These appeals are filed by the land owners for enhancement of compensation awarded by the competent authority and as enhanced by the reference Court.
2. The appellants are owners of the land comprised in RS.No.51/2, Pandasozhanallur village, Pondichery, and the said lands were acquired for the purpose of establishing infrastructure and play ground facilities to Government Middle School at Pandasozhanallur. The 4(1) notification was issued on 09.12.2005. After enquiry, the award passed on 10.10.2008 at Rs.23/- per square feet.
3. Aggrieved over the said compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respective appellants filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court, after trial, confirmed the amount of Rs.23/- per square feet as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Only against the dismissal of the reference application, the land losers are before this Court.
4. Heard Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate, Pondichery.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5. Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the properties acquired are located in RS No.51/2. A similar property comprised in the adjoining survey number in RS.No.50/4 had fetched a sum of Rs.53/- per square feet, even 7 years before the date of issuance of Section 4 (1) notification on 08.07.1998. The said document was exhibited as Ex.A1. However, the same was not looked into either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the Civil Court.
6. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit the data documents, Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer and Civil Court are away from the acquired property and located in Rs.Nos.63/72, 48/3, 49/1 and 63/19. Therefore, the determination of the value of the acquired property at Rs.23/- per square feet is very low and would seek for enhancement. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 533, P.Savithri Padmanabhan (Deceased) and others Vs.G.R.Nithyanandam and another, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 810 and The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem Vs. Kandasamy and another, reported in 2009 (1) CTC 609, to contend that 10% appreciation should be added for each year along with the sale http://www.judis.nic.inconsideration which was the criteria for execution of sale deed in the year 1998. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Civil Court correctly determined the land value. He would point out that Ex.A1, sale deed relied upon by the appellants, is with regard to a smaller extent of land and the said value cannot be taken as a value for the acquired land, which is of vast extent. He relied upon the Apex Court judgment in this regard, Gafar and others Vs.Moradabad Development Authority reported in 2007 (7) SCC 614. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Collector of Hailakandi, reported in 1997 (9) SCC 679 to contend that the parties to Ex.A1 sale deed were not examined to prove the said document. Further he would submit that Ex.A1 is located away from the property.
8. A perusal of the records would show that the acquired lands were located in RS.No.51/2 which was acquired along with other properties comprised in RS Nos.48/3, 50/12, 50/3, 50/19 and 51/2. These properties are very much adjacent to the property, which has been conveyed under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 08.07.1998 comprised http://www.judis.nic.inin RS.No.50/4 relied upon by the appellants. Two acquired properties are located in Survey No.50 which are the properties conveyed under Ex.A1 sale deed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the properties conveyed under Ex-A1 is located closely to the acquired properties.
9. Secondly, the objection raised by the respondent to rely upon the value of the property as reflected in Ex.A1 is that it was executed in 08.07.1998, which was 7 years prior to Section 4(1) notification dated 09.12.2005. Though the courts below agreed with the contention of the respondent, the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the value of the property which is approximately closer to the date of issuance of 4(1) notification is appropriate and at any cost, the subsequent documents could not be relied upon as there are chances for invalidating the value of the properties. There is no prohibition to take the value of the property covered under documents which came into existence prior to issuance of Section 4(1) notification. The logic behind taking the documents closer to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification is to enable the land owner to get the correct value as compensation as on the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. If older documents before issuance of 4(1) notification are referred to, it would be detrimental to the interest of the owner, as the older documents would http://www.judis.nic.inalways show lesser value in view of the time factor.
However, in this case, Ex.A1 came into existence 7 years ago on 08.07.1998, before issuance of 4(1) notification on 09.12.2005. Therefore, without any idea about any proposed land acquisition, in the normal circumstances, Ex.A1 was executed and therefore, there is no prohibition to rely upon the said document to determine the value of acquired land. Hence, the finding of the reference Court that Ex.A1 could not be relied upon is set aside.
10. It is contended that Ex.A1 conveys smaller extent of land whereas the property acquired is of larger extent and therefore the value shown in Ex.A1 could not be relied upon. If this principle is to be adopted, then Ex.B4 to B7 are no different and they would also fall under the same category. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected. When no documents are available to reflect the correct value of the acquired land, Ex.A1 could be very much relied upon by the appellants and the very fact that Ex.A1 as well as Ex.B4 documents (4 documents) related to only smaller extents of land namely plots would prove the fact that the acquired land is located near residential area and the transactions are done only by way of plots. Hence, it is evident that the acquired land has the potential of being used as housing plots. When such is the position, the land value given in Ex.A1 has to be accepted.
http://www.judis.nic.inAccordingly, the land value given in Ex.A1, namely Rs.85,000/- for the extent of 1602 sq. ft (Rs.53/- per square feet) is taken as value of the acquired lands.
11. It is a fact that every year the value of the property gets appreciated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 533, added 10% increase in the value of the property every year. Following the same 10% appreciation is added for 7 years namely 1998 to 2005, as Ex.A1 is dated 1998 and notification is dated 2005. If, 10% is taken as appreciation value for 7 years, the value will be Rs.103.25/- (i.e.) 10% increase in every year. Therefore, this Court re-determines the value of the http://www.judis.nic.in N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
sai acquired property at Rs. 103.25/- per square feet and by determining the value at Rs.103.25/- per square feet, this Court sets aside the determination made by the civil Court based on the guideline value of the property as on date of issuance of 4(1) notification, in view of Ex.A1.
12. The development charges, as determined by the authority as well as by the civil Court at the rate of 33 1/3% is confirmed and 30% solatium and other benefits including costs and interest as determined by the civil Court is confirmed. The appeals are partly allowed.
13. The authorities are directed to calculate and pay the compensation as per the order of this Court within 20 weeks to the respective appellants. Call the matter for compliance after 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, the respondents have to file a compliance report.
sai Index: Yes/No 15.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S Nos.322 to 325 of 2011