These appeals have been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer as against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.Nos.3 to 7 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:
2.1.The claimant in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1993 is the owner of a land to an extent of 1.81.9 hectares in Survey Nos.272/1B, 272/4B and 272/4D in Periyakottai Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. Similarly, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1993 is the owner of a land to an extent of 1.72.5 hectares in Survey Nos.272/4A, 272/4C and 272/1A in the same village and the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1993 is the owner of a land to an extent of 0.21.0 hectare in Survey No.265/2B in the same village. The claimants in L.A.O.P. Nos.6 and 7 of 1993 have coconut trees standing in their lands in Survey Nos.272/4E, 282/1A and 272/2 at the time of acquisition.
2.2.The Government acquired the lands belonged to the claimants above referred to for construction of a percolation pond. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.12.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.10.1992 and fixed the market value at the rate of R.58,450/- per hectare and fixed a sum of Rs.160/- for each coconut tree. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation after relying upon two sale deeds dated 16.07.1990 and 23.08.1988. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation that was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer by proceedings dated 23.04.1996 referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal to fix just compensation to the acquired lands. On reference, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, fixed the compensation uniformly to all the lands belonged to the claimants in the respective case at Rs.900/- per cent by a common award. The Land Acquisition Tribunal relied upon three sale deeds under Ex.P2, dated 18.08.1988, Ex.P3 and P4 dated 18.08.1988 and 24.12.1987 respectively. The Tribunal also found that the claimant in L.A.O.P. No.3 of 1993 is entitled to get compensation for an extent of 25 cents of land separately because the claimant had 20 coconut trees in this part of the land. Similarly, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1993 was also found to have 62 coconut trees standing in an extent of 80 cents of lands. Hence, the Tribunal fixed compensation for the 80 cents of land by adopting capitalization method. As a result, the Tribunal passed an award fixing the compensation for the coconut trees for 20 cents of lands at Rs.1,40,000/- in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1993. Similarly, by adopting capitalization method the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1993 was awarded a sum of Rs.4,34,000/- towards the market value for 80 cents of land with 62 coconut trees. Aggrieved by the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed these appeals inter alia raising the following grounds:
2.3.The sale deeds relied upon by the claimants are in respect of a smaller extent of lands and the Tribunal ought not to have considered these documents to arrive at the market value for the lands acquired. The Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the lands acquired in Periyakottai village are far away from the residential area of the village and hence, the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants under Ex.P2 to P5 do not reflect the correct market value for the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer also raised several other grounds in the memorandum of appeal. Considering the points raised by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court had earlier allowed all the appeals namely A.S.(MD) No.358 to 362 of 2002 by a common judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009. This Court has earlier allowed the appeals and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.203/- per cent (same amount fixed in the award). It is pertinent to mention here that this Court had earlier relied upon the documents which were referred to in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Though the documents under Ex.P2 to P5 were referred to, this Court did not accept the documents on the ground that the lands covered by the sale exemplars marked as Ex.P2 to P5 are different from the acquired lands and that the value found in the documents Ex.P2 and P3 cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the market value for the land acquired. Similarly, this Court reversing the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation for the land wherein there were coconut trees and fixed only a sum of Rs.1,000/- per tree. However, the claimants have preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the Civil Appeal Nos.3019 to 3023 of 2015 and remitted the matter to this Court once again and directed this Court to re-hear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was passed on 18.03.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to point out that this Court ought to have looked into the sale deeds which are filed by the claimants to prove their claim to enhance the market value for the lands that are fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is only an award and that the sale deeds / materials relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be taken as evidence by the High Court unless the documents are independently marked and proved in the manner known to law. Therefore, these appeals after the remand is before me.
3.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned counsel for the respondents.
4.The Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per cent. It is to be noted that the claimants have examined P.W.1 who is one of the claimants who has spoken about the market value for the land as on the date of issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. Apart from the existence of coconut trees and the potentiality of the lands. The claimants have examined P.W.2 who is the purchaser of the land under Ex.P2 and P3. P.W.3 is also a vendor who sold the property under Ex.P4. P.W.4 is the attestor to the document under Ex.P5. P.W.5 is the Assistant Director of Agriculture Department who has spoken about the income from coconut trees. As against the substantial evidence that was let in by the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has produced the revenue map to show the location of the acquired lands and the lands dealt with under the documents filed by both appellant and the claimants. The two documents relied upon by the respondents namely Ex.R2 and R3 would show that the market value is very much less than the amount fixed for the acquired lands by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The Land Acquisition Officer has examined one K.V.Jeyaram, R.W.1 who is only a Clerk of Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani. He is not well-versed to effectively speak about the market value for the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that the documents filed by the claimants are very much relevant and admissible as valid documents to prove the market value for the lands as concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order of remand. Ex.P3 is a sale deed dated 18.08.1988 wherein an extent of 35 cents of lands were sold for Rs.1,30,000/-. This works out to Rs.872/- per cent. The claimants have also produced Ex.P4 dated 24.12.1987 wherein an extent of 10 cents of land has been sold for Rs.13,080/-. This works out to Rs.1,308/- per cent. The document Ex.P5 dated 16.04.1992 also would reflect the market value at R.1,000/- per cent. Now, considering the fact that the documents Ex.P2 and P3 are about two years prior to the issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act and the document Ex.P4 is about 2+ years prior to the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, this Court is inclined to rely upon the documents Ex.P3 and P4. It has also been suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments that it is desirable to accept the sale exemplar showing the higher value for the acquired lands, if the transaction under the document is proved as bona fide. In this case, the document Ex.P3 and P4 suggest that the value of the land covered under the document is more than Rs.1,300 per cent. Since this document is dated 24.12.1987 i.e., about three years prior to the issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, as per the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognizing the enhancement of value at the rate of 10 to 12% per annum for appreciation in the market value if the sale exemplar is long prior to the issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, this Court is also justified in adding at least 36% of the value shown in the sale exemplar to enhance the market value on account of the appreciation of value for three years. This works out to Rs.1,768/- per cent. Since the market value is fixed based on the value shown in the document pertaining to smaller extent of lands, this Court can allow a reduction of 25%. Even allowing a reduction of 25%, market value comes to Rs.1,300/- per cent. Since the acquisition is for construction of percolation bond, the entire land acquired by the Government is going to be utislised for the purpose. Hence, there cannot be any deduction on any other account. In that view of the matter, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.900/- per cent, cannot be interfered with. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant pointed out that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 20 in the case of coconut thope is not justified in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The acquisition in this case commenced by issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act about 26 years back. No doubt, it is true that the multiplier that is permissible for coconut thope or other fruit bearing trees cannot exceed 12 times as per the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, taking in to account the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer could have fixed the market value by adopting the value shown in the document Ex.P4, this Court has found that the market value for the acquired land can be not less than Rs.1,326/- per cent. This amount is justified even after allowing the deduction of 25%. Since the market value has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal only at Rs.900/- per cent, I do not propose to interfere with the award of compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal for an extent of 80 cents in L.A.O.P. No.7 of 1993 and an extent of 20 cents in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1993. Thus, these appeals are dismissed and the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.3 to 7 of 1993, dated 11.06.1996 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
5.Considering the fact that the land acquisition was initiated in the year 1990 and the proceedings having completed for more than 26 years, the appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation with all statutory benefits as expeditiously as possible without driving the claimants to file execution petition.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..