This appeal has been filed by the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
An extent of 0.40.5 hectares of lands in Sy.No.33/7 in Perumalpatti Village, Sankarankovil Taluk belong to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Government initiated acquisition by issuing a notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the gazette on 23.06.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation on the basis of a sale exemplar dated 30.11.1992. In the said document, an extent of 17 cents of land has been sold for a price of Rs.1,200/-. Thus, the market value was taken as Rs.7,058/- per acre. The acquired land is a vacant land and hence, the compensation was not awarded under any other head. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancing compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent. On reference, the Land Acquisition Tribunal confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and hence the above appeal has been filed.
3.The appellant has marked Ex.A.1, which according to him is a sale deed in respect of the land in Sy.No.43/6, which is very nearer to the acquired land. In the said document, an extent of 6 , cent of land has been sold for a sum of Rs.9000/- on 10.10.1990 which is about three years prior to the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Tribunal rejected the document, which was marked as Ex.A.1 only on the ground that the document is three years prior to the date of publication under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the document is very old, the Land Acquisition Tribunal observed that the said document cannot be considered to fix the market value as on the date of 4(1) notification.
4.Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the claimants, no witness was examined on the side of the Referring Officer. The Land Acquisition Tribunal did not consider the oral evidence of witnesses examined on the side of the claimant.
5.Relying upon the award, the Land Acquisition Tribunal concluded that the Land Acquisition Officer has given sufficient reasons to discard the various other documents, which are actually relevant for fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has not produced any document as such. However, the statistics of sales in Perumalpatti village for a period of one year prior to the 4(1) notification was marked as Ex.B.2. It is a settled proposition of law that the documents relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be considered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, unless the documents are marked before the tribunal. In the present case, the statistics of sales in the concerned village has been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, despite the fact that, even this statistics of sales was not marked through a person competent to speak. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by ignoring the document Ex.A.1, dated 10.10.1990, which was relied upon by the claimant/appellant before the tribunal. The document Ex.A.1 is located in Sy.No.43/6. The Tribunal has accepted that the land, which is the subject matter of Ex.A.1, is just + a kilometre away from the acquired land. Hence, its relevance cannot be doubted. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected Ex.A.1 only on the ground that sale transaction took place three years prior to the 4(1) notification. In the absence of any other document to make an assessment of the market value of the acquired land, Ex.A.1 is the only document. It is to be considered by the tribunal that if the bonafides of A-1 is not disputed, the document cannot be discarded. Only if a document came into existence, after the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, there is some difficulty as the question of bonafides of the transaction has to be gone into. In other words, only if a sale is after the issuance of 4(1) notification, though it is relevant and cannot be rejected in all cases, it is not desirable to rely upon the same, since it is possible for interested persons to enter into such transactions to boost the value of the land. That is not a case here. No other document is available to fix the market value, other than the sale deed, which was just three years prior to the acquisition and the same is the best evidence to be relied upon.
6.As a matter of fact, it has been repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme Court that in similar circumstances, the Court is empowered to increase the value, by taking into consideration the escalation of price every year at 10 to 15 per cent per year. It is a normal practice of Court to accept documents, which are 3 years prior to 4(1) notification and fix the market value by adding 12 to 15% for enhancement towards appreciation of value every year. It is also relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Asfar as P.W.1 is concerned, he has categorically stated that the acquired land is abutting the Rajapalayam- Meenampalpuram Highways and surrounded by several match industries and other commercial establishments. The residential colonies of Mangadu and Meenatchipuram, churches, bus-stand, schools were also stated to be located around the acquired land. As a matter of fact, there was no cross- examination of those witnesses regarding the potentiality of the land. Hence, this Court finds that the acquired land has more potential and its commercial importance cannot be ignored. The document/Ex.A.1 indicates that the market value as on the date of sale was Rs.1,440/-, per cent. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, if appreciation at the rate of 12 to 15% per annum has to be considered, the value of the land as on the date of the 4(1) notification will be around Rs.1,950/-. In this case, the claimant has categorically stated that the acquired lands are abutting highways. The location of the acquired land is also stated to be amidst developed residential colonies, industries, Government Offices, Bus-stand, churches etc.,. In such circumstances, this Court finds that there cannot be deduction more than 30%. Thus, the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification is fixed at Rs.1,365/- per cent.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, wherein, it has been held that the land owners are entitled to compensation because of severance. However, in this case, the claim statement of the claimant does not indicate that the claimant has suffered a loss by inconvenience due to severance of the remaining land available with the appellant/claimant. Though it is not disputed in this case that the appellant is the owner of an extent of 1 acre 8 cents and the respondent had acquired an extent of 1 acre, leaving 8 cents, due to lack of pleadings or an issue before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, this Court is not in a position to consider the request of the appellant to award compensation on account of severance. In a judgment, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the case of Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputhur Vs Chinna Ramaswami and Others reported in (2003) 1 MLJ pg 124, it can be seen that P.W.1 examined therein has categorically stated about the loss sustained by him on account of severance. Since there was a pleading by the land owner/claimant on the loss by inconvenience due to severance of the remaining land, it was possible for the Honourable Division Bench to award compensation for severance of remaining land. Unless it is proved by evidence that the portion of land left with the claimant has no access from the road or that the claimant has suffered a loss because of other factors, claimant is not justified in claiming compensation under this head. Therefore, this Court finds that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to any compensation because of severance of his land from the acquired land. Because of lack of specific pleadings and evidence, it is not proper and appropriate to give the appellant, a compensation on this ground.
8.For all the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation by fixing the market value at the rate Rs.1,365/- per cent. The claimant is also entitled to other statutory benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.
To The Subordinate Judge Sankarankoil..