Munusamy vs the State of Tamil Nadu the Land Acquisition Officer Special Tahsildar

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 398 of 2010

MUNUSAMY …Appellant

Versus

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER …Respondent

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in AS No.1222 of 2001 by which the High

Signature Not Verified Court has partly allowed the said appeal and has enhanced the Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.09.29 17:02:51 IST Reason: amount of compensation to Rs.232.45 per cent for the land 2

acquired, original land owner – claimant has preferred the present

appeal.

1.1 The land admeasuring 0.73.0 hectare (1.80 acres) of land

situated in village Anniyalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, District

Dharamapuri, Tamil Nadu came to be acquired for the public

purpose. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on

27.09.1990/11.01.1991. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act

was published on 12.12.1991. The Collector, Land Acquisition vide

his award dated 16.03.1993 assessed the compensation of the

land acquired at Rs.39,506/- per hectare i.e. Rs.16000/- per acre.

At the instance of the land owner a reference was made under

Section 18 of the Act to the District Court - Reference Court. The

Learned Sub Judge, Hosur by its judgment and order dated

10.11.1997 assessed the market value at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order passed by the Learned Reference Court assessing the

compensation of the land acquired at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre – the

Land Acquisition Officer preferred the appeal before the High Court

and by impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly 3

allowed the said appeal and assessed/determined the

compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court

assessing/determining the compensation for the land acquired at

Rs.232.45 per cent, the original owner/claimant has preferred the

present appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case the High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the

amount of compensation awarded by the Learned Reference

Court.

4.1 It is submitted that as such the Learned Reference Court has

rightly awarded the enhanced compensation for the land acquired

at Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon document/sale deed dated

11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land

suitable for construction of the houses and situated very close to

the Village Anniyalam came to be sold at Rs.2977 per cent. 4

4.2 It is further submitted that as such the High Court has

wrongly discarded the document/sale deed Ex.C1 which otherwise

was reflecting the correct market value and it was a genuine and

bona fide transaction. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant that as such no cogent reasons have

been given by the High Court while reducing the compensation to

Rs.232.45 per cent.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State has vehemently submitted that as such in the facts and

circumstances of the case the High Court has rightly discarded the

sale deed Ex.C1 executed by the land owner himself very near to

the land acquired and the same was executed in favour of his own

relative.

5.1 It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the

High Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance produced as

Ex.R2 – Item No.9 which as such was for the land admeasuring 1

acre in Survey No.359 which was also executed in the month of

January, 1990.

5

5.2 It is submitted that even otherwise the document/sale deed

produced as Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 upon which the reliance has

been placed by the land owner cannot be relied upon, firstly on the

ground that the same was for a small parcel of land i.e. 5 ½ cent

only. It is submitted that against which the document relied upon

by the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court at Ex.R2 Item

No.9 is the best sale deed available to assess/determine the

market value of the land acquired.

6. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at

length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present

case the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

27.09.1990/11.01.1991 totaling an extent of 0.73 hectares i.e. 1.80

acre. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the

compensation at Rs.160 per cent relying upon and considering the

sale instances – sale deed dated 11.01.1990 wherein extent of 1

acre out of survey no.359 was sold for Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.160 per

cent. However, the Learned Reference Court enhanced the

compensation to Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon and considering

the sale instance Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 executed by the land

owners himself by which land to the extent of 5 ½ cent was sold at 6

16,375/- i.e. Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 1/3 rd. The

Learned Reference Court awarded the compensation at

Rs.2183.33 per cent. However, in the appeal preferred by the

State the High Court has reduced the amount of compensation at

Rs.232.45 per cent.

7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties

the question which is posed for consideration before this Court is

whether the land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of

compensation relying upon the document at Ex.C1 dated

11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land

admeasuring 5 ½ cent was sold for Rs.2977 per cent or the

amount as determined by the High Court i.e. Rs.232.45 per cent?

7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that having gone

through the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court as

well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court, we are not at all satisfied with the manner in which both, the

Reference Court as well as the High Court have dealt with and

decided the matters. However, instead of remanding the matter to

the Reference Court/High Court for fresh consideration, we have 7

considered the appeals on merits on the basis of material/evidence

on record.

7.2 Now so far as the reliance placed on the document Ex.C1

sale deed dated 11.01.1990 – executed by the land owner himself

in favour of his relative by which 5 ½ cent was sold at Rs.2977 per

cent is concerned the same cannot be said to be a comparable

sale instance for the reason that it was with respect to the small

parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. It is true that Ex.C1 cannot be

discarded solely on the ground that it was executed by the land

owner in favour of his relative as nothing is on record that at the

time when the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed

the parties were aware that the land in question is going to be

acquired in the nearby future. As observed hereinabove in the

present case Section 4 Notification issued and published for the

first time on 27.09.1990. It is also required to be noted that in the

present case both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court

relied upon Ex.C1 sale deed dated 11.01.1990, relied upon by the

appellant. However, there are no justification for the High Court to

determine/arrive at the market value at Rs.232.45 per cent. As

observed hereinabove as such in absence of any comparable sale 8

instances one has to consider the sale deed dated 11.01.1990

Ex.C1. Even otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can

be said to be comparable instance having regard to the proximity

from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. It is also

required to be noted that even the land in question acquired for the

housing project. However, at the same time one cannot lose sight

of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the

small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. In given case even a

sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be

considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value.

Therefore, having regard to the peculiar features, facts and

circumstances of the case and interest of justice, we are of the

opinion that date of compensation can be fixed considering the

sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitable deductions

i.e. 60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the fact that the

sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed for a sale

consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to

Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be

determined/assessed at Rs.1191 per cent.

9

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal is partly allowed, it is held that the appellant -

original claimant - land owner shall be entitled compensation for

the land acquired at Rs.1191 per cent with all other statutory

benefits which may be available under the provisions of Land

Acquisition Act. Impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008

in AS No.1222 of 2001 passed by the High Court is modified to the

aforesaid extent. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed to the

aforesaid extent.

However, no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi;

September 29, 2021