The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pazhani, is the appellant, in all the appeals.
2.For the purpose of constructing percolation pond under Western Ghat Development Programme at Periyacottai village, a total extent of 9.67.5 acres were acquired under 4(1) notification, dated 21.01.1991 and after complying with the procedures contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed in Award No.6/92 A2 (Roc No.18742/88-A2), dated 12.10.1992 at the rate of Rs.30,868/- per hectare in respect of Survey No.265/2B and Rs.58,450/- per hectare in respect of other survey numbers and Rs.160/- was fixed for one tree. The owners of the lands not being satisfied with the award passed by the referring officer sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and 5 L.A.O.Ps were filed as detailed below:
================================================= Sl.No. Survey Extent Name of the persons No. Hect. to whom Award is made =================================================
01. 265/2B 0.21.0 Samanaicker
02. 272/1A 0.42.5 Parthasarathy 272/4C 1.23.5 -do-
================================================ Total 9.67.5 Hectares ==============================================
3.Before the Sub Court, the claimants contended that value fixed by the Referring Officer is very low and he should have fixed the market value at Rs.1,95,250/- per hectare, having regard to the lands, which were sold in and around the acquired land and the value fixed at Rs.160/- per tree was also very low and it has to be enhanced to Rs.200/- per tree per year.
4.The Referring Officer contended that the value fixed by the Government is just and proper and it is based on the data land, which is situate very nearer to the acquired land and therefore, there is no need to enhance the market value of the acquired lands.
5.Before the lower court, the claimants examined 5 witnesses and marked six documents and the Referring Officer examined one witness and marked three documents and the learned Sub Judge, on considering the pleadings and evidence, enhanced the compensation for the land at the rate of 900/- per Cent and also fixed the compensation for the coconut tree at the rate of Rs.350/- per tree per year. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals were filed by the Referring Officer.
6.In the appeals, the appeals grounds the appellant have stated that as per topography Ex.C1 and as per award proceedings, the appellant had considered 20 sale deeds from Periyacottai village and 6 sales deeds from Pudur village, from 21.10.1988 to 20.01.1991 and after considering the various sale deeds, selected the Survey No.273/1A in Pudur village, which was mentioned as Item No.10 in the award proceedings as data land, which represented the correct market value of the acquired and fixed Rs.30868/- per hectare as market value of the acquired land.
7.It is further contended that the value fixed by the lower court for a tree is highly excessive and the value fixed for the tree by the lower court if taken into consideration, the acquired land value would be more than Rs.5,000/- per Cent and having regard to the extent of land over which the trees have grown and 20 years multiplier should not be adopted for calculating the value of the compensation for the trees.
8.The point for consideration in these appeals are:
[1]Whether the lower court is correct in fixing Rs.900/- per Cent as compensation for land?
[2]whether the lower court is correct in fixing Rs.350/- per tree per year and multiplied the same by 20 years to arrive at the value of the compensation for the tree?
[3]Whether the compensation awarded by the lower court is high and excessive and is to be reduced?
9.Point Nos.1 & 3: It is seen from the award proceedings that the lands are all irrigated 'punja' properties and garden lands. PW1 to PW4 have given evidence for enhancing the compensation for the lands and through them, the claimants marked Exs.C1 to C5.
10.It is seen from the award proceedings that the lands acquired are in Survey No.272 and various sub-divisions of that survey number and one property is in Survey No.262/2B and another property is in Survey No.282/1A. As per the award proceedings, totally 26 sale deeds were considered and land in Survey No.273/1A, which was selected for arriving at the rate of Rs.30,868/- per hectare was taken as data land as it is also situate very near to the acquired land. Though in the award proceedings, the appellant has stated that the value of the land in Survey No.273/1A was taken as data land that sale was taken into consideration only in respect of Survey No.265/2B and in respect of other survey numbers, the appellant has taken into consideration of Rs.58,450/- as the market value per hectare and awarded compensation.
11.As per the award proceedings, the lands in Survey Nos.424, 423, which were sold on 16.07.1990 under document No.393/90 were sold at the rate of Rs.58,450/- per hectare. If we see the topography sketch, Ex.C1, Survey Nos.423 and 424 are situate far away from the acquired land and therefore, it is not known how the appellant/Referring Officer has fixed Rs.58,450/- per Hectare as market value for the acquired lands, except the land in Survey No.265/2B. Therefore, in respect of other lands except S.No.265/2B, we cannot reduce the compensation, from the amount fixed by the Referring Officer and the Referring Officer had fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.58,450/- per hectare. But the respondents not satisfied with that amount, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the lower court fixed @ Rs.900/- per Cent, which is equivalent to Rs.2,22,300/- per hectare. As per the market value fixed by the Referring Officer, the value of the property per hectare is Rs.58,450/- and that is equivalent to Rs.237/- per Cent. Similarly if the value of the property at the rate of Rs.30,686/- per hectare, is taken into consideration, the compensation will be less. Nevertheless, the lower court enhanced the value per Cent at 900/-. The lower court while dealing with the compensation discussed in para 26 of the judgment held that as per Exs.C2 and C3, they are sale deeds of the year 18.08.1988 and the lands were sold at Rs.872/- per Cent and under Ex.C4, the land was sold on 24.12.1987 at the rate of Rs.1380/- per Cent and therefore, fixed the compensation at Rs.900/- per Cent.
12.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in Exs.C2 and C3, the lands involved are in Survey No.222/11.
13.It is seen from the topography sketch, the land in Survey No.222/11, is situate far off on the southern side and in between the acquired land and the land in Survey No.222, there are various survey numbers and therefore, the value for which the land in Survey No.222 sold under Exs.C2 & C3 can not be taken into consideration for arriving at the market value of the land acquired. Therefore, in my opinion, the lower court, erred in taking into consideration of Exs.C2 and C3 for arriving at the market value of the lands acquired.
14.Ex.C4, is the sale deed, dated 24.12.1987 and it is in respect of 10 Cents of land and it was sold for Rs.1,38,000/- per hectare, which is equivalent to Rs.1,380/- per Cent. It is seen from the said sale deed that the land was sold as house site and therefore, that document should not be considered. Further, the land covered under Ex.C4 also situate far away from the acquired land Ex.C5, is of the year 1992, after acquisition and therefore, that document should not also be taken into consideration. Therefore, if we exclude Exs.C2 to C5, we are left with the award proceedings in which, the appellant has taken into consideration the land in Survey No.273/1A, which was valued at Rs.30,868/- per hectare, which is equivalent to Rs.125/- per Cent and in the said award proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.252/3, 252/1, lands were sold at the rate of Rs.50,196/- per hectare and that sale was mentioned as Item No.3 and which is also admitted by the Acquisition Officer that the land in Survey No.252/1,3 are situate nearer to the acquired land and are having 6 coconut trees, 9 Palmyrah trees and that was rejected on the ground that the sale was for a fancy price.
15.The land in Survey Nos.252/1 and 3 were sold on 3/2/90, and the extent of land sold was 1.25 hectares. It is seen from Ex.R1 that the survey No.252/1 is also situate on the southern side nearer to the acquired land and taking into consideration of the data land, and the land in Survey No.252/1 and 3 which were sold @ Rs.50196/- per hectare, in my opinion, that value can be taken as the correct market value for the acquired land. But the appellant/Referring Officer has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.58,450/- per hectare and therefore, the value in respect of land in survey Nos.253/1 and 3 cannot be taken into consideration as the said value is less then the market value adopted by the Acquisition Officer. But in respect of L.A.O.P.No.5 of 93 against which A.S.No.362 of 1997 was filed, in the award proceedings, the appellant has taken into consideration Rs.30,868/- per hectare as market value for arriving at the compensation and therefore, in respect of the land in Survey No No.265/2B, the value of the lands in S.Nos.252/3 and 252/1 namely of Rs.50,196/- per hectare can be taken into consideration as market value and compensation can be fixed at Rs.50,196/- per hectare and if so fixed the value per Cent would be Rs.203/- per Cent.
16.The lower court has taken into consideration the sales of the year 1988 in respect of Survey No.222/11, which is very far off from the acquired land and therefore, the value mentioned in Ex.C2 and C3 cannot be the basis for arriving at the market value. The lower court erred in holding that Survey No.222/11 is nearer to the acquired land.
17.As stated supra, as per Ex.R1, topography, the land in survey No.273 and land in survey No.252 are situate nearer to the acquired land and survey No.222 is far away from the acquired land.
18.Further, the land under Ex.C4 is admittedly, a house site and the land in Ex.C4 is after the 4(1)notification and therefore, Exs.C4 and C5 should not be taken into consideration. But the lower court has taken into consideration, those exhibits for fixing the market value at Rs.900/- per Cent. Therefore, for reasons stated above, in respect of L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1993 against which A.S.No.362 of 1997 is filed the compensation is enhanced to Rs.203/-per Cent and so far as the other survey numbers, the compensation would be Rs.58,450/- per hectare fixed by the Referring Officer. Therefore, the finding of the lower court fixing the compensation @ Rs.900/- per cent for the acquired land is set aside and the award of the Referring Officer in respect of other L.A.O.Ps, except L.A.O.P.Nos.5 of 1993, is confirmed and in respect of L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1993, the compensation is fixed at Rs.203/- per Cent. Therefore, the compensation fixed by the court @ Rs.900/- is excessive and it is liable to be set aside and it is set aside.
19.Point No.2: There are 25 coconut tress in lands covered in L.O.P.No.3 of 1993 and 4 coconut trees, in lands covered under L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1993, 9 coconut trees in L.O.P.No.6 of 1993 and 62 coconut trees in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1993. The Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.160/- per coconut tree. The lower court has fixed Rs.350/- being the yield from 1 coconut tree per year and multiply the same by 20 years for arriving at the value of the coconut trees. The lower court has relied upon the Land Acquisition manual issued by the Government and the reported judgment in 1990(2) L.W.681 at page 689, in the case of S.Byravan vs. R.Thirumalaisamy Reddiar & others and 1995(1) MLJ 645 in the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA), Vembakottai Reserved Project Scheme Unit No.1, Srivilliputhur vs. Chinna Veerasami Naicker and others, and in 1982(2) MLJ 390 in the case of The Special Tahsildar (L.A), Modernisation of Vaigai Channel Scheme, Unit 5, Thiruppuvanam vs. The Managing Director, Alavai Industries (P) Limited, Madurai, for multiplying the annual value by 20 years.
20.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that it is stated by the Acquisition Officer that 20 coconut trees occupying an extent of 25 Cents and 62 coconut trees were grown in an area of 80 cents. If the value fixed by the lower court is taken into consideration viz., Rs.350/- per tree per year and multiply the same by 20 years, which comes to Rs.7,000/- per tree, market value of the land namely for 22 cents, will then works out to Rs.5600/- per Cent, which is more than the value fixed for the land. Therefore, the value arrived at by the lower court by capitalizing the yield cannot be sustainable.
21.According to me, the lower court erred in fixing the will yield tree of Rs.350/- per tree. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as per the evidence of PW5, who was working as Additional Director of Agricultural, a coconut tree would yield for 50 years and per tree 200 coconuts can be plucked per year and therefore, the lower court is right in arriving at the value of Rs.350/- per tree per year.
22.According to the respondents, even though the amount is low compared to the evidence of RW5 and hence, that part of the compensation can be sustained. I am not able to subscribe to the view of the lower court in fixing the value of yield of one coconut tree at Rs.350/- per year and multiplies the same by 20 years.
23.It is held in various judgments, there may be 4 or 5 plucking per year and for each plucking there would be 10 coconuts per tree and therefore, on an average 50 coconuts can be plucked in a year from a tree and the value can be fixed at Rs.50/- at Re.1/- per coconut and therefore, Rs.50/- will be the income from one coconut tree per year and calculating it for 20 years, the value would be Rs.1000/- per coconut tree. Therefore, the compensation per tree can be fixed at Rs.1000/- per year and the compensation fixed by the lower court is set aside.
24.Therefore, in the result, these appeals are partly allowed as follows:
[i]In respect of A.S.No.362 of 1997 the value of land per Cent is fixed at Rs.203/- per cent or Rs.50186/-per hectare and the enhancement made by the lower court is set aside and in respect of other appeals the value fixed by the Referring Officer is confirmed and the enhancement made by the lower court is set aside.
[ii]In respect of trees the value fixed for trees is Rs.1000/- and the award of Rs.7000/- for trees fixed by the lower court is set aside.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er To, The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.