These appeals have been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer as against the enhancement of compensation by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.Nos.219 and 221 of 2001. The claimants are the respondents in the above respective appeals.
2.The respondents in A.S.No.56 of 2004 (which is filed against the award in L.A.O.P.No.219 of 2001) are the owners of a land measuring an extent of 0.90.5 hectares in Survey Nos.587/5B, 583/9B in Aruppukottai Village, Aruppukottai Taluk in Virudhunagar District. Similarly, the respondents in A.S.No.57 of 2004 (which is filed against the award of Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.221 of 2001) are the owners of a land measuring an extent of 0.10.0 hectares in Survey No.583/8A in the same village.
3.The lands were acquired by a notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 14.10.1992 in the gazette. The acquisition was for the purpose of providing houses to Adidravidars. The substance of the notification was also published in the gazette on 18.10.1992. The land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 29.03.1993 fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. Though the Land Acquisition Officer referred to 113 sale deeds in respect of the lands adjoining the area, he discorded almost all the documents on the ground that the lands conveyed under those documents were house sites and that they cannot be relied upon to fix the value. The only document that was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in the sale deed dated 10.03.1992 which is in respect of an extent of 2 acres in Survey No.809/3. In this document, the punja land to an extent of 2 acres was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
4.Since the land acquired from the owners were situated within the municipal limits of Aruppukottai Town and it is an urban area, already developed, the land owners, the respondents in these appeals raised an objection to the quantum of compensation by stating that the market value will be not less than Rs.20,000/- per cent. Thus, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Civil Court to fix the just compensation for the lands under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal fixed the market value at Rs.2,985/- per cent by taking into account the market value on the basis of document filed under Exs.B2 to B6 which reflect the market value between Rs.5,200/- to Rs.6,000/-. However, after allowing the deduction of 43% on the market value for development, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.2,985/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the above appeals and the respondents in the appeals have also filed Cross Objections.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the lower Court erred in relying upon the documents Exs.P1 to P9. He made a submission that the sale deeds relied upon by the Reference Court are not pertaining to the village in which the acquisition was made. It is further contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the area of the land covered by the document Exs.P1 to P9 are very meagre and that they cannot be relied upon to fix the compensation for the larger extent of lands acquired by the Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the lower Court ought to have allowed deductions towards developmental charges, as the lands were acquired for the purpose of housing scheme.
6.Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the respondents in these appeals submitted that the compensation fixed by the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, is very low and that the Cross Objections should be allowed and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has taken the value found in Exs.P2 to P6 in stead of either taking the average of all the sale deeds or the highest value found in Ex.P9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the deduction of 43% is illegal as the acquired lands are located in a developed area and the acquisition itself is only for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, providing house sites to Adi Dravidars under Welfare Scheme cannot be equated with formation of new township or under the schemes propound by housing Board where the lay outs are formed providing 100 feet, 80 feet, 60 feet and 40 feet roads apart from reserving areas for public purpose and for keeping in mind the further developments in future. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has taken the market value at Rs.5,232/- per cent ignoring Exs.P7 to P9 where the market value for the lands are above Rs.7,000/- per cent. Relying upon the document Ex.P9, dated 24.01.1992 which came into existence about seven month prior to the acquisition, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the lower Court ought to have relied upon this document while determining the market value for the lands. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently taken the view while relying upon the data sale deeds which are long prior to the acquisition, the Court can give additional value upto 12% to 15% for every year towards appreciation. In other words, his submission was that if the document Ex.P2 dated 16.10.1989 is relied upon, the compensation should be fixed by adding at least 36% above the market value found in this document. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the market value for the acquired lands will be not less than Rs.7,000/- per cent.
7.The learned counsel for the respondents in these appeals relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.A.P.Nithyanandam and others v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Master Plan Complex, Virudhunagar in a batch of cases in A.S.Nos.840 of 1987 and others cases, wherein it has been held that the Court can invoke the power under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC and permit the claimants / land owners who have not filed Cross Objections and who were awarded compensation only at the rate less than the compensation fixed by this Court in other cases, to get the benefit of enhanced compensation upon payment of proportionate Court fee. The situation is not similar in this case. Herein the lands lords have preferred Cross Objections by claiming more compensation namely an additional sum of Rs.200/- per cent. Though this Court find that the market value can be fixed more than the amount which was claimed by the claimants in the Cross Objections, the claimants are estopped from claiming more compensation as the assessment of compensation is made only on some guess work based on the available material, so that the compensation determined by the Court would reflect the correct market value. Since the determination of market value is purely an assessment of facts with the available material, the claim by the land owners when they come to the Court is relevant and they are estopped from claiming more than what they prayed for. Unlike the compensation fixed for tortious liability where the liability is determined under several heads, it is not desirable by Courts in respect of cases arising out of cases in relation to compensation for lands acquired, to award more compensation than the amount the claimant has claimed in the Cross Objection.
8.The contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader raising objections to all the documents Ex.A1 to A9 are not tenable having regard to the fact that the data sale deeds are also pertaining to the lands acquired in the same village where the lands were acquired. From the evidence on record, it can be seen that the lands are located in the area which is already developed and no further deduction can be canvassed on any known principle. As a matter of fact, the deduction is also on the higher side and this Court is therefore not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the documents relied upon by the Land Acquisition Tribunal are in respect of an area of house sites and that the same cannot be relied upon to fix compensation for the acquired lands is also unacceptable, as it can be seen from the evidence, in this case, the acquired lands are also located within the municipal limits of Aruppukottai Village. The lands surrounding the acquired lands are already developed. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation by adopting comparable sale method. The question is whether the sale deeds relied upon by the Tribunal are in respect of similar lands that were acquired. When this question is answered by stating that the document relied upon by the Tribunal are in respect of the lands in the same vicinity and the lands acquired are similar to the lands covered under the sale deeds Ex.P2 to P6, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader. Hence, I find no merit in the two appeals filed by the Government.
9.However, having regard to the Cross Objections filed by the land owners, this Court has to consider the question whether the respondents are entitled to any higher compensation? It is true that the sale deeds which were marked as Exs.B1 to B9 are in respect of smaller lands. In all the documents, the lands were sold as house site plots. The contention of the claimants is that the acquired land is located amidst developed residential colonies. The claim statement filed by the claimants and the evidence on behalf of the lands owners would clearly show that the acquired lands are located in a developed area and that the acquired lands are surrounded by the lands where several residential colonies, school, Government offices, hospital, Court, colleges, mills, marriage halls, weekly shandy and temple. The acquired lands are also very near the new bus stand. Hence, the documents Exs.P1 to P9 can be relied upon to fix the market value for the lands acquired.
10.All the sales which were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 are prior to the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex.P9 is also a document dated 24.01.1992 which came into existence about 7 months prior to the 4(1) notification. The genuineness of the transaction therefore cannot be questioned. Having regard to the evidence in this case that the acquired lands were already developed and surrounded by residential colonies and other commercial establishments, it is desirable to rely upon the sale deeds representing the highest value for the purpose of determining the market value for the lands acquired. I find no compelling reasons or other circumstances justifying different course. The next question is with regard to the deduction. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has allowed deduction of 43% without assigning any reason. Since this Court find that the acquired lands is a developed land and surrounded by residential colonies and other commercial establishments, a deduction of 30% will meet the ends of justice. Taking into consideration the market value at Rs.10,000/- per cent and the deduction at 30%, this Court fix the market value for the acquired lands as on the date of issuance of 4(1) notification at Rs.7,000/- per cent. Considering the fact that the respondents in A.S.No.56 of 2004 have claimed compensation in the Cross Objection only for an enhancement of Rs.200/- more per cent, the Cross Objection is allowed as prayed for and the claimants / respondents in both the appeals are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.3,185/- per cent.
11.In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the Cross Objection is allowed. The respondents in A.S.No.56 and 57 of 2004 are entitled to get compensation by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.3,185/- per cent. However, there is no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Sub Court, Aruppukkottai.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..