Case: Balammal &amp; Ors. Etc Vs. State Of Madras &amp; Ors.Etc

2. The Legislature of the Province of Madras enacted the Madras City Improvement Trust Act 16 of 1945, to provide, inter alla, for improvement and expansion of the City of Madras by opening up congested areas. Under Sec. 8 of the Act a Board of Trustees, with power to carry out the provisions of the Act, is to be constituted. The Board is empowered by the Act to frame a scheme to be called "Town Expansion Scheme", and to notify the scheme and also to publish it in the Government Gazette. After considering the objections raised by persons affected by the scheme the Government may sanction the improvement scheme with or without modifications and announce the fact by notification. Publication of the notification is conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. The Board shall then proceed with the execution of the scheme. The Board is by virtue of Section 71 authorised, with the previous sanction of the Government, to acquire land under the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for carrying out any of the purposes of the Act. Section 72 authorises the Government to constitute a Tribunal for performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Reasoning:
5. The Land Acquisition Officer declined to award 15 per cent solatium to the owners of the lands. He valued the lands according to a scheme of classification of lands to which we will presently refer, and determined the compensation awardable to the owners on that basis. References were then made at the instance of the owners under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes Madras, for enhanced compensation. The Chief Judge awarded enhanced compensation and in additions thereto awarded 15 per cent solatium on the market value of the land. Against the awards made by the Chief Judge, appeals were Preferred by the State of Madras and by the owners of the lands. The High Court modified the awards made by the Chief Judge and determined the market value of the lands at rates in excess of the rates at which the Chief Judge had awarded compensation, hut set aside the order awarding 15 percent solatium on the market value. Against the awards made by the High Court these appeals are preferred by the State and by the owners of the lands. In Appeals Nos. 513 648 and 960-967 of 1965 filed by the State, modification in the rates of market value made by the High Court for determining the compensation has been challenged. In Appeals Nos. 489, 514 645-647, 650, 651, 989-993 of l965 and 2109 and 2228 of 1966 filed by the owners of the lands the claimants have claimed 15 per cent solatium which has been denied to them by the High Court and have also claimed additional compensation.But, in our judgment, counsel for the owners are right in contending the sub-cl. (2) of Cl. 6 of the Schedule to Act 37 of 1950, insofar as it deprived the owners of the lands of the statutory addition to the market value of the lands under S. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act is violative of the equality clause of the Constitution, and is on that account void. If the State had acquired the lands for improvement of the town under the Land Acquisition Act. the acquiring authority was bound to award in addition to the market value 15 per cent solatium under S. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. But by acquiring the lands under the Land Acquisition Act as modified by the Schedule to the Madras City Improvement Trust Act 37 of 1950 for the Improvement Trust which also is a public purpose, the owners are it is claimed deprived of the right to the statutory additions. An owner of land is ordinarily entitled to receive the solatium in addition to the market value for compulsory acquisition of his land, it is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, but not if it is acquired under the Madras City Improvement Trust Act. A clear case of discrimination which infringes the guarantee of equal protection of the law arises and the provision which is more prejudicial to the owners of the lands which are compulsorily acquired must on the decisions of this court, be deemed invalid.We, therefore, hold that C1. 6 sub-cl. (2) of the Schedule read with S. 73 of Madras Act 37 of 1950 which deprives the owners of the statutory right to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the market value of the lands is invalid and the owners of the lands are entitled to the statutory solatium under S. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in consideration of compulsory acquisition of their lands.15. We may now turn to the argument that rates at which compensation was awarded to the owners of the lands was not justified by the evidence. Two schemes were framed by the Board of Trustees - (1) Mandavalli Scheme; and (2) Mowbrays Road Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands in the Mandavalli Scheme into two groups -the developed group and the undeveloped group. He designated small sites requiring no further improvement and which were ready for being built upon as developed lands and the rest as undeveloped lands and fixed the market value of the developed lands at Rs. 1,550 per ground. In determining the value of undeveloped lands he reduced an amount of Rs. 500 per ground being the estimated proportionate share of the cost for setting apart land for roads and for providing amenities and fixed the market value at Rs. 1,050 per ground. Further adjustments were made in that rate for lands in individual cases in the light of their situation. The Chief Judge adopted the classification made by the Land Acquisition Officer, and assessed the land value of developed plots at Rs. 2, 000 per ground. For arriving at the value [or undeveloped lands he reduced the value by Rs. 500 per ground for roads and cost of development and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per ground. The High Court also accepted the grouping of the lands into two broad groups as adopted by the Chief Judge and the Land Acquisition Officer, and further sub-divided the developed plots into "nice desirable plots exceeding one ground and below three grounds, and facing well-known, convenient and already formed roads" and "standard developed plots". The former were Group K-A lands which were valued at Rs. 2,250 per ground, and the latter which were called Group I-B, lands were valued at Rs. 2,000 per ground. In the view of the High Court a reduction of Rs. 400 per ground for the value of standard developed lands was adequate to meet the expenses for providing amenities. The basic value of undeveloped plots was assessed at Rs. 1,600 per ground. Having regard, however, to the superior situation of some of the undeveloped plots they grouped them into Group 2-A and awarded Compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,750 per ground, and for one plot which in view of its "desirable situation" was awarded the rate of Rs. 1,850 per ground. The remaining lands which were called Group 2-B lands were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per ground.On behalf of the State it is urged that the High Court erred in increasing the value of the lands in the Mowbrays Road Scheme and that the High Court should have maintained the order of the Chief Judge relating to those lands. On behalf of the owners of the lands it is urged, especially for the lands in the Mandavalli Scheme, that there were transactions of sale proximate in time to the date on which the notification under S. 47 of Act 16 of 1945 was issued, which disclosed a rate of market value varying between Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 per ground, and the Chief Judge and the High Court were not justified in accepting the lowest rate as determinative of the market value of the lands in the neighbourhood. But the instances relied upon by the owners are of sales of very small pieces of land approximately of one-half of a ground or less, and we do not think that the High Court has committed any error of principle in rejecting the higher rates furnished by instances of the sale of tiny pieces of land. Again no evidence was led before the Chief Judge that the sale transactions reflected the current rate of market value of lands in the locality, and that the prices paid were not affected by specialsays that in all cases after the notification is issued, there is a considerable time-lag and the title to the land is extinguished only when the land vests absolutely in the Government under S. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act free from all encumbrances. He says that whereas the compensation payable is the market value prevailing on the date of the issue of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the title of the owners to the land is extinguished on the date on which possession is taken, and on that account compensation is determined with reference to a date which in some cases may be years before the date on which the title is extinguished.Mr. Thiagarajan appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeals Nos. 650 and 651 of 1954 contended that no adequate compensation was awarded to the owners in respect of charges for severance. Counsel submitted that a part of the compound of a Cinema Theatre was acquired compulsorily and that deprived the owner of the land of the facility of providing additional amenities to the patrons of the theatre and also of making constructions on the land expanding the business, and on that account the owners were entitled to compensation either under "Thirdly" or Fourthly" or "Sixthly" of S. 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Under these clauses the damage sustained by the person interested by reason of severing such land from his other land, or by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property movable or immovable in any other manner, or his earnings, or the damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under S. 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land may be awarded to the owners. But there is no evidence on the record to which our attention was invited which supported the case of the appellants to compensation under any of the clauses.There is nothing to prove that the owners had sustained any loss by reason of the severance of the land from their other lands, nor is there any evidence to prove that by reason of the acquisition the remaining lands were injuriously affected or the earnings of the owners were affected, nor is there any evidence to show that there was any damage resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration and the time of taking possession of the land. The High Court has awarded Rs. 2,500 as compensation for severance, and we see no reason to interfere with that order.