IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.481 of 1998 The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Thiruppattur, N.A.A.District. ... Appellant Vs. Lakshmiammal ... Respondent Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Thirupattur in LAOP No.36 of 1990, dated 21.04.1995. For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondent :: Mr.K.S.Karthik Rajan for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1995 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Thirupattur made in LAOP No.36 of 1990. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this LAOP would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 0.83.0 hectares in S.No.112/1B in Madhanancheri Village, 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.8,848/- per acre 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimant C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as court exhibits. 5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,448/- per acre to Rs.4/- per square foot. 6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The Sub Court simply relied on Ex.A5 the sale deed dated 07.11.1987 which emerged just one month anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 16.12.1987 and such an approach is antithetical to the well settled proposition of law; only 20% deduction was taken into account instead of 1/3rd; the Land Acquisition Officer correctly for assessing the compensation took into account the nature of the land viz., agricultural land based on Ex.B1 dated 29.04.1985. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the Sub Court. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing compensation from Rs.8,448/- per acre to Rs.4/- per square foot. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) placing reliance of the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that the Sub Court mainly relied on Ex.A4 which emerged only a month before publication of Section 4(1) Notification and it is quite obvious that such a document was brought about purely for the purpose of inflating the value of the land in that locality and to get more compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the land owner would invite the attention of this Court to Ex.A5 dated 07.11.1987 and advance his argument that the land covered under Ex.A5 is very near to the land acquired and it reflected the true market value; considering the value as contemplated in Ex.A4 dated 11.07.1986, the value as contemplated in Ex.A5 by no stretch of imagination could be termed or labelled as excessive. Accordingly, he prayed for the disposal of the appeal. 10. At the outset itself I would like to observe that even though there is some amount of proximity between Exs.A4 and A5 in specifying the value of the land in that locality, nevertheless Ex.A5 emerged only a month anterior to Section 4(1) Notification and hence it is not safe to rely on it. On the other hand, Ex.A4 the sale deed emerged on 11.07.1986 more than a year anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification which was made on 16.12.1987 and the Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court could have very much relied on Ex.A4 instead of Ex.A5. Whereas I could see no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondent in placing reliance on Ex.B1 the sale deed dated 29.04.1985 which emerged almost two years anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification with regard to agricultural land. It is a trite proposition of law that the purpose of acquisition should be taken into account. Here indubitably and unassailably the land acquired is for providing house sites to Adi Dravidar community people and in such a case, the plot value should be taken into consideration. Ex.A4 reflects the plot value of the land as the land acquired and the land conteplated in Ex.A4 are situated on either side of the road. 11. A bare perusal of the sketch available on record would evince that the land acquired in in survey No.112, whereas Ex.A4 relates to the land situated in survey No.103. Both those lands are situated on the either side of the road and nearer to each other. Hence Ex.A4 would be the proper document to be relied on. Accordingly if viewed, Ex.A4 would contemplate an extent of 504 sq.ft. having been sold for a sum of Rs.1963/- which means per square foot was sold in a sum of Rs.3.90 and it could be rounded to Rs.4/-. Since there did exist more than one year gap between Ex.A4 and publication of Section 4 (1) Notification, 10% increase could be given. Accordingly if viewed, it would come to Rs.4.40. However, the learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) would submit that 1/3rd has to be deducted. In my considered opinion, in all cases 1/3rd deduction need not be effected and it could differ from case to case. Here the land acquired is situated in S.No.103 measuring an extent of 2.05 acres and it is very nearer to the main road and Ex.A4 would also show that the property there is more or less in developing vicinity. 12. R.W.1 the Special Tahsildar concerned during cross examination would candidly and categorically state that the land acquired is near to School, Palvadi and also nearer to the road; there are also houses nearby the land acquired. Hence I am of the view that 20% deduction would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following formula emerges: Rate per sq.ft. - Rs.4.40 20% deduction towards development charges - Rs.0.88 Net - Rs.3.52 Rounded off to - Rs.3.50 13. Accordingly the judgment of the Sub Court shall stand modified to the effect that per square foot compensation has to be awarded at the rate of Rs.3.50 and I make it clear that the claimant is also entitled to other statutory benefits as per law including https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Subordinate Judge of Thirupattur. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman,Advocate,SR.4144 + 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.4200 A.S.No.481 of 1998 KLT(CO) EM/25.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/