Prayer in A.S.No.105 of 2008: Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur in L.A.O.P.No.61 of 2000 dated 28.02.2006.
For Appellant .. Mr.V.Ravi, Spl. Govt. Pleader in all the appeals For Respondents .. Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R1 in A.S.Nos.105, 107 to 184, 186 to 197 of 2008, 608, 637 to 640 of 2008 for R2 in A.S.No.106 of 2008 for R1 & R2 in A.S.Nos.515, 522 & 523 of 2007 for R1 in A.S.Nos.516 to 521 and 524 to 531 of 2007 Mr.M.Devaraj for SIPCOT in all the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.) All these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch covering 16 other cases by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee and judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch covering 100 cases by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu at Thiruvallur.
2.In all these appeals, as the Courts below considered the claims of various land owners which culminated into awards bearing Award Nos.1 to 4 of 1999 etc., and the data land as well as the reliance placed upon the documents at the instance of the claimants were common, we dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.
3.The following issues arise for consideration:
(i)What is the market value to be fixed for the purpose of working out the compensation?
(ii)To what relief the claimants are entitled?
4.The acquisitions in the awards were all related to the lands situated in Mambakkam Village and the total lands acquired in Survey Nos.161 to 179 were in an extent of 15.11.5 hectares. The lands were admittedly classified as dry lands. There were 17 claimants in regard to the cases covered by the judgment dated 28.04.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and 101 claimants in the cases covered by the judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch. The Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.450/- per cent by relying upon the data sale deed relating to Survey No.165/1A dated 11.09.1996 under which, an extent of 0.62 acres of dry land came to be sold for Rs.27,900/-. Before the Acquisition Officer, the claimants did not rely upon any specific document for enhancement, though according to the claimants, the market value was not less than Rs.25,000/- per cent.
5.The other uncontroverted facts are that the acquired lands were all situated 45 kilometres from the city of Chennai on the national highway. The acquisition came to be made by invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The 4(1) Notification was dated 24.09.1997 and the possession was stated to have been taken on 09.01.1998, 23.09.1999, 25.08.1999 and 09.01.1998. On a consideration of Exs.C2 to C4 insofar as the judgment dated 28.04.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and Exs.C3 and C4 insofar as it related to the judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch, the Courts below enhanced the market value of the lands. In the judgment dated 28.04.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch, the enhancement was from Rs.450/- to Rs.4,600/- per cent. While in the judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch, the enhancement was from Rs.450/- to Rs.4,400/- per cent. While there was no escalation applied in the judgment dated 28.02.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch, there was an escalation on the price of Exs.C2 to C4 in the judgment dated 28.04.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch, by which the price was enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,600/-. On the enhanced price, the Court below deducted 33% towards development charges and arrived at the value of the land at Rs.4,600/- per cent. In the judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch, on the sale value of the lands covered by Exs.C3 and C4 viz., sum of Rs.6,385.60, the Court below deducted 30% towards development charges while arriving at the market value at Rs.4,400/- per cent.
6.Assailing the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the learned Special Government Pleader in his submissions contended that the deduction of 33% and 30% was not justified inasmuch as the entire development of the lands came to be made only after the acquisition. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, on behalf of the Acquisition Officer as well as the requisitioning body, necessary evidence in the form of witnesses viz., R.Ws.1 and 2 were let in in the batch of cases covered by L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and R.Ws.1 and 2 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch to point out that every other development such as formation of road, street lights, water facilities, drainage system, telecommunication, erection of police station are all made by spending crores of rupees after the acquisition. Learned Special Government Pleader therefore contended that there should have been maximum deduction by way of development charges as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in K.S.Shivadevamma and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Another ((1996) 2 SCC 62). Learned Special Government Pleader also relied upon the decision in Basavva and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others ((1996) 9 SCC 640) to contend that in appropriate cases, the deduction by way of development charges can be given upto 65%, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. Learned Special Government Pleader then contended that there was no reason for the Court below to reject the data land relied upon by the Acquisition Officer while fixing the land value at Rs.450/- per cent under the Awards, in which, the enhancement came to be claimed by the various claimants.
7.As against the above submission, Mr.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants after pointing out certain details furnished in the Awards in relation to the developments which were noted in Survey Nos.163, 164, 165 and 166 and 170, which includes two buildings, terraced house, a shed and a compound wall of different dimensions valued at a sum of Rs.9,21,131/- and contended that when such developments are accepted, no more deduction by way of development charges should have been made and that in any event, the deduction made by the Courts below at the rate of 33% and 30% does not call for any interference. Learned counsel further contended that the reliance placed upon Exs.C2 to C4 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and Exs.C3 and C4 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch by the Courts below were all justified inasmuch as the sale in those cases were all eleven months prior to the 4(1) Notification dated 24.09.1997. The further fact that such acquisition came to be made by invoking the emergency provisions would show that there would have been no scope at all for the claimants to have created any document under Exs.C2 to C4 or Exs.C3 and C4 with any specific idea of claiming higher compensation after the acquisition.
8.Having heard the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and having perused the judgments of the Courts below as well as the Awards and other evidence on record, we are convinced that the reliance placed upon by the Courts below on Exs.C2 to C4 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and Exs.C3 and C4 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch and other connected cases were all fully justified.
9.At the outset, we wish to note that while the Acquisition Officer considered 202 instances of sales, he chose to rely upon the data land which fetched the price of Rs.450/- per cent. We are not in a position to appreciate the rejection by the Acquisition Officer, as regards the rest of the sale instances. The rejections were on the ground that 36 such sales were boost up sales, 67 of them were in respect of far away lands, 22 sales were combined sales, 17 of them were related to wet lands, 92 did not depict market value while 23 of them were all sold below the market value. Except such cryptic descriptions mentioned in the Awards, there were no other details of the relevant documents as to the survey numbers or the sale value or the extent of lands covered by those sale deeds in the Awards. Apparently, the Acquisition Officer appeared to have relied upon the data lands since the sale value mentioned therein was Rs.450/- per cent while the sale was on 11.09.1996, exactly one year prior to the 4(1) Notification. As far as Exs.C2 to C4 in one case and Exs.C3 and C4 in another case which related to the very same lands. The sale deeds were dated 11.10.1996 and the extent was also ranged between 10 cents to 82.5 cents and in respect of these sale deeds, the price per cent was Rs.6,000/-. They were all also related to the very same Survey No.165/1 while the data land related to the Survey No.160/1A. There was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the sale deeds were purposely made with an eye on future litigation. In fact, the purchase was by a private company as could be seen from the description made in the documents itself. The sale was by an individual by name Jose Sebastian in favour of M/s.J.S.Roll Well Applicators (India) Limited. When the purchase was made by a company, there is very slender reason to suggest that such a sale was a make belief affair. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming that part of the judgment of the Courts below in having relied upon Exs.C2 to C4 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and Exs.C3 and C4 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch in the judgments impugned in these appeals.
10.Once we steer clear of the above said position, the next question that arise for consideration is whether the enhancement of 10% on the sale value by the Court below in the judgment dated 28.04.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch was justified. According to the lower Court, the escalation was called for since as between the sale covered by Exs.C2 to C4 and the acquisition, one year had gone by and therefore 10% enhancement should be made. We are not in a position to accept the said reasoning inasmuch as in the case on hand, as pointed out by us earlier, though some part of the lands covered by the different survey numbers viz., 161 to 175 were alongside the national highway, most part of the lands spread well beyond the national highway and therefore, there could not have been an enhancement and such an upward rise as was visualised by the Court below in our considered view was not justified. The entire lands covered by the different survey numbers extended to nearly 15.11.5 hectares. Therefore, it would have been in order for the Court below to have relied upon the sale deeds themselves and applied the same without any further enhancement.
11.Therefore, accepting the said sale value as the market value for the acquired lands viz., Rs.6,000/- per cent, we proceed to consider the question as to what is the percentage of development charges to be deducted for the purpose of working out the compensation. As far as this issue is concerned, the consistent view of this Court as well as the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court is clear to the point that where there is no development, then the maximum percentage should be provided by way of development charges. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader reported in K.S.Shivadevamma and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Another ((1996) 2 SCC 62) and Basavva and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others ((1996) 9 SCC 640). In the former case, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the case where the High Court deducted 53% towards development charges on finding that the acquired ands were all agricultural lands and that in order to make them fit for the purpose for which they were acquired, various developments by way of roads and other amenities have to be made. The Honourable Supreme Court laid down the principles as under in para 10:
"10.It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under
Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under
Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over to the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33-1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
12.In fact, in the subsequent decision in (1996) 9 SCC 640 (cited supra), the Honourable Supreme Court held that in the event the Court finds that such sales are genuine and reliable and the lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of lands. The time lag for real development and the waiting period for development are also relevant consideration for determination of just and adequate compensation. While holding that each case depends upon its own facts, it held for deduction of development charges, the nature of development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc., and all other relevant circumstances involved should be considered. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case was considering the question whether development charges by way of 65% deducted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified and the Honourable Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that such an extent of 65% deduction was well justified.
13.Keeping the above principles in mind, when we examine the case on hand, it is needless to state that the lands were all barren when acquired and the developments had to be made from scratch. The purpose for acquisition by the requisitioning body viz., SIPCOT was for setting up of an industrial park. Further, such a development on that occasion of industrial park was made for multinational companies, NRIs and other major industries to set up their industries in the acquired lands. For that purpose, several other developments by way of road, water facilities, drainage facilities, street lights, hospitals, police station, telecommunication facilities etc., had to be made. It is common knowledge that such developments would necessarily involve crores of rupees to be spent as claimed by the respondents/claimants before the Courts below. If that be so, the Courts below ought to have applied the maximum percentage of deduction viz., 53% towards development charges. We therefore hold that the development charges fixed at the rate of 33% and 30% by the Courts below was not justified and instead the development charges to be deducted should be at the rate of 53%. Accordingly, on the sale value of Exs.C2 to C4 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and Exs.C3 and C4 in L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch, we deduct 53% by way of development charges. The remaining sum works out to Rs.2,820/-. We round it off to Rs.2,800/- per cent as market value. Consequently, while confirming the judgment of the Courts below dated 28.04.2006 and 28.02.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.86 of 2003 etc., batch and L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 etc., batch respectively, we only modify the market value of the acquired lands to a sum of Rs.2,800/- per cent instead of Rs.4,600/- per cent and Rs.4,400/- per cent respectively.
14.To sum up in the result, all the appeals are partly allowed as indicated below:
(a) The land value in all the appeals are fixed at Rs.2,800/- per cent with 30% solatium;
(b) Time for deposit is three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(c) The claimants are entitled to an additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Award of the Referring Officer or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier;
(d)The claimants are entitled to 9% interest for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% for every subsequent year, on the amount calculated as market value till the date of deposit;
(e)Any excess amount deposited, after satisfying the above Award, is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant in all the appeals;
(f)The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and the learned counsel appearing for SIPCOT shall be entitled to separate fees for each of the appeals;
(g)There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
mmi