Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1896 (MAD)

The Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Mallika

2008-06-19

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- The Government had acquired 1.05.5 Hectares of land in S.No.29/3 in Abatharanapuram, Cuddalore District for the purpose of constructing houses for Adi Dravida Community people as per Award No.6/93-94 dated 3. 1994. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with all the formalities, later published Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) etc., had awarded Rs.320/- per cent for the land acquired. A Reference under Section 18 of the Act made before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore before whom the claimant had examined her husband as C.W.1 and exhibited Exs C1 to C4 and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer one V.Ramalingam, Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) was examined as R.W.1 and exhibited Exs R1 to R3 . .3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant on the basis of Exs C1 to C4 contended that the land acquired by the Government is situate near Seshasai Paper Factory, Neyveli, Ceramic Factory (Neycer) and situate just ½ kilo metre away from Vadalur Railway Station and also nearer to the main road, shopping complex and near to the well developed residential locality viz., Indira Nagar and made a claim that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.320/- per cent is very meagre and it has to be enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per cent on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the claimant and exhibited under Exs C1 to C4. 4. It was further contended on behalf of the claimant that the compensation fixed for 12 cashew trees at Rs.50/- per tree by the Land Acquisition Officer is also very low. The data land was produced on behalf of the respondent and exhibited as Ex R1(Document No.354 dated 13. 1993). The learned Tribunal after scanning the evidence both oral and documentary adduced before him has held that the respondent has failed to produce topographical sketch to show that the data land and the land acquired by the Government from the claimant are having similar characteristics. 5. 1993). The learned Tribunal after scanning the evidence both oral and documentary adduced before him has held that the respondent has failed to produce topographical sketch to show that the data land and the land acquired by the Government from the claimant are having similar characteristics. 5. Taking into consideration, the potentiality of the land acquired from the claimant, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as Rs 320/- per cent for the land acquired is very low and has enhanced the compensation as Rs.1000/- per cent and also fixed the compensation for each cashew tree as Rs.150/- and passed an award with solatium and interest etc., accordingly. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Referring Officer has preferred this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation of Rs.1000/- per cent fixed by the Tribunal is exorbitant and is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 7. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (AS), and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and considered their respective submissions. .8. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant had preferred Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No.2001 of 2001 before this Court on the ground that the interest for the solatium amount and 12% additional market value and 30% solatium for the additional market value were omitted to be included in the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal. It was contended before this Court that both the claims viz., interest on the solatium amount and 12% additional market value and 30% solatium for the additional market value are statutory amount and the same can be considered by amending the Judgment and decree. For this proposition of law, reliance was placed on the ratio decidenti in Jayakrishna-v- State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1976 Orissa, 203) and Nand Ram vs State of Punjab(A.I.R.1982 Punjab and Hariyana 184) . At that time of passing of the order in C.R.P.No.2001 of 2001 in the year 2001, the question regarding the entitlement of interest on solatium and additional amount was subjudice before a Larger Bench of the Apex Court. At that time of passing of the order in C.R.P.No.2001 of 2001 in the year 2001, the question regarding the entitlement of interest on solatium and additional amount was subjudice before a Larger Bench of the Apex Court. Under such circumstances, this Court, while disposing of C.R.P.2001 of 2001, had observed that after the final decree passed by the Honourable Apex Court, the claimant is entitled to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum by way of filing an appropriate application for necessary relief. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that now the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium at the rate of 12% per annum and on the additional market value and also 30% solatium for the additional market value. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant on D. Ramachandran -v- The Sub Collector, Coimbatore(2008(2) L.W.143). In the said ratio, the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Collector, Coimbatore had acquired an extent of 6.67 acres of land in S.Nos.522,523 and 55 of Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore District from the claimant for the purpose of erection of 110 KV Sub Station under urgency provision. After following the formalities like Notification under Section 4(1) , declaration under Section 6 and direction under Section 7 of the Act, the land was taken possession on 2. 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.75,000/-per acre for the lands acquired depending on their potentiality . Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants have preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Tribunal claiming that the compensation shall be enhanced and fixed as Rs.42,000/- per cent relying on Exs C1 and C2 sale deeds. The Tribunal has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per cent and held that the claimants are not entitled to any additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act and also not entitled to interest over the solatium which necessitated the claimant to approach this Court. The Tribunal has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per cent and held that the claimants are not entitled to any additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act and also not entitled to interest over the solatium which necessitated the claimant to approach this Court. A Bench of this Court , while disposing of the said appeal, has held as follows: "The other contention that the claimants are entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of taking possession cannot be considered in favour of the claimants on the face of the statutory provision and in the light of the interpretation of the said provision by the Supreme Court. As per the statutory provision 23(1-A), the Court is mandated in every case to award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 percentum per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, which ever is earlier: Thus, it is clear that the starting point for calculation of 12 percentum is the date of 4(1) notification. However, there are two terminal points. One is the date of award and the other is the date of taking possession of the land. If the two terminal points are available after the 4(1) notification, the terminal point, which occurs earlier shall be taken up for calculation of the amount. So far as the present case is concerned, one of the two terminal points is not available ie., taking over of possession subsequent to 4(1) notification, as possession has been taken on 2. 1979 much prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification. The one and only terminal point available is the date of passing of the award by the Collector. So the amount should be calculated from the date of Section 4(1) notification to the date of passing of the award". 10. 1979 much prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification. The one and only terminal point available is the date of passing of the award by the Collector. So the amount should be calculated from the date of Section 4(1) notification to the date of passing of the award". 10. The appellant would contend that the land acquired was 1.05.5 hectares in S.No.29/3 and that the data land relied on by the claimant under Ex C1 to Ex C4 are smaller in extent ie., plot measuring about 2350 sq.ft(Ex C1),4000 sq.ft(Ex C2),2100 sq.ft(Ex C3) and 3500 sq.ft(Ex C4) and that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal at Rs.1000/-per cent on the basis of Exs C1 to C4 for the larger extent of land measuring 1.05.5 hectares cannot be upheld. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent based his reliance on The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode, Erode District-v- D.Sakthivel(2008-2 L.W.151) would contend that the land acquired is situate near the developed area with all road facilities and situate near factories, railway station and well developed residential locality called Indira Nagar and only after taking into consideration, the potentiality of the land acquired , the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the compensation as Rs.1000/- per cent even though under Ex C1 to Ex C4, the land was sold for Rs.7000/- per cent. In this connection, in the above said ratio, the learned Bench of this Court have held as follows: " We can also see that there is evidence in abundance to prove that the land acquired is a developed one. The claimant in his evidence as C.W.1 has established that the land is situated in Town Panchayat and it has road facilities in all three sides and is adjacent to Erode-Karur Main Road. On the northern side of the subject land, there is office of the marketing committee. The power house is located in the eastern side. There is a veterinary dispensary within a few feet from the acquired land. All these facilities are available right from the year 1960. Apart from that, there are number of residential colonies in and around the acquired land. In the southern side of the acquired land, the Government Girls High School is situated. Adjacent to that there is Town Panchayat Elementary School. A Kalyanamandapam, post office and Pongaliamman temple are also within the vicinity of the acquired land. Apart from that, there are number of residential colonies in and around the acquired land. In the southern side of the acquired land, the Government Girls High School is situated. Adjacent to that there is Town Panchayat Elementary School. A Kalyanamandapam, post office and Pongaliamman temple are also within the vicinity of the acquired land. The shandy is also nearby. Oil mill and rice mills are there. Several textile factories are situated around the land. The offices of the Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Water and Drainage Board, Woman Development Training Centre are situated adjacent to the acquired land. Four private high schools, milk federation and Electricity Board Colony are also situated adjacent to the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence as R.W.1 has accepted the existence of all the above said facilities and about the potential of the acquired land. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the land acquired is a developed land has to be accepted. However, having regard to the fact that the average of the various documents taken into consideration are in respect of small extent of varying from 800 to 2430 sq.ft and the extent of acquired land is 2.56 acres, which is large in extent, compared to the extent of land covered in documents which are let in evidence, we are of the view that 20 percent cut in the total compensation towards largeness of the extent acquired would subserve the interest of justice." Here in the present case on hand also, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal , after taking into consideration, the potentiality of the land, has come to a conclusion that the compensation of Rs.1000/- per cent for the land acquired would meet the ends of justice and has awarded the same. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.149 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 11. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the claimant is entitled to all the benefits conferred under the Act subsequent to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court regarding the interest on solatium and additional amount. 11. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the claimant is entitled to all the benefits conferred under the Act subsequent to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court regarding the interest on solatium and additional amount. Under such circumstances, I hold on the point that the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.149 of 1994/Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is liable to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal with the following observations. 12. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.149 of 1994 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1000/-per cent with usual interest on solatium and additional compensation as permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. No costs.