the Reference Court found that by the Award dated 30.7.1999 regarding the acquisition of lands for establishment of Tool Yard Stores by ONGC, compensation was fixed in respect of the very same village and in relation to the neighbouring lands at the rate of Rs.4,793/- per Are and hence there was no reason why the present claimants should be deprived of such rate of compensation. For this finding, the appellant did not have any answer. The Reference Court having found that this Award was passed in July 1999, whereas the present award was passed on 31.3.2003, giving 10% increase towards appreciation of value, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,832/- per Are. It is this rate of compensation, which is under challenge before this Court. 6. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it was contended that the reliance placed upon the earlier Award was improper and the correctness of the quantum of compensation was given under three different categories and the present Award taking note of the location and other factors relating to the land and combining all the three categories into one single category and granting of substantial increase in the rate of compensation was highly improper and contrary to the guidelines prescribed under sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition act. It is further contended that the Award relating to ONGC relied on by the Reference Court was based upon the Sale Deed dated 14.5.1997. It was considered as the data land for arriving at the compensation in those cases and that cannot be taken advantage by the present claimants. It is also alleged that the earlier data land relates to a small plot of land and that cannot be a sufficient exemplar to arrive at the correct market rate. This Court is unable to consider any one of the objections raised by the appellant. 7. The topo map, which is produced clearly shows that the lands acquired for the ONGC Tool Yard Stores is not different from the other lands. They were also acquired in the very same village or in the adjoining village. In the present cases, the acquiring authority had only erred in fixing different classification without reference to their own award passed in respect of the ONGC Tool Yard Stores regarding the neighbouring lands in that village. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The Supreme Court very recently in SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 had held that the commonality of purpose and unite development of the land even in adjoining village can be a factor for arriving at the market compensation. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the following passage found in paragraphs 75 to 77: 75. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. Instance of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair. 76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or different schemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt such a price a the same is not impermissible. Where there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Bal Ram. 77. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India where sale instances of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land." (Emphasis added). 9. When the fixation of market rate in respect of the ONGC Tool Yard Stores can be based upon a particular exemplar and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation has been awarded in respect of those lands, it is too late for the acquiring authority now to contend that the said exemplar is the sale of small plot and cannot be a basis. The acquiring authority cannot adopt two yardsticks, one for the land owners relating to acquisition for the ONGC Tool Yard Stores and the other for the other land owners covered by the Growth Centre. A.S.No.572 of 2009 and Cross Objection No.67 of 2009 10. The Reference Court in LAOP No.18/2003 fixed the compensation in respect of the acquisition of the land with two different rates. The compensation for the lands abetting the road was directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.4,793/- per Are and the interior lands at Rs.3,375/- per Are with deduction of 20% for development charges. In A.S.No.572/2009, the Award in in LAOP No.18/2003 is under challenge. The aggrieved land owner has filed Cross Objection No.67 of 2009 stating that there cannot be any two different classifications. Such a procedure was not done in respect of acquisition for ONGC Tool Yard Stores. This Court in other appeals filed by the Union Territory of Puducherry confirmed the award in respect of the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,832/- per Are, which is an uniform rate in respect of all lands and also found that for the land in which the ONGC Tool Yard Stores was located, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation in respect of their nearness to the main road. The entire purpose is to set up a single Growth Centre by PIPDIC. Therefore, correct rate of compensation was awarded. While dismissing A.S.No.572 of 2009 along with other appeals, for the very same reason Cross Objection No.67 of 2009 will stand allowed. The land owner in LAOP No.18/2003 will get Rs.4,793/- per Are together with other dues. 11. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal suits and all the appeal suits stand dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. Though a common judgment is rendered, the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) is entitled to get separate set of fees in respect of each appeal. ajr Sd/- Asst.Registrar. (20.12.10) **Corrected order to be issued as per letter dated 31.1.2011 Sd/- Asst. Registrar (25.2.11) /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal 2. The Special Judicial Officer for To be substituted Land Acquisition and the order already the Additional District and despatched on Sessions Judge, Pondicherry 21.1.2011 at Karaikal 3. The III Additional District Judge, **Pondicherry 4. The Additional District Judge, Karaikkal 5. The Principal District Judge, Pondicheery 6. The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Pondicherry 8. The Deputy Collector (Rev) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal 9. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, TNHB, Cuddalore 10. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to M/s. G.M. Mani Associates, Sr. 54899 1 cc to Government Pleader (Pondicherry), Sr. 54854 19 cc to Mr.R. Natarajan, Advocate, Sr. 54752, 54754, 54756, 54755, 54757, 54758, 54759, 54753, 54750, 54749, 54748, 54747, 54746, 54745, 54763, 54762, 54761, 54760, 54751 1 cc to M/s. K.M. Nalinisree, advocate, Sr. 54663 1 cc to Mr.Muthukumar, Advocate, Sr. 54662 9 ccs to Mr.T. Susindran, Advocate, Sr. 55658 1 cc to Mr.T.P. Manoharan, Advocate, Sr. 55195 5 ccs to M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocate, Sr. 55381, 55395, 55382, 55386, 55383 A.S.Nos.889 of 2004 & batch cases CK, PKB (CO) kk 29/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/