IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU A.S. Nos.166, 490, 830 and 831 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.18 of 2007 in A.S.No.490 of 2006 and C.M.P.NO.5990 OF 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 The Land Acquisition Special Officer, (Sub Collector) Tindivanam .. Appellant in all appeal suits/ Referring Officer Venkatesan .. Cross Objector/Respondent Vs. G.Periyannan .. Respondent in A.S.No.166 of 2006 Venkatesan .. Respondent in A.S.No.490 of 2006 Ramu .. Respondent in A.S.No.830 of 2006 Kamatchi .. Respondent in A.S.No.831 of 2006 The Land Acquisition Special Officer, (Sub Collector) Tindivanam. .. Respondent in Cross objection These appeal suits have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and decree made in LAOP Nos.44 and 45 of 2003, dated 30.08.2005, LAOP Nos.25 and 26 of 2004, dated 23.3.2006 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. Cross objection No.18 of 2007 has been preferred under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the judgment and decree in LAOP No.45 of 2003, dated 30.08.2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(A.S.) in all Appeal Suits Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy for Cross objector For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy in all A.S. Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar for Railways Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(A.S.) in Cross objection C O M M O N J U D G M E N T Heard. 2. These four appeals were directed against LAOP Nos.44/2003, 45/2003, 25/2004 and 26/2004 respectively. In LAOP Nos.44 and 45 of 2003 judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court on 30.08.2005. In LAOP Nos.25 and 26 of 2004, a judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court on 23.3.2006. 3. The aggrieved land owner, who is the respondent in A.S.No.490 of 2006 had also filed Cross Objection 18 of 2007 seeking for further compensation. 4. The appellant land acquisition officer-cum-Sub- Collector, Tindivanam by an Award No.16/2001 dated 20.11.2001 acquired the land of the respondents in these appeals. The lands were acquired for the purpose of gauge conversion of the Railway Line between Chennai and Tiruchirapalli. The lands of the respondents in the Appeals were situated in Tindivanam Town in various re-survey numbers. The Acquiring Authority fixed the market rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.96,900/- per acre (Rs.969 per cent). 5.The aggrieved land owners were not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the Acquiring Authority. Hence, the issue was referred for determination by the jurisdictional Reference Court, which is the Court of Principal Sub-Judge, Tindivanam. The references were registered as various LAOPs and in the present appeals, they were LAOP Nos.44/2003, 45/2003, 25/2004 and 26/2004. 6. Before the reference Court (i.e. the Court below), in respect of each reference, separate judgment and decree was passed. In LAOP No.44 of 2003, on behalf of the land owner, the respondent Periannan and one Pachai were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2. On their behalf, a sale deed dated 27.03.1995 given in favour of one Pandurangan by Sundari was filed and marked as Ex.C.1. On the side of the acquiring authority, one Rajasekaran Thambi R.W.1 was examined. On their side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. 7. In LAOP No.45 of 2003, on behalf of the land owner, the respondent Venkatesan (cross objector in Cross.Obj.18/2007) was examined as C.W.1 and on his side, apart from Ex.C1 marked in LAOP https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.44/2003, a valuation certificate issued by licensed building Engineer was marked as Ex.C2. On the side of the acquiring authority, the same Rajasekaran Thambi R.W.1 was examined and on their side, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2. 8. On the basis of these materials, by a judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005, the Reference Court found that the compensation ordered by the Acquiring Authority was on the lower side and it fixed the market rate of compensation as Rs.10,000/- per cent. 9. Challenging the same, the appellant filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention raised by the appellant was that the reason given by the Reference Court was not valid and contrary to the guidelines prescribed under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The document relied upon in Exs.C1 and C2 are documents relating to sale of smaller extent of lands. The Reference Court was also erroneous in considering the lands as house sites. 10. In respect of LAOP Nos.25 and 26 of 2004, common evidence was let in and a common judgment and decree was passed on 23.03.2006. Before the reference Court, the respondent Ramu examined himself as C.W.1. On his side, 6 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C1 to C6. On the side of the acquiring authority, no witnesses were examined. In this LAOP, the same document as in the other two LAOPs, namely sale deed between Sundari and Pandurangan dated 27.03.1995 was marked as Ex.C3. The Reference Court found that the compensation ordered by the Acquiring Authority was on the lower side and therefore, it fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. 11. The ground taken in these LAOPs are also identical as that in the case of other two LAOPs. The land owner in LAOP No.490 of 2006, Venkatesan in his Cross Objection demanded enhanced compensation on the basis of rate per square feet. He claimed Rs.48/- per sq.ft for the land and in respect of the building, he claimed separate compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. 12. In view of the fact that all the four appeals as well as the cross objection related to the acquisition for the same purpose and located in the same village, they were grouped and heard together. 13. The Acquiring Authority for the purpose of arriving at the market rate for the land gathered statistics from various sale transactions that had taken place three years before the date of 4 (1) notification namely 10.05.2000 collected from the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam II. It was found that 64 transactions had taken place in the said area during that period. The Acquiring Authority rejected most of the transactions on the ground that either the sale had taken place long before or it is a prior sale or a joint sale or the soil, Taram and quality were different. Sl.No.54 was rejected on the ground that it was sold as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a house site. Therefore, he only took note of the land in Punjai 7-1-3 as a basis and the lands in re-survey numbers 55/2, 56/5, it was sold as per acre 96,900/- and took that as a basis data land. Similarly, in S.Nos.53/3 and 53/4, the guidelines value it showed for Punja land was Rs.96.900/- per acre. Therefore, he fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs.96.900/- per acre on the basis of the land classification as punja land. 14. The Trial Court in its judgment and decree found that the lands were situated adjacent to the National Highways and adjacent to the Railway track. The sale transaction that took place before the acquisition was not taken into account. It also found that R.W.1 in his evidence had admitted that the land acquired is a residential area and therefore, it found that the compensation awarded was on the lower side and agreed with the rate found on the sale deed produced by the claimant land owners. The Award enquiry in respect of Re-survey No.53/3A, the land belonged to Ramu the respondent in A.S.No.830 of 2006, Kamatchi,the respondent in A.S.No.831 of 2006 showed that there was a house found with Mangalore tiles as well as thatched house in the land. Similarly in the re-survey No.55/12A belonging to Venkatesan, respondent in A.S.No.490 of 2006 and Cross Objector in 18/2007, the award enquiry itself showed that there is one-storeyed house, tiled house and thatched house found and there were also bathrooms and toilets. Therefore, the land owner during the enquiry claimed compensation for the house. In support of his claim, Venkatesan also produced Ex.C2 which is a valuation certificate produced from a licensed builidng Engineer. There are no contra evidence on the side of the appellant. 15. It is rather unfortunate in LAOP Nos.44 and 45 of 2003 one office assistant of the Sub-Collector office alone was examined. In LAOP Nos.25 and 26 of 2004, no evidence was let in by the appellant. It goes without saying that the cumulative effect of the evidence let in by the land owners proved that the lands are situated in the urban limits of Tindivanam Municipality and houses have also come up in the land in question. Therefore,it cannot be assessed as a Punja land and they had already become house sites coming within the municipal limits. These facts were also found reflected in the Award enquiry. It is surprising as to how the Acquiring Officer did not grant separate compensation in respect of the house which was lost by one of the respondent land owner. Infact the said respondent had taken efforts to bring a valuation certificate from an Engineer which is not disputed. The Award enquiry itself had showed that there was one storeyed tiled house and thatched house with bath rooms and toilets. Therefore, the land owner/Cross Objector is also entitled to get separate compensation in respect of the building located in the land which were acquired. 16. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 has held that a reference under Section 18 is not an appeal. The acquiring authority must place materials and convince the Reference Court to accept their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ valuation. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 4(1) and 4(3): "4(1)A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. 3)The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. 17. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124, in paragraph 7 observed as follows:- "7. ...Though the Attorney General repeatedly referred to the statistical data of the market value in 1980-82 at Rs.10 to 15 per square foot, it is equally settled law that the data is not evidence unless evidence is adduced." 18. In so far as the rate of compensation is concerned, the potential value of the land also plays a vital role. Once it is established that it is adjacent to National Highways to the existing meter gauge, certainly potential value of the land must also be a relevant factor. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Sangunthala Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 has held that relative advantage in facilities available on acquired land has to be considered and potentiality for its immediate use and land being closer to residential colonies, the value should be with reference to its location. In paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34, the Supreme Court held as follows: "24.In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the RWs is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future. 25.The other important factor is the proximity of the plots to two residential colonites i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on record that Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to conclude that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonites. 26.It should also be taken into consideration that the disputed lands were situated near the factory premises and further were adjoining the main road which connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaid lands are potential house sites. ..... 34.In view of the admitted case that the lands acquired were potential house sites we do not agree with the views taken by the High Court while calculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are the two sale deeds containing particulars of the sale transactions held three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court after close perusal of the aforesaid documents held that the same disclose that out of more than 100 sales, a number of sales in respect of the lands were sold as house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village and the adjacent survey numbers in Thekkampatty Village were also sold as house sites." 19. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of found by the Reference Court. Hence, all the four Appeal Suits filed by the Acquiring Authority will stand dismissed. 20. The claim made by the cross objector for a compensation of Rs.48/- per sq.ft also cannot be granted in the absence of any proof regarding the same. Hence, as far as the land is concerned, the Cross Objector can get the compensation only at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. With reference to the house, since the cross objector had produced Ex.C2 before the Reference Court which was not controverted by the appellant, he is entitled to get compensation on the value of the house as per the valuation certificate which is valued at Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, the Cross Objection is partly allowed. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 4 cc To Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate, SR.2847 to 2850 4 cc To Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar, Advocate, SR.3346 to 3349 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.2982 JUDGMENT IN A.S. Nos.166, 490, 830 and 831 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.18 of 2007 in A.S.No.490 of 2006 TEJ (CO) RH (11.3.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/