This appeal is focussed against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.99 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
The Government vide Notification dated 29.5.1991 made under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 67 cents in Survey No.76/5B1 in Edayar Ombethi, Mannargudi Taluk, Nagapattinam Quaid-e-Milleth District, for the purpose of constructing house sites to the Adi-dravidas. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 15.3.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.273/- per cent.
4. Being disconcerted with the awarding of such compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .
5. During enquiry, before the trial Court the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Ex.C1 was marked. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one Govindaraju was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.273/- per cent to Rs.350/-per cent.
6. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the claimant has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
(a) The Sub-Court failed to take into consideration Ex.C1 in proper perspective;
(b) the learned Sub Judge should have enhanced the compensation to Rs.990/- per cent.
Accordingly the claimant/appellant prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Sub Court in a sum of Rs.350/- per cent should be increased to Rs.990/- per cent, as claimed by the appellant/claimant.
8. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant would advance his argument, drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.C1, that Ex.C1 emerged on 12.2.1991, anterior to the publication of 4(1) Notification dated 29.5.1991; the sale as contemplated in Ex.C1 is relating to an extent of 3 1/3 cents of land, which was worth Rs.3000/- as on that date; even though the actual sale consideration paid was Rs.1300/-, the real worth of the property contemplated therein was Rs.3000/- and accordingly, if calculated, per cent was worth Rs.990/-.
9. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader would correctly and convincingly argue that the actual sale consideration paid under Ex.C1 alone could be taken into consideration if at all Ex.C1 has to be considered and accordingly if taken, it comes to only R.1300/- for 1 1/3 cents of land.
10. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:
(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 554 LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"16 . . .
8. . . . It is an accepted principle as laid down in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divl.Officer that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser."
As such, it is crystal clear that for assessing the market value, the actual consideration paid by the willing purchaser to the willing seller should be the criterion for assessing the compensation.
11. Here even though in Ex.C1, in the schedule of property, at one place it is specified that the extent of 3 1/3 cents of land's market value was Rs.3300/- yet the sale consideration referred to there in was only Rs.1300/- and the actual sale consideration paid also was only the said sum of Rs.1,300/-. In such a case, this Court could only take the market value of the extent of 3 1/3 cents contemplated in Ex.C1 as on 12.2.1991 as Rs.1300/- only. Accordingly, if worked out, value of per cent comes to Rs.390/-(Rs.1300/- X 3/10 = 390/-)
12. The lower Court erroneously failed to take into consideration Ex.C1 on the ground that the actual sale consideration paid under Ex.C1 was Rs.3300/- and rejected it. The fact remains that in the data sale deed Ex.C1 is found set out as item No.15. However, without assigning any reason, the Land Acquisition Officer failed to take into consideration this Ex.C1 at all. The land in Ex.C1 is situated in Survey No.41/1 in Edayar Ombethi, Mannargudi Taluk, Nagapattinam Quaid-e-Milleth District, so to say the village in which the land of the claimant was acquired by the Government. It is also in evidence that the property, as contemplated in Ex.C1 is not far away from the land acquired. Hence, Ex.C1 could have been taken as the criterion for awarding compensation.
13. The next question arises as to whether there should be any deduction.
14. It is a well settled proposition of law that whenever an agricultural land is treated as habitation area, and accordingly the value is assessed, then towards development charges 1/3rd has to be deducted or in some cases, it could even be 20%, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. Here in this case, the land acquired is for providing house sites to the Adi-dravida community people. In Ex.C1 in the schedule of property, the area wise measurement was shown as 3 1/3 cents and the square feet wise measurement was mentioned as 1454 sq.ft, nevertheless there is no indication that it has been fully converted and developed into a plot.
16. My above discussion supra also would indicate that the parties contemplated its market value as Rs.3300/-, but actually paid only a sum of Rs.1500/-, presumably taking into account its agricultural land value. In the absence of any other evidence, it will be a futile exercise to notionally increase the value of the land incommensurate with the plot value and thereafter deduct 1/3rd out of it. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs.390/- per cent would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.350/- to Rs.390/- per cent. No costs. I make it clear that the claimant is entitled to other statutory benefits including interest.