This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 28.10.1993 made in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1990 directing payment of enhanced compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land belonging to the first respondent.
2. A total extent of 49 acres and 41,485 sq. ft. of land comprised in various survey numbers including the one concerned in this appeal was acquired by the Government at the instance of the Requisitioning Department viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses under the Mini Neighbourhood Scheme in Tiruvannamalai Taluk. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by G.O.Ms.No.891, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 08.09.1982. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.09.1982 and also in the newspapers. After hearing the objections, some of the areas were deleted from the acquisition and the objections raised in respect of the other areas were overruled. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.838, Housing and Urban Development department dated 22.08.1985. The same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Supplementary dated 04.09.1985. It was also published in English daily, the Hindu and Tamil daily Thina Thanthi on 09.09.1985. Thereafter, award enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai. The acquired lands were classified into three categories, viz., 1.Manavari dry lands, 2.Irrigated dry lands and 3.Wet lands. As many as 18 sales were included in the data sales to assess the market value of Manavari dry lands. Out of the 18 sale deeds, 17 were rejected as not reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land and a sale deed dated 05.08.1982 was selected as the data sale for Manavari dry lands. A sale deed dated 14.10.1981 in respect of 22 cents of lands in Survey No.1786/3 bearing document No.1186/1981 has been taken as the data sale both for irrigated dry lands and wet lands.
3. Under sale deed dated 16.05.1981 bearing Document No.607, an extent of 5200 sq. ft. of land comprised in Survey No.1774/1 had been sold for a sum of Rs.2,600/-. It was selected as the data sale reflecting the market value of Manavari dry lands. Thus, the market value of the acquired land was calculated at the rate of Rs.0.50 paise per sq. ft. for Manavari lands and Rs.1.46 paise per sq. ft. for irrigated dry lands and wet lands. We are concerned with the lands belonging to the first respondent acquired by the Government for the above said scheme, the particulars of which are as follows:-
1)Survey No.1789/2C measuring 0.01240/- sq. ft. and
2)Survey No.1793/1A1A2 measuring 0.02642 sq. ft.
Both the lands were classified as dry lands by the Land Acquisition Officer. 1789/2C was classified as irrigated dry land whereas 1793/1A1A2 was classified as Manavari dry land. Thus, the market values of the said properties were assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer as follows:-
a) Survey No.1793/1A1A2 (Manavari dry land) Market value as on the date of 4(1) notification at the rate of Rs.0.50 paise per sq. ft. = 2642 x 0.50 = Rs.1,321.
b) Survey No.1789/2C (irrigated dry land) Market value as on the date of 4(1) notification at the rate of Rs.1.46 paise per sq. ft. = 1240 x 1.46 = Rs.1,810.40 paise.
The total compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer had been worked out as follows:-
4. On the request of the first respondent herein/the claimant, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai for fixing a reasonable compensation for the land acquired from the first respondent herein/the claimant. The same was taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai as L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1990. In the claim statement filed before the Court below, the first respondent herein contended that even the guideline values of the lands lying on the East and West of Thandarampet road had been fixed at Rs.30 per sq. ft. and Rs.27 per sq. ft respectively; that the acquired lands concerned in this appeal were situated near Thandarampet main road; that the acquired lands should have been classified and valued as house sites and that the compensation should be fixed taking the market value as on the date of 4(1) notification at Rs.100 per sq. ft. The claim was resisted by the appellant herein and the second respondent herein contending that the market value was fixed following proper procedure; that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was reasonable and that therefore, the first respondent herein/claimant was not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.
5. The Tribunal framed a single issue, which reads as follows:-
"Whether the claimant is entitled to claim enhanced compensation?"
6. One witness was examined as C.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.5 on the side of the claimant (first respondent herein). One witness was examined as R.W.1 and four documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4 on the side of the Appellant/Referring Officer.
7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai heard the arguments advanced on either side and considered the evidence in the light of such arguments. Upon such consideration, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai directed payment of additional compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired property uniformly at the rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft. irrespective of the classification of the land. While directing such assessment of market value, the learned Subordinate Judge has also directed deduction of 1/5th part of the land viz., 776 sq. ft. for developmental purposes from the total extent of land acquired and calculated the total market value of the acquired land and compensation as follows:-
i) Market value of the acquired land (3882 776 = 3106 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. ft. = Rs.37,272.00 ii) Solatium on the above said value at 30% = Rs.11,181.00 iii) Market value + Solatium = Rs.48,453.00 iv) Additional market value on the above said total amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of 12% per annum = Rs.28,862.00 ____________ v) Total amount of compensation = Rs.67,315.00 vi) Amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer = Rs. 5,949.45 _____________ Excess compensation = Rs.61,365.00 _____________
The learned Subordinate Judge also directed payment of interest on the above said amount from the very next day of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai awarding enhanced compensation as indicated supra, the Government through the Referring Officer has come forward with present appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.
9. Of course it is true that the Requisitioning Department viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was not made a party before the lower court and also in the appeal as it was originally filed in this court. Subsequently, the Requisitioning Department made an application viz., Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.15656 of 1997 for getting impleaded as a party in the appeal. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed on 04.11.2003 and thus, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has been made a party to the appeal and arrayed as the second respondent in the appeal.
10. This Court heard the submissions of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant, Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
11. A vast extent of land measuring 49 acres 41485 sq. ft. comprising several survey numbers in Tiruvannamalai Taluk, including the first respondent's lands viz., 1) T.S.No.1789/2C measuring 0.01240/- sq. ft. and 2) Survey No.1793/1A1A2 measuring 0.02642 sq. ft. was acquired by the Government for construction of houses under the 'Mini Neighborhood Scheme.' Not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the first respondent herein made a request for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the court. Thus, the reference happened to be made to the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1990. The said court, after trial, fixed the market value of the acquired properties at the uniform rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft. as against Rs.0.50 paise for manavari dry land and Rs.1.46 paise for irrigated dry land. While ordering assessment of market value for both the lands at the uniform rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft., the learned Subordinate Judge has also directed deduction of 1/5th part of the land from the total extent as the area required for developmental purposes since agricultural dry land was to be valued as house sites. The fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.12 is challenged in this appeal. The appellant is supported by the second respondent viz., the Requisitioning Department.
12. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are-
"1) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge right in fixing the market value at the rate of 12 per sq. ft.
2) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge deserves to be reduced?."
13. Though five documents on the side of the claimant and four documents on the side of the Referring Officer were marked and one witness each on the side of the claimant and the Referring Officer were examined, the documents marked as Exs.C.1, Ex.C.4 and Ex.R.3 assume importance. Ex.C.3 is the certified copy of the data sale selected by the Land Acquisition Officer as reflecting the market value of the acquired property. The acquired property has been classified into two sub categories even though they come under the common category 'dry land'. They were classified into manavari dry land and irrigated dry land. For irrigated dry land, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1.46 per sq. ft. based on Ex.C.3 sale deed. But the sale deed taken as the data sale reflecting the market value of manavari dry land has not been produced on the side of the Referring Officer. However, the claimant has produced Ex.C.1 sale deed to show that the acquired properties had been purchased by her on 12.06.1981. The market value reflected in the said sale deed, as on 12.06.1981 is Rs.1 per sq. ft. However, for a neighbouring land comprised in Survey No.1774/3, an award was passed fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft. Ex.A.4 is the certified suit register extract of L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988. The judgement therein was pronounced on 26.07.1990. The market value of the neighbouring land acquired for Housing purpose had been fixed at the rate of Rs.12 in the said case. Those lands concerned in the L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988 were also acquired for construction of houses under Mini Neighbourhood Scheme. The Referring Officer in the said case had also fixed the very same amount viz., Rs.1.46 per sq. ft. as the market value for the irrigated dry lands and Rs.0.50 paise per sq. ft. for the Manavari dry lands. In the said L.A.O.P. also, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai by judgment and decree dated 26.07.1990 awarded enhanced compensation by fixing a uniform market value of Rs.12 per sq. ft. for the dry lands without any further classification as manavari dry lands and irrigated dry lands. The said judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dated 26.07.1990 made in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988 was challenged before this Court in A.S.No.884 of 1991. The claimants therein had also preferred cross objection No.135 of 1992. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing, dismissed both the appeal and the cross objection by a judgment dated 12.07.2001. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this court has held that the fixation of the market value at the rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft. was quite reasonable and that hence, there was no scope for either reducing or enhancing the market value.
14. As the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the market value based on an earlier order in another L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988, which order was confirmed by a Division Bench of this court, this court has to necessarily come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the court below at the rate of Rs.12 per sq. ft. is quite reasonable and it cannot be held excessive or unreasonable. The first point in issue is answered accordingly.
15. As a large extent of land was acquired for housing scheme and considering extent of land acquired from the first respondent/claimant (3882 sq. ft.), the court below has chosen to allow a reduction of 1/5th part of the land from the total extent as the area required for developmental purposes as the property was to be valued as house site. By reducing 1/5th part of the land viz., 776 sq. ft., the balance extent alone was valued at the above said rate. The said procedure adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge is not challenged to be unreasonable, either by the appellant or by any one of the respondents. Therefore, there can be no interference in the market value arrived at by the court below.
16. The court below has also rightly awarded 30% of the market value as solatium as per
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, additional market value as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act was calculated by the court below at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, not on the market value alone, but on the aggregate value of market value + solatium. Now it has been settled that the additional market value should not be calculated on the aggregated sum of market value and the solatium, but the additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act should be calculated on the market value alone. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have committed an error in calculating additional market value on the aggregate sum of market value and solatium. Though the same was not made a ground of attack in the appeal, the same being a legal issue can be raised with the permission of the court at stage of the proceeding in the appeal. Now the learned Special Government Pleader has made such a plea that the said question being a legal issue can be allowed to be raised during the arguments in the appeal. This Court, after considering the request, comes to the conclusion that such a plea has got to be accepted in view of the apparent mistake committed by the court below in calculating the additional market value.
17. Apart from the above said error committed by the learned Subordinate Judge, some arithmetical mistakes are also found in the judgment. While calculating the solatium, the court below has committed a mistake in quoting Rs.11.181.00 instead of Rs.11,181.60 paise. The same can be ignored if at all there is no other mistake. The court below seems to have committed an arithmetical error by which aggregate sum of the market value, solatium and additional market value has been quoted to be Rs.67,315.00/- instead of the correct figure of Rs.77,315.60 paise. The Appellate Forum cannot simply close its eyes to such mistakes. Therefore, though the first respondent/claimant has not chosen to file any appeal or cross objection, the said mistake has got to be corrected.
18. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the excess amount of compensation awarded by the court below cannot be reduced. At the same time, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. the error committed by the court below in calculating additional market value and the arithmetical mistakes committed by the court below in computing the total compensation should be corrected by this court in this appeal.
19. Therefore, the excess compensation to be payable to the first respondent/claimant has got to be worked out as follows:-
a) Market value calculated at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. ft.
(on 3882 776 = 3106 sq. ft. = Rs.37,272.00
b) Solatium under
Section 23(2) of the Act at 30% of market value = Rs.11,181.60
c) Additional market value calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value indicated in (a) as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act (for 5 years from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award of the Referring Officer = Rs.22,363.20 ___________ Total amount of compensation =Rs.70,816.80 Amount already paid as per the award of the Referring Officer = Rs. 5,949.45 ___________ Enhanced compensation = Rs.64,867.35 ___________
20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant praying for reduction of the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below is dismissed. However, exercising the powers of Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 33, the award is modified as follows:-
21. The first respondent/claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.64,867/- as enhanced compensation instead of Rs.61,365.55 paise as found in the decree of the court below. The above said amount shall carry on interest at the rate of Rs.9 % per annum from 19.09.1987 (the day after the admitted date of taking possession) for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. The parties shall bear their respective cost of litigation in this appeal. Subject to the above said modification, in all other respects the decree of the court below shall stand confirmed.
jrl To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai,
2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Vellore Housing Unit, Vellore