IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH A.S.No.729 of 2004 Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar, Unit-IV Outer Ring Road Project Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore,Chennai – 600 008. .... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. 1. K.Chamundeswari .... Respondent/Claimant 2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore, Chennai -8. .... Respondents/Beneficiary Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.179 of 2001 dated 22.9.2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P. For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Subramanian forR.1 Mr.C.Kathiravan for R.2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the award passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.179 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, wherein the reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.902/- per cent to Rs.36,000/- per cent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Proceedings have been initiated by the appellant for acquiring lands an extent of 0.30.5 hectares situated in S.NO.363/1A 1A situated in Thandarai village, Poonamallee Taluk for the purpose of formation of outer ring road. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 9.12.1998 and thereafter award was passed in award No.1/2000 dated 30.11.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.902/- per cent and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent/claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Poonamallee. The reference Court has enhanced the said amount of compensation to Rs.36,000/- per cent. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the reference Court has erroneously taken into consideration of the document filed by the claimant in Ex.C.5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the sale deed involved in Ex.C.5 pertains to a land which is far away from the acquired land and therefore the value mentioned therein ought not to have been taken into consideration. It is the further submission the learned Government Pleader that the deductions made by the reference Court are not proper and sufficient since admittedly the acquired land is an undeveloped agricultural land. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that there is no dispute regarding the potential value of the land. The said fact has also been admitted by R.W.1 in his evidence. The reference Court has taken into consideration of the potential value of the land and its nearness to the developed lands and has rightly fixed the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the value mentioned in Ex.C.5 being a higher value the same is correctly taken into consideration by the reference Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the reference Court has considered the development charges and made deduction from Rs.50,000/- per cent to Rs.36,000/- per cent. Yet another argument made by the learned counsel is that the land involved under Ex.C.5 pertains to the year 1997, whereas the date of publication of the 4(1) notification is 1998. Therefore, the reference Court has not taken into consideration of the proposed enhancement while relying upon Ex.C.5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, the reference Court is bound to take into consideration of the sale deed, which is advantageous to the claimants. Ex.C.5 has been taken into consideration by the reference Court. While fixing the value, this Court will have to sit in the arm chair of the intending seller. Useful reference can be had in this regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in SPL.TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISTIION) KRISHNA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT UNIT – 3, THIRUVALLUR VS. RATHINA REDDI (2003) 1 MLJ 781, wherein similar view has been expressed by the Bench of this Court. We have also perused the map produced by the learned Government Pleader, which would also indicate that the land covered under Ex.C.5 is nearer to the acquired land. The reference Court has not taken into consideration about the proposed enhanced value. Admittedly, the sale deed Ex.C.5 pertains to the year 1997, whereas the publication under Section 4(1) was made on 9.12.1998. However, the reference Court has not made proper deduction towards the development charges. The deduction made by the reference Court towards development charges, in our view, is inadequate. Useful reference can be had to the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in SUBH RAM AND OTHERS VS. HARYANA STATE AND ANOTHER, (2009) 8 MLJ 979, wherein the Apex Court after taking into consideration of the purpose of the acquisition, which is for the formation of Highways has made deduction towards development charges for 40 percent instead of 50 percent or 67 percent in the normal circumstances. The Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold that in view of the location of the acquired land and the proximity towards the developed area, 40 percent deduction can be made in such a situation. 6. We are of the opinion that the facts involved in the said case are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Hence, while accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/claimants that the suitable increase should be made for relying upon Ex.C.5 by way of enhancing the value by 10 percent. We are of the opinion that the reference Court has committed an error in not making proper deductions towards the development charges, having regard to the fact that the acquired land is an agricultural one. However, in the case on hand, there is an admission by R.W.1 himself that the land has been developed and it has been surrounded by fully developed area. Hence, taking into consideration of the above said admission and on the peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a fit case where 1/3rd deduction can be made out of the value fixed under Ex.C.5 for Rs.45,000/- per cent. Hence, by taking into consideration of the same, by deducting 1/3rd amount out of the value fixed as per Ex.C.5 of Rs.45,000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- per cent is arrived at. By adding 10 percent increase of a sum of Rs.4,500/-, a sum of Rs.34,500/- per cent is arrived at. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Hence, the award of the reference Court is hereby modified by fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs.34,500/- per cent. It is made clear that the respondents/claimants are entitled for other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. The appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent indicated above. No costs. usk Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar Copy to: 1.The Addl.District Judge-FastTrack Court No.IV. Poonamallee. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. C. Kathiravan, Advocate SR No.1544 + 1 cc to Mr. M.S.Subramanian, Advocate SR No.1320 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.1197 SP(CO) SR/25.1.2010 A.S.No.729 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/