Manimegalai vs The Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2294-2295 OF 2011

Manimegalai .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare .... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) The above appeals have been filed against the judgment

and order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in A.S. Nos. 88 and 601 of 2001 and

Cross Objection No. 27 of 2007 whereby learned single Judge

of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent

while dismissing the cross objection filed by the appellant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

herein.

ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.04.16 15:10:06 IST Reason: 1

2) Brief facts:

(a) On 15.09.1993, the Government of Tamil Nadu, issued a

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (in short ‘the LA Act’) for acquisition of dry lands for the

purpose of providing house sites to 250 landless poor Adi

Dravidars in Acharapakkam Village, Madurandagam Taluk,

Chengai, MGR District, Madras, having an extent of 4.30.0

hectares or 10.62 acres.

(b) The lands belonging to the appellant herein in Survey

Nos. 300/2A2, 300/3, 302/1A, 302/4, 317/1B2, 302/2B2B

and 320/2C2 were part of the said acquisition. The Land

Acquisition Officer, after complying with the formalities

required in connection with the acquisition of land under the

LA Act, passed an Award dated 22.03.1995, determining a

sum of Rs. 400/- per cent as compensation to the appellant

herein.

(c) Being aggrieved by the meager compensation, a

Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act was sought, seeking

market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-

2

per cent before the Subordinate Court, Madurantagam which

was filed as L.A.O.P. No. 120 of 1998. Learned subordinate

Judge, vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2000, granted

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent together with

30% solatium and 12% additional amount from the date of

issue of Notification dated 15.09.1993.

(d) Respondent herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 27.03.2000, filed A.S. No. 88 of 2001 before the

High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide

judgment and order dated 06.11.2009 allowed the appeal filed

by the respondent herein by reducing the amount of

compensation granted by learned subordinate Judge from Rs.

2,500/- to Rs. 1,670/- with solatium and other statutory

benefits.

(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2009,

the appellant has filed these appeals by way of special leave

before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the

appellant. None appeared from the side of the respondent and

perused the records.

3 Point for consideration:-

4) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the

case the decision of the High Court is just and reasonable in

reducing the compensation?

Rival submissions:-

5) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

compensation awarded for the acquired lands was grossly

inadequate and abnormally low and does not reflect the

correct market value of the said lands. He further contended

that the market value of the acquired lands at the relevant

time was not less than Rs. 20,000/- per cent. The potential

value of the acquired lands and rise in price were not

considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned counsel

finally contended that the High Court also erred in law while

computing the market value of the lands in question and

interference by this Court is sought for in this regard.

6) It was the stand of the respondent before the courts

below that the entire land belonging to the claimant was not

acquired but a portion of it alone was acquired. The

4 remaining portion could be used by the claimant. Further, the

respondent is not entitled to pay compensation for the

unacquired land. It was further the stand of the respondent

that the compensation awarded to the claimant is already on

the higher side as compared to the compensation awarded to

the lands in vicinity and no interference is sought for by this

Court in this regard.

Discussion:-

7) The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification for

the acquisition of dry lands, also known as punja lands, for

the purpose of providing house sites to the people. Certain

punja lands belonged to the appellant herein in Survey Nos.

300/2A2, 300/3, 302/1A, 302/4, 317/1B2, 302/2B2B and

320/2C2 were also part of the said acquisition. In the

proceedings before the Special Tahsildar, a notice inviting

objections was published in the village on 18.10.1993.

Subsequently, in the enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act,

the appellant herein submitted her objections to the proposed

acquisition and contended inter-alia that her total holdings

were 6.11 acres and out of the same, an extent of 4.63 acres

5 had been acquired, thereby, leaving a balance of 1.48 acres

and the same would be rendered useless. Hence, she prayed

that even the said extent also be acquired. However, the

respondent herein affirmed the acquisition only in respect of

4.63 acres of land.

8) An Award enquiry was undertaken by the respondent

wherein appellant herein claimed compensation at the rate of

Rs. 20,000/- per cent for the land acquired. The respondent

herein, on the basis of a sale deed dated 15.04.1993, wherein

an extent of 0.26 acres had been sold in Survey No.

294/A/1-B 16, proceeded to determine the value of the land at

Rs. 400/- per cent. In pursuance of the same, the land

measuring 4.63 acres was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,200/-

along with 30% solatium to the tune of Rs. 55,560/- and 12%

additional market value to the tune of Rs. 33,540/- thus

totaling to Rs. 2,74,309/-. However, it was held that no

severance compensation would be payable.

9) Aggrieved by the Award, the appellant sought for a

Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The appellant thus

made a Reference to the Court of Additional Subordinate

6 Judge, Chengalpattu which was numbered as LAOP No. 54 of

1995. The appellant herein submitted her claim statement on

the file of LAOP No. 54 of 1995 contending that the

compensation awarded by the respondent was grossly

inadequate and abnormally low and did not reflect the correct

market value of the lands and that the correct market value of

the lands acquired was not less than Rs. 20,000/- per cent on

the date of the Notification and that the acquired lands were

situated in the midst of developed areas and is connecting the

major big areas in the vicinity. LAOP No. 54 of 1995, which

was pending on the file of learned Additional Subordinate

Judge, Chengalpattu was transferred to the file of learned

subordinate Judge, Madurantagam and re-numbered as LAOP

No. 120 of 1998. Vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2000,

learned subordinate Judge, granted compensation to the

appellant herein at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent together

with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount from the date of

Notification which was reduced to Rs. 1,670/- per cent with

solatium and other statutory benefits by learned single Judge

7 of the High Court in appeal vide judgment and order dated

06.11.2009.

10) Since the acquired lands are situated in different survey

numbers, different quantum of compensation has been

awarded for the lands so acquired. The general principles

which have been followed in assessing the compensation

payable in all these matters are the location of the lands

sought to be acquired, their potential for development, their

proximity to areas which are already developed and the

exorbitant rise in the value of the lands over the years. In

some of the cases, the authorities have taken recourse to the

comparison method in regard to the sale transactions effected

in respect of similar land in the area under the notifications

close to the date of notification by which the lands of the

appellant were acquired. The courts have also taken recourse

to assessing the value of the lands for the purposes of

compensation on a uniform rate in respect of the lands

acquired, making a special concession in respect of the lands

which are close to the roads and national highways where a

certain amount of development had already taken place.

8 Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the

owner who parts with his property and not the value to the

new owner who takes it over. Fair and reasonable

compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be

paid to the willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for

“just terms” or “just compensation”, but the market value is to

be assessed taking into consideration the use to which it is

being put on acquisition and whether the land has unusual or

unique features or potentialities.

11) Similarly, public purpose is not capable of precise

definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of the

purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to serve the

general interest of the community as opposed to the particular

interest of the individual. Public purpose broadly speaking

would include the purpose in which the general interest of the

society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual

is directly and vitally concerned. Generally the executive would

be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned

purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the purview

of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a section of the society may

9 be public purpose when it is benefited by the acquisition. The

acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the

welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or

group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition

for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done

compulsorily.

12) In the case at hand, it is a matter of record that the said

land is fit for using the same for house sites and situated

adjacent to the National highway and is also near to the busy

area with various facilities. During the course of proceeding,

various sale deeds of adjacent lands were brought to our

knowledge. It is also undisputed fact that the entire land

belonging to the appellant herein was not acquired but a

portion of it alone had been acquired. It is the grievance of the

appellant that the acquisition of land to the extent of 4.63

acres out of total holding of 6.11 acres, rendering the balance

land to be an uneconomical holding for the purpose of

continuing agriculture operations. There is no doubt that the

land owners have to suffer when their lands acquired under

10 the LA Act. Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu

of their lands to do proper justice.

13) Since the point of consideration before this Court is

related to the amount of compensation, we confine ourselves

to that point only. Learned subordinate Judge, vide judgment

and order dated 27.03.2000 rightly held as under:-

“….There is a railway track in between the data land and acquired land. Therefore, while considering on the said angle, the nature of the acquired land and the data land are not similar. On considering the plan marked on behalf of the claimant and on behalf of the respondent i.e. Exh. B-2, it is evident that acquired lands are situated in between the national highway and railway track. The acquired lands are nearer to the National highway. The respondent has admitted in the cross examination that the acquired lands are acquired for housing purpose, as it is fit for using as housing plots. As the acquired lands are fit for housing purpose, the claimants have relied on sale transactions that are sold nearer to the acquired land, i.e. Exh. A-1, a sale deed dated 20.11.1992 relating to land in S.No. 323, under which 9374 sq ft. of land has been sold for Rs. 1,03,200/- at the rate of Rs. 4,919/- per cent. Similarly, under the sale deed dated 22.03.1993, an extent of 8 cents have been sold for Rs. 39,150/- at the rate of Rs. 4,893/- per cent. Under Exh. B-3 sale deed dated 09.07.1993 an extent of 3 ½ cents in S.No. 326/1W2 and 325/1A4A have been sold for Rs. 22,900/- at the rate of Rs. 6,545/- per cent.

14) Learned subordinate Judge, further held as under:-

13) In Exh.B-4, an extent of 2 cents of land in S. No. 123 has been sold for Rs. 4,752/-. The above sale transactions took place prior to the notification issued under Section 4(1) but the said transactions have been considered and rejected by the respondents. The reason for rejecting Exh. B-3 is that the land is a house site situated adjacent to the national

11 highway. While considering the reason for rejection is acceptable or not, the respondents themselves have admitted that the acquired lands are fit to be converted as house sites.

As the acquisition of land is for house sites, the non acceptance of value of the house site and acceptance of the value of agricultural land in S.No. 294, is not acceptable. The sale deeds Exh.A-1 to A-4 submitted on behalf of the claimant are relating to the lands in S.No. 323, 325 and 326, situate adjacent to National Highway and the value of those lands are more than Rs. 4,000/- per cent which has been accepted by the government itself, as market value while registering the document. As the government has accepted Rs. 4,000/- per cent as market value, the valuation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent is very low. The acquired lands are situated 2 or 3 survey numbers away from the lands relating to the survey numbers in Exh. A-1 to A-4. Even though the valuation of the acquired land cannot be fixed as stated in those sale deeds, it could be fixed to its potential at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent as compensation to the claimants.”

15) An assessment of the compensation payable for land

acquired must take into account several factors, including the

nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher

potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the

use to which neighbouring land has been put to use, the

impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on. In the

case at hand, the respondent determined the value of the suit

land based on the sale deed dated 15.04.1993 under which 26

cents in S.No. 294/A/1-B16 had been sold at the rate of Rs.

400/- per cent which has happened five months prior to the

date of acquisition of the suit land and that land has been

12 taken as data land. Learned subordinate Judge very correctly

appreciated the fact that there is a railway track between the

data land and the acquired land and in that view of the

matter, both the lands cannot be considered as similar. It is

also evident that the acquired lands are in the midst of a

railway track and national highway having capacity for higher

potential. An extent of land in S.No. 323 which was adjacent

to the suit land was sold at the rate of Rs. 4,919/- per cent on

20.11.1992. Similarly, under the sale deed dated 22.03.1993,

an extent of 8 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 4,893/-

per cent. There is no doubt that the lands which are situated

adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than

the lands which are situated beyond the road. Though learned

single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there

was no basis of granting Rs. 2,500/- per cent for the suit

lands, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the

alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a

very short time amply prove its value in relation to the

adjoining lands. Learned subordinate Judge was right in

holding the potential value of the suit lands.

13 Conclusion:-

16) In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit

in the order passed by learned single Judge of the High Court.

We set aside the order passed by the High Court dated

06.11.2009 and restore the order passed by the Reference

Court dated 27.03.2000. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 2294

of 2011 arising out of A.S. No. 88 of 2001 before the High

Court is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2011 arising out

of Cross Objection No. 27 of 2007 before the High Court is

dismissed with no order as to costs.

...…………………………………J. (R.K. AGRAWAL)

…………….………………………J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2018.

14