Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 173 (MAD)

The Special Tahsilda (LA) v. U. Mayilammal

2008-01-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2008
Judgment :- The appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 passed in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1992 by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government published the notification dated 11-08-1989, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for acquiring the following lands: 4.The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the legal procedures passed award, granting a sum of Rs.99/- per cent for certain land and Rs.154/-per cent to some other land. However, placing reliance on Ex.C.1 and C.2 the sale-deeds dated 08-10-1987 and 11-03-1987 respectively, the Sub-Court on the matter having been referred to it as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, awarded a sum of Rs.1,400/- per cent without deducting 1/3rd towards development charges. 5.Challenging the Sub-Court award, the present appeal is focussed on the following main grounds:- The Land Acquisition Officer relied on the Sale Deed dated 26-04-1998 relating to an extent of 25 cents of land, which was valued at Rs.1,350/-and accordingly assessed the compensation. Whereas, the Sub-Court disregarding that document simply relied on Ex.C.1 and C.2 which are relating to smaller extents of land and awarded excessive compensation and that too without deducting any amount towards development charges. 6.The Point for Consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Sub-Court is just and proper? The learned Special Government Pleader by drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.C.1 the sale deed dated 08-10-1987 relating to four cents of land valued at Rs.5,232/- in R.S.No.596/2 which is nearby to the land acquired and Ex.C.2 dated 11-03-1987 which is also relating to smaller extent of four cents, valued at Rs.3,488/-in R.S.No.598B/3A which is also a nearby land to the land acquired, would development his argument to the effect that the value of a smaller extent of land cannot be the criterion for assessing the compensation. 7. It is a trite proposition of law that for assessing the compensation for a large extent of agricultural land, the value of smaller extent of land should not be considered. However, here the purpose of land acquisition is only for providing plots to Schedule Caste personnel. Ex.C.1 dated 08-10-1987 is almost two years anterior to Section 4(1) notification. 7. It is a trite proposition of law that for assessing the compensation for a large extent of agricultural land, the value of smaller extent of land should not be considered. However, here the purpose of land acquisition is only for providing plots to Schedule Caste personnel. Ex.C.1 dated 08-10-1987 is almost two years anterior to Section 4(1) notification. Hence it cannot be taken as cooked up document brought out for obtaining higher compensation unjustifiably. Ex.C.2, is still anterior to Ex.C2 and hence it need not be considered. The extent of four cents as contemplated under Ex.C.1 would speak by itself that the smaller extent of land was sold for residential purpose whatever might be the description found set out there in. Hence notional increase in value need not be given for arriving at the compensation been though the said Section 4(1) notification is about two years after emergence of Ex.C.1. Had Ex.C.1 been for a larger extent of agricultural land, then certainly for that two years, notional increase at least at the rate of 10% for each year should be given, so as to arrive at the value of the land at the time of publication of Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, notification. Here the position is different as already highlighted supra. But one fact is clear that at least 1/3rd should be deducted towards expenditure which the Government has to undertake for providing house sites to the Scheduled Caste Personnel. 8. The following precedents could cited fruitfully. 1. U.P. Avas Evam vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another, reported in 1998 (2) SCC 467 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T. Velu, reported in 1996(2) SCC 538 3. Gulzara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 245 4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) v. Valliammal reported in 2006(2) C.T.C. 733 As such 1/3rd should be deducted in this case for development charges. By resorting to this methodology the choosing of the value of the smaller extent of land, two years anterior to Section 4(1) notification stands vindicated. The Sub-Court, therefore undoubtedly was wrong in not deducting any amount towards development charges. If accordingly worked out the following formula emerges:- Value of one cent of land as per Ex.C.1 5232 -Rs.1,308.00 After deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges value of one cent -Rs. The Sub-Court, therefore undoubtedly was wrong in not deducting any amount towards development charges. If accordingly worked out the following formula emerges:- Value of one cent of land as per Ex.C.1 5232 -Rs.1,308.00 After deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges value of one cent -Rs. 872.00 As such awarding Rs.872/- per cent would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is reduced to Rs.872/-(Rupees Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) per cent from Rs.1,400/-(Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred). All other statutory entitlements shall follow. In other aspects the award shall hold good. No costs.