Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2635 (MAD)

Special Tahsildar (LA) v. V. Janakiraman

2017-08-16

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, N.SESHASAYEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. 1. All these appeals are preferred against the common order/award dated 02.09.2015 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.2597 of 1998 etc., batch and hence, all these Appeal Suits are disposed of by this common judgment, as the issue to be adjudicated is one and the same. 2. Facts briefly narrated necessary for the disposal of these Appeal Suits are as follows: 2.1. Lands admeasuring to an extent of 82.86 acres situated in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk were notified for public purpose for constructing a bus and truck terminal by the then Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, now Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [in short “CMDA”]. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.05.1991 and 22.02.1989 respectively and after award enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the said Act, Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act came to be passed. Award No.2 of 1991 - 1992 dated 09.05.1991 and Award No.3 of 1998-1989 dated 22.02.1989 came to be passed and the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per cent based on the Sale Deed dated 15.05.1980, in which 72 cents of land in S.No.773/2 in Madhavaram Village was sold at the rate of Rs.5,760/-. 2.2. The appellants/claimants, who are numbering 47, aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on reference, the cases were numbered as L.A.O.P.Nos.2597/1998, 2596/1998, 2599 to 2610/1998, 2613/1998, 2619 to 2622/1998, 2625/1998, 2629/1998, 2632/1998, 222 to 232/2015 and 243 to 256/2015. The Court of Subordinate Judge at Ponneri, after taking into consideration the testimony of the claimant in 2597/1998, who was examined as CW1 and on consideration of Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds dated 23.09.1982, 23.09.1981, 21.02.1982 and 12.07.1982 respectively and also taking into consideration the testimony of RW1- Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Madhavaram, has enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.11,419/- and also ordered statutory entitlements in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, vide impugned common order and decree dated 02.09.2015. 2.3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), MMDA Scheme, Guindy, Chennai-60032, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the above cited common order, had filed these appeals. 3. Mr. 2.3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), MMDA Scheme, Guindy, Chennai-60032, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the above cited common order, had filed these appeals. 3. Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the data Sale Deeds relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, lies within the area acquired for putting the bus and truck terminal and whereas the lands in respects of Exs.C1 to C4 -Sale Deeds relied upon by the claimants are located far away from the acquired lands and the Reference Court, without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has fixed higher compensation and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. 4. Per contra, Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has invited the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents filed on behalf of the respondents and would submit that Exs.C1 to C4- Sale Deeds marked on behalf of the claimants are house sites and admittedly Madhavaram is located near close to Chennai Metropolitan city and now it has become part of Greater Chennai Corporation and considering the fact that land acquisition proceedings were initiated as early as on 12.01.1983 and the award came to be passed on 09.05.1981 ad 22.02.1989 and the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation and therefore, it cannot be said that the enhanced compensation is on the higher side. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.2597/1998 had also filed CMP.No.8981 of 2017 praying for reception of additional documents in A.S.No.431 of 2016, during the pendency of the above appeal suit and as per the Sale Deeds dated 29.02.1982 and 29.04.1982, by deducting 1/3rd towards Development Charges, the value of the land works out to Rs.12,208/- and taking into consideration the long passage of time and the acquisition of the meager land holdings from the possession of the claimants, this Court may, in terms of Order 41 Rule 22 read with Rule 33, shall enhance the compensation and prays for appropriate orders. 5. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it. 6. The following questions arises for consideration: 1. Whether the reception of additional documents is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved? 2. Whether the enhanced compensation ordered by the Reference Court is sustainable in law? Question No.2 7. 5. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it. 6. The following questions arises for consideration: 1. Whether the reception of additional documents is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved? 2. Whether the enhanced compensation ordered by the Reference Court is sustainable in law? Question No.2 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has also produced the Sketch of the entire area which includes the lands acquired for establishment of bus and truck terminal as well as the location of the lands which are the subject matter of Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds as well as two additional documents. A perusal of the said sketch would indicate that the lands in respect of data Sale Deeds are located within the acquired lands and the lands which are the subject matter of Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds are located about 1000 meters away. 8. The claimant in L.A.O.P.No.2597 of 1998 was examined himself as CW1 and in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination; he would state among other things that the acquired lands are located 2 kms. away from the Chennai Metropolitan area as well as Perambur Railway Station, 3 Kms. from Moolakadai and 7 Kms. from Anna Nagar and in and around the lands acquired, very many house sites have also been developed and the lands acquired by Tamil Nadu Housing Board are also proximate to the lands acquired and as such, the compensation amount of Rs.80/- per cent awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is very much lower and Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds correctly reflect the market value of the land. In the cross examination, CW1 would admit that they have not produced any document as to the acquisition of the lands by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board nearer to the acquired lands. 9. Tmt. Bhavani, who was the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Madhavaram at the relevant point of time, was examined as RW1. In the cross examination, she would admit that on the date of the acquisition, the lands in question come within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Metropolitan area and now it has become a part of the Chennai Metropolitan area and would further admit that in Madhavaram, many residential colonies came into being and even prior to acquisition of lands, “Aavin” [Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation] came into being. RW1 would further admit that in and around the acquired lands, factories such as Pilot Pen Company, Bharat Rolling Mills, Madras Refineries Limited [MRL], Sri Ram Fibers, Indian Organic Chemicals are also located and would further admit that the data Sale Deed came into being 2 years prior to acquisition and the value of the lands has increased by 9 times. 10. The Reference Court, in the impugned common order, after taking note of very many judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has found that the acquired lands can be put to better use and therefore, the market value of the acquired lands is to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, after taking into consideration the admission on the part of RW1- Special Tahsildar (LA), Madhavaram, found that the potential value of the land is increased day by day and even since 2000, there is an upward trend in the real estate market in the State of Tamil Nadu and taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has accepted Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds dated 29.02.1982 and 29.04.1982 and after applying 20% towards Development Charges, fixed the value of the land as Rs.11,419/- and accordingly enhanced the value with other statutory entitlements. 11. It is the forceful and vehement submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that since the data Sale Deed is located well within the acquired lands, the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the said fact. RW1, in the cross examination, would admit that even at the time of acquisition of the lands, very many residential colonies came into being and many factories are also located nearby and would further admit that the data Sale Deeds came into being on 15.05.1980 and whereas Section 4(1) Notification is dated 12.01.1983. RW1 would further admit that value of the land has been increased to 9 times and the Reference Court has also considered the fact of location of the lands nearer to the Metropolitan area and very many factories are located nearby and found that Ex.C1-Sale Deed rightly reflects the market value and after giving deduction of 20% towards Development Charges from Rs.14,273/-, has rightly arrived at the compensation of Rs.11,419/- and also awarded other statutory entitlements. 12. 12. This Court, after scrutiny of the materials placed, is of the view that the Reference Court has properly appreciated the factual aspects and also the settled legal position in the light of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and rightly reached the conclusion to enhance the compensation. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that though the Reference Court has passed the common order dated 02.09.2015; the enhanced compensation was directed to be deposited in pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the claimants meager land holdings have been acquired for public purpose as early as in the year 1983 and Section 4(1) notification came to be issued on 09.05.1991, which culminated into awards dated 22.02.1989 and 09.05.1991 and even after lapse of nearly 3 decades, the claimants are yet to realize the fruits of the award of compensation. 13. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that in the light of ever increasing inflation and value of money is dwindling day by day; the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court would meet the ends of justice and therefore, warrants no interference. 14. Hence, Question No.2 is answered in affirmative in favour of the claimants. Question No.1 15. The lands, which was the subject matter of additional documents are located far away from the lands in Exs.C1 to C4-Sale Deeds and therefore, this Court is of the view that with the available exhibits can agitate the issue involved in these Appeal Suits effectively and hence, there is no need for reception of addition documents and that apart no explanation has been advanced as to the belated production of documents. Hence, CMP. No. 8981 of 2017 is dismissed and Question No.1 is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, these Appeal Suits are dismissed; confirming the common order/award dated 02.09.2015 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.2597/1998 etc., batch. Interim orders already granted are vacated and consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions in C.M.P.Nos.10215 to 10305 of 2016 are dismissed. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation in deposit to the credit of LAOPs forthwith, on production of certified copy of this judgment and decree. No costs.