Iyasamy & Anr vs Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition

6 learned counsel for appellants contended that the

deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges is illegal

and not sustainable.

1. We have considered the evidence on record and appreciated

the documents to determine the just and fair market

value of the acquired lands. The High Court by its

impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2003

considered Exhibit C3 which is a sale deed in which the

sale of the adjoining land was made at the rate of Rs.

10/- per sq ft. The evidence produced further proves that

this land is on the Nasiyanur Road and very near and

almost adjacent to the land acquired. Therefore, this

piece of evidence is very valuable and dependable for

determining the market value in the present case.

However, this sale deed pertains to a small portion of

land i.e. one acre and four cents, while the acquired land

is a large tract of land.

7

1. The legal position in this regard has been reiterated by this

court time and again. It was held in Smt.Kausalya Devi

Bogra and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad

& Anr. reported at (1984) 2 SCC 324, (in paragraph 13)

that: -

"Where large tracts of land are acquired, valuation in transaction in regard to smaller properties does not offer a proper guideline and therefore, cannot be taken a real basis for determining compensation. For determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given."

Besides, in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana reported at

(2003) 1 SCC 354 it was held that (in paragraph 7):-

"It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations

8 depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes."

1. If we assess the market value of the land acquired at Rs.

10/- per sq ft. on the basis of Ex. C3 and deduct 1/3 rd

towards development charges, it comes approximately to

Rs. 6.25 per sq ft. As far as Exs. 15, 16 and 17 are

concerned, in those documents, transaction were made

at the rate 20/- per sq. ft. But the lands pertaining to

those sale deeds are highly developed and better located

being situated right on the Manickampalayam road not

very far from the Mettur road, and the Municipal Colony.

Therefore, if a deduction of 65% should be made as is

done in some cases decided by this Court, the valuation

would come to Rs. 6.25/-. The aforesaid lands covered by

the three exhibits are land of better quality, and better

location with better connectivity. Besides, these are small

pieces of land compared to a large tract of land acquired

9 in the present case. Therefore, a deduction of 65% of

land value appears to be just and appropriate. For

quality and location of land, if deduction is permissible at

1/3rd valuation and for smaller piece of land pitted

against large tract of land also another 1/3 rd deduction is

permissible, the same would again amount to valuation

being fixed at Rs. 6/- or Rs. 6.25/-. This amount of

compensation was awarded by the High Court in respect

of acquired lands in LAOP Nos. 22/87, 24/87, 26/87

and 410/00. The lands in LAOP Nos. 22/87, 24/87,

26/87 and 410/00 have an access to road which

connects Nasiyanur Road and Manickampalayam Road,

however, such advantages are not available to the land in

the present case as the same are landlocked plots.

Therefore, we uphold the compensation at the rate of Rs.

6/- per sq. ft. in respect of present lands as awarded by

the High Court.

1

1. There is also other guidance available on record to

determine the valuation in the form of various awards with

respect to acquisition of adjoining lands. These awards are

important piece of evidence for arriving at the market value

acquired land in view of the decision of this court in

Mohammad Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer

reported at (2009) 14 SCC 367, wherein it was held that

(paragraph 21): -

"....reliance on earlier judgment in respect of a land situated in the same village, acquired only six months ago, could not be said to be an irrelevant factor affecting the determination of market value/ compensation in respect of the land of the appellant."

1. The High Court in A.S. No. 875 of 1991 and cross-

objection No. 253 of 1992 fixed the market value at

Rs. 6, 99, 934/- for one acre and ten cents, which works

out to Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. The lands are situated in S.No.

147/1, Periasemur village acquired for the same public

purpose pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Act

dated 15.07.1981. Though the revenue village is different,

1 the lands are located very adjacent and in the same locality

having similar facilities. Similarly in A.S. No. 137 of 1993

and the cross-objection No. 72 of 1994, the Division Bench

of the High Court fixed the market value of the land Rs.

5.53 per sq. ft. In this matter the land was covered by S.No.

145/1,2,3 and 4, Erode village acquired for the same Erode

neighbourhood scheme by the notification dated 5/1/1981,

which is next to the present acquired land. In A.S. No. 584

of 1986 in which adjoining land was acquired via

notification dated 14-3-1973, the division bench of the High

Court fixed the market value Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. Since all

these awards have become final and binding, therefore

reliance could be placed on the same. Consequently, the

reasonable compensation and fair market value of the

present acquired land should be Rs. 6/- per sq.ft.

1. The learned counsel for Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.

1760-1761/04 are also claiming interest on solatium and

additional compensation as the impugned order of the High

1 Court was pronounced prior to judgment in Sunder v.

Union of India reported at (2001) 7 SCC 211. Since the

present appeal was pending before this court, therefore, the

ratio of Sunder v. Union of India would entitle the

appellants to receive interest on solatium under section 23

(2) and additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) in

terms of the said decision. It was decided in Gurpreet

Singh v. Union of India reported at (2006) 8 SCC 457 that

such interest can be claimed only from the date of the

judgment in Sunder (supra) i.e. 19.9.2001. Therefore, the

appellants in the Civil Appeal Nos. 1760-1761/04 shall be

entitled to such interest for the period after 19.9.2001, not

the period prior to the same.

1. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in

these appeals to interfere with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the High Court and

accordingly, dismiss the Civil Appeal Nos. 6875-6877/04

and 7434/04. However, we partly allow the Civil Appeal

1 Nos. 1760-1761/04 with respect to interest on solatium

u/s 23(2) and additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of the

Act, which shall be guided by observations and

directions made in paragraph 11 above. The parties are

left to bear their own cost.

............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

............................................J [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, September 30, 2010

1