Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1004 (MAD)

D. Yuvaraj v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2017-04-11

S.S.SUNDAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : These appeals have been preferred by the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.4 and 7 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court (Land Acquisition Tribunal), Dindigul, seeking enhancement of the market value adopted by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, while fixing the compensation for the lands acquired from the claimants. 2. An extent of 19.96.0 hectares of lands in Kodalvavi Village, Dindigul Taluk, were acquired for the formation of tank across Chinnakombaiyar and Uppodai. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.03.1993. The notification was published in the gazette on 07.04.1993 and the same was published in two local dailies on 03.04.1993 and 04.04.1993. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 25.05.1993. The award was passed on 24.05.1996 by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value for the lands at Rs.200/- per cent relying upon the sale deed dated 27.08.1992 wherein the land value was shown as Rs.20,000/- per acre. 3. Aggrieved by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the land filed petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference for determination of just compensation for the lands acquired. It appears that the reference was entertained in several cases and in L.A.O.P.Nos.4 and 7 of 2001, the Land Acquisition Tribunal originally fixed the market value for the acquired lands at Rs.900/- per cent. Though there was a reference to a document dated 06.01.1993, a sale deed filed by the claimants, no such document was marked as exhibit as seen from the award of the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal dated 22.09.2005 in L.A.O.P.Nos.2 and 7 of 2001 was challenged by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Dindigul, in A.S.Nos.76 and 95 of 2009 before this Court. This Court has allowed the appeals on the simple ground that the Tribunal has fixed the compensation at Rs.800/- per cent without any basis. However, this Court remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal to dispose of the L.A.O.Ps on merits. After remand, the Land Acquisition Tribunal determined the compensation by taking into account the market value at Rs.400/- per cent. However, this Court remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal to dispose of the L.A.O.Ps on merits. After remand, the Land Acquisition Tribunal determined the compensation by taking into account the market value at Rs.400/- per cent. Though the land owners relied upon two sale deeds which were executed just prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Tribunal did not consider the said documents on the ground that the two sale deeds are between the same set of parties and that the documents cannot be taken as a normal sale transaction particularly when the documents indicate that the parties had exchanged the lands which are equal in value. However, the Tribunal relied upon another document which was referred to in the award and found that the said document discloses the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre and Rs.3,000/- per cent. Taking into consideration the said document was just one year prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed 10% enhancement due to rise in price and added a further sum of Rs.70/- per cent on account of the fact that the possession of the acquired land were taken 7 years prior to the land acquisition. It was on this basis the Tribunal has fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per cent. It was against this award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the claimants in L.A.O.P No.4 of 2001 has preferred A.S.(MD)No.84 of 2013 and the claimants in L.AO.P. No.7 of 2001 has preferred A.S.(MD)No.85 of 2013. 4. Mr. H. Lakshmishankar, the learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the material evidence on record were not considered in a proper perspective by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal, therefore, could not arrive at just compensation for the acquired lands. The learned counsel pointed out that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer would indicate that there are several sale deeds to give the market value for the lands above Rs.800/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the guideline value for the acquired lands which is marked as the only witness's document was not considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the guideline value for the acquired lands which is marked as the only witness's document was not considered by the Tribunal. According to him, the market value as per the guideline value fixed by the Sub Registrar is Rs.1,92,500/- per acre in respect of Survey No.190/4 and it is Rs.1,23,500/- per acre in respect of Survey No.201/1. He also submitted that the guideline value though is determined only for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, contended that the value fixed for the lands between 1992 and 1994 is also a relevant piece of evidence to support the case of the claimants/appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and submitted further that the Tribunal has not considered the relevant important evidence of the witnesses. Apart from referring to some of the factual aspects of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent though have preferred several other appeals, as against the determination of the compensation, by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent, they allowed many of the appeals to be dismissed for default and that they were also unsuccessful in restoring the appeals. Since the award of the Tribunal in respect of many other lands were allowed to become final, in respect of the appellants' lands acquired under the same notification, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation should be fixed by considering the market value at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent, as it was decided by the Tribunal in other cases earlier. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, however, would submit that the Tribunal has determined the market value rightly and that the documents relied upon by the claimants cannot be considered as the documents do not inspire confidence for any one to take the same as bona fide transaction. According to him, one of the claimants in the appeal is a party to the sale deed. Since between the same vendors and purchasers properties have been exchanged, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the documents cannot be safely relied upon to fix just compensation for the lands acquired. 6. According to him, one of the claimants in the appeal is a party to the sale deed. Since between the same vendors and purchasers properties have been exchanged, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the documents cannot be safely relied upon to fix just compensation for the lands acquired. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 7. From the records, it can be seen that the documents relied upon by the appellants in this case are the documents which are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.X1. Ex.P1 is a sale deed executed on 06.04.1993. By this document, an extent of 32 cents have been sold for a sum of Rs.24,750/-. Apart from the lands, 1/10 share of the vendors who had right over the well and motor pump set and the site in which the well was excavated was also conveyed under this document. Even by taking into account the entire consideration towards the land, the market value works out only to a sum of Rs.773.50. However, it is impossible to fix the market value for the land on the basis of this document as the conveyance under the document is not only in respect of the land but also in respect of the portion of the share of the vendor over the well as well as the motor pump set. 8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the document Ex.X1 is the proceedings of the Sub Registrar of Kannivadi and that the market value for the lands can be taken from this document in the absence of other sale exemplar. It is well settled now that the guideline value fixed by the Sub Registrar for the purpose of collecting stamp duty is not the market value. In such circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention to determine the market value on the basis of the guideline value. The learned counsel for the appellants then persuaded this Court to consider the document which was referred to in the award itself and that there are several other documents reflecting higher value, particularly, the document which were referred to as Items 11 and 12 in the award. The learned counsel for the appellants then persuaded this Court to consider the document which was referred to in the award itself and that there are several other documents reflecting higher value, particularly, the document which were referred to as Items 11 and 12 in the award. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not appeal to this Court as it is impermissible in law to rely upon a document which was in turn relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer or referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had earlier interpreted Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act which was introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, held that the provision to Section 51A enables the party producing a certified copy of the sale transaction to rely upon the contents of the document without having examined the vendee or vendor of that document. The reasons for sustaining the interpretation is found in many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. From the analysis of the case law, discussed on this subject, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to rely upon one of the sale deeds that was referred to in the award as a document which is not marked as an exhibit before the Land Acquisition Tribunal is unacceptable. The provisions of Evidence Act do not support such an argument. On the understanding of the basic common law principle, this Court hold that the sale exemplars which are referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings cannot be relied upon by the Land Acquisition Tribunal without the same being marked as an exhibit before the Tribunal. This position is also reiterated by several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants then placed reliance upon the orders of this Court in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 in A.S.SR No.47430 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015 in A.S.SR.No.47415 of 2007. These orders only indicate that the Government/Land Acquisition Officer is unsuccessful in challenging the award of Tribunal fixing market value at Rs.800/- per cent. These orders only indicate that the Government/Land Acquisition Officer is unsuccessful in challenging the award of Tribunal fixing market value at Rs.800/- per cent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondents, who have filed appeals against similar award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal fixing the market value at Rs.800/- per cent, have allowed the appeals to be dismissed either as abated or for non-prosecution and that therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has allowed the market value determined at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent to become final as against some other land owners and that therefore, the appellants in these cases cannot be deprived of the benefit of the higher compensation which was disbursed to other land owners whose lands were acquired under the same notification. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants has no merits. First of all, the orders passed earlier by this Court in connected appeals indicate that those appeals were disposed of even before numbering the same that there was no decision on merits. Hence, it cannot be a precedent. Since the parties are different and no issue was decided on merits, the previous judgment or orders will not operate as res judicata. Hence, this Court is not able to appreciate any legal force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on the strength of the previous orders of this Court in the connected appeals preferred by the respondents in respect of other lands covered by the same notification. 10. On the basis of the sale deed Ex.C1, it can be seen that the total value shown in the document cannot be taken as the market value for the lands alone. However, it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that just compensation for the acquired lands cannot be determined without some guess work. No doubt, in these cases, the land owners have miserably failed to utilise the opportunity when the matter was remitted by this Court. However, the lands were acquired from the claimants / appellants physically even before 4(1) notification and possession was taken about 30 years back. The entire acquisition is for the purpose of formation of a tank. Hence, the entire portion of the land acquired from the claimants are required and utilised for this purpose. However, the lands were acquired from the claimants / appellants physically even before 4(1) notification and possession was taken about 30 years back. The entire acquisition is for the purpose of formation of a tank. Hence, the entire portion of the land acquired from the claimants are required and utilised for this purpose. No deduction or a deduction upto 10% can be allowed after fixing the market value for the lands relying upon any other data sale deeds. This Court, however, in the cases on hand, is inclined to determine the compensation on the basis of only document Ex.P1 under the following circumstances: (a) The lands were acquired by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the year 1993 and the appellants were deprived of the just compensation for about 23 years. The possession of the lands acquired were taken in the year 1986 about seven years prior to issuance of 4(1) notification. (b) The appellants were doing agriculture. The lands acquired from the appellants are agriculture lands. As a matter of fact, the acquired lands had irrigation facility. After taking possession of the land in 1986, the standing trees were removed. Though the land owners have claimed compensation for those trees, by way of loss of income, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards value for the trees. (c) Though the claimants have examined themselves as witnesses and deposed claiming higher compensation, by ascertaining the land value, there was no cross examination on this. Further, the only point that was suggested during cross examination was by referring to the pendency of an appeal as against the award of the Tribunal in respect of the lands covered under the same notification in respect of different parcels of land where market value was fixed at Rs.800/- per cent. The document Ex.P1 cannot be discovded in entirety and the said document is also admissible to prove the market value as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Allowing reasonable deduction, the market value can be arrived at the rate of Rs.600/- per cent. 11. Thus, these appeals are partly allowed by enhancing the market value for the acquired lands belonged to the appellants at the rate of Rs.600/- per cent. The appellants also would be entitled to other statutory benefits. No costs.