The referring officer is the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997. The claimants figure as respondents in the said appeals. A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 are the appeals preferred by the claimants in which the referring figures as respondent.
2. An extent of 26 cents comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A1 and an extent of 1.29 acres comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A3 making a total area of 1 acre 55 cents in Ambattur village was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for use as Villivakkam - Avadi Road and Ambattur Byepass Road, based on the requisition made by the Highways and Rural Works Department. After the decision to acquire the land was approved and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted award enquiry and passed an award in his award No.2/1988 dated 04.03.1988 awarding compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.872/- per cent. The total market value of the land was fixed at Rs.1,35,160/-. A sum of Rs.40,548/- was added as solatium @ 30% of the market value. A sum of Rs.48,568.70P was awarded as additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of award and thus a total sum of Rs.2,24,276.70P was awarded as total compensation payable to the land owners/ interested persons. As each one of the claimants was entitled to 1/4 share in the above said property acquired by the government, the said amount was apportioned equally among them. The claimants received the amount under protest claiming that the amount awarded as compensation was too low and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for fixing a reasonable amount as compensation. Accordingly, four references were made to the Sub-court, Poonamallee under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same were taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee as LAOP Nos.204, 206, 207 and 209 of 1988. After claim statements and objections were received, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee conducted a common trial in which one witness was examined as C.W.1 and five documents were marked as Ex.C1 to C5 on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R3 on the side of the Referring Officer.
3. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, heard the arguments advanced on either side and considered the evidence in the light of such arguments. Upon such consideration, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed on the basis of Ex.C2 after allowing a deduction of 20% for conversion of larger extent into house sites or commercial sites and for developmental charges. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,600/- per cent and awarded enhanced compensation which included 30% solatium on the market value and increase in the market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of Collector's award. The learned Subordinate Judge also directed payment of interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum.
4. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decrees of the trial court, the State through the Referring Officer, has preferred A.S.Nos.959 to 962/1997 for reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the court below. The claimants have come forward with A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 for further enhancement of the compensation. All the eight appeals have been heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.
5. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) representing the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and respondent in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and by Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 were heard. The material records were also perused.
6. Admittedly, the claimants, who figure as appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 preferred by the Referring Officer, were the land owners and interested persons from whom the land concerned in these appeals, measuring a total extent of 1.55 acre was compulsorily acquired by the State for a public purpose, namely for Villivakkam - Avadi Road and Ambattur Bye-pass Road. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.03.1985. The award enquiry was completed and award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.03.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the statistics regarding the sales that had taken place within a period of three years prior to the date of 4(1) Notification in respect of the properties situated in the neighbourhood, relied on a sale deed dated 29.09.1984 under which an extent of 1822 sq.ft. of land was sold for a sum of Rs.4,555/- as a vacant unapproved house site as the data sale and based on the said sale deed, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.872/- per cent. This was done after allowing a deduction of 20% from the market value reflected in the data sale towards conversion of larger extent into smaller house sites and reclamation charges. The claimants chose to receive the amount awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and made a request for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the court for fixing reasonable amount as compensation. Accordingly, the references made by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of all the four claimants were taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee as LAOP Nos.204, 206, 207 and 209 of 1988. The correctness of the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is being questioned by the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 contending that the same is excessive whereas the challenge to the said fixation of market value by the learned Subordinate Judge has been made by the claimants (appellants in A.S.Nos.259 to 262 of 1997) contending that the same is less than the actual market value.
7. The points that arise for consideration are:
" 1. whether the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is not reasonable?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the court below deserves reduction?
3. Whether the compensation awarded by the court below deserves to be enhanced?".
8. The learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and respondent in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000, argued that the amount awarded by the court below is highly excessive and exorbitant and hence the same deserved drastic reduction in the hands of this court. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out the fact that as against Rs.872/- fixed as the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the court below chose to fix Rs.5,600/- as the market value which resulted in more than six fold increase and the vast difference found in the valuation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the court below would give an indication that the market value adopted by the court below was unreasonably higher. The learned Special Government Pleader also advanced arguments to the effect that the selection of the sale under Ex.R2 as the data sale reflecting the market value should have been upheld by the court below and that the court below should also have adopted the very same market value to deny enhanced amount of compensation claimed by the claimants.
9. It is the further contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that though the court below has rightly rejected Ex.C4 and C5 as sales not reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land, it has committed an error in relying on the sale under Ex.C2, as the data sale reflecting the market value. According to his contention, the said property concerned in Ex.C2 is situated far away from the acquired land and is in the midst of developed residential area, whereas the acquired land was not developed to such an extent and hence the comparison of the acquired land with the land sold under Ex.C2 was improper. It is the further contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that even assuming that the sale under Ex.R2 could not be relied on as the correct market value of the acquired land, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have relied on Ex.C1 and taken a lesser amount as market value of the acquired land. According to his submission, under Ex.C1 a land measuring 4,800 sq.ft with a building put up in an extent of 900 sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.70,000/- and when the nature of construction is taken into consideration, only Rs.35,000/- can be fixed as the land cost and if such calculation is adopted, the land value shall come to a little more than Rs.1,000/- per cent.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants, who figure as appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997, would submit that Ex.C1 was produced to show that the land value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer relying on Ex.R2 could not be sustained and that the other documents produced by the claimants are capable of proving that the value of the acquired land, as on the date of 4(1) Notification, was not less than Rs.15,000/- per cent. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 argued further that the court below committed an error in not relying on Exs.C4 and C5 and that the court below failed to consider the escalation trend in the market value. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 and respondents in A.S.Nos.962 to 965 of 1997 that the market value should have been fixed not below Rs.15,000/- per cent relying on Ex.C5 and that at least the market value should have been fixed at Rs.13,200/- per cent on the basis of the award of the Sub-court, Poonamallee passed in LAOP No.1/1989, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.C4. It is also his contention that when many sales have taken place in the vicinity of the acquired land within the period of scrutiny and all sales are proved to be genuine transactions, it shall not be proper to rely on the sale deed which reflected the least value or to strike an average between the least and the highest value and that in such cases the higher value should be adopted as the market value of the acquired land unless there are special reasons for deviating from the same.
11. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that a higher amount should be fixed as the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification.
1)Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Another reported in (2004) 2 SCC 283;
2)Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481;
3)Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras reported in 1969 (1) MLJ 45; and
4)The State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Madras, Madras-1 v. P.Seetharamammal, represented by her Advocate Sri S.Krishnaswami Iyer and others reported in 1972(1) MLJ 58.
12. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Another reported in (2004) 2 SCC 283 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that comparable sales method is the best acceptable method for determining the market value of the acquired land. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras reported in 1969 (1) MLJ 45 has held that the market value of the acquired land should be determined on the basis of sales of similar lands in the locality and in doing so higher value fetched by those lands and not the average of the values reflected in those sales should be adopted as the market value of the acquired land. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-
"Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course."
The said proposition was relied on and followed by a Division Bench of this court in The State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Madras, Madras-1 v. P.Seetharamammal, represented by her Advocate Sri S.Krishnaswami Iyer and others reported in 1972(1) MLJ 58.
14. In this case, though the Land Acquisition Officer might have included hundreds of sales in his sales statistics for fixing the market value of the acquired land, ultimately he has rejected all other sales as not reflecting the market value of the acquired land and relied on the sale under Ex.R2 as the one reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification. It should be kept in mind that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not an appeal against the award of the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) and the court dealing with a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not an appellate forum to give a verdict as to the correctness or legality of the award passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer). The proceedings in the LAOP on the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is akin to a suit, wherein claimants occupy the position equivalent to plaintiff and Referring Officer occupies the position equivalent to defendant. When such is the case, the court dealing with the reference and of course the appellate forum, cannot look into any document which has not been admitted and proved in evidence in the concerned case.
15. In the case on hand, the only document produced on the side of the Referring Officer to prove the market value as on the date of 4(1) Notification is Ex.R2. Ex.R1 is the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and Ex.R3 is the plan. Therefore, the claimants cannot rely on the particulars found in the sales data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove the market value of the acquired land. If at all the claimants have got any clue from the said data sales, they could have obtained certified copies of the sale deeds reflecting higher value and prove the transaction under the sale deed to be genuine by producing the same and leading evidence. In this case, except Exs.C1, C2, C4 and C5, the claimants have not relied on any other sale that is found in the sales data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, we have to consider the comparability of the sales under Ex.C1, C2, C5 and R2 and also the comparability of the market value fixed in another LAOP as found in Ex.C4 with the acquired land.
16. Ex.C1 is a sale deed pertaining to a piece of land measuring 4,800 sq.ft wherein there was a RCC construction to the extent of 900 sq.ft. The said sale was effected on 23.02.1982. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 08.03.1985. Normally sales that have taken place within three years prior to the date of 4(1) Notification alone should be taken into consideration to fix the market value of the acquired land by adopting the comparison method. Ex.C1 came into existence more than three years prior to the date of 4(1) Notification. On that ground alone Ex.C1 can be excluded from the purview of consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. In addition to that the sale was in respect of a land with building. The land value and building value have not been separately provided therein. Therefore, it shall be difficult to ascertain the land value alone. The learned counsel for the claimants have made it clear that the said document was produced only to show that the Land Acquisition Officer searched for a document which reflected the least value rather than selecting a sale data which took place in respect of an adjoining land. The claimants have also produced other documents to show that lands in the vicinity were sold at higher rates during the period of scrutiny. Therefore, this court finds no defect or infirmity in the exclusion of the sale under Ex.C1 as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land.
17. Ex.C4 is the certified copy of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 13.06.1989 made in LAOP No.1/1989. The property concerned in the said LAOP is the one comprised in Survey No.666/96 in Ambattur village. With the Blue print plan marked as Ex.C3, this court is able to find that the said property is located far away from the acquired land, that too, in a well developed thick residential area. Therefore, the said land cannot be taken as the data land having equal facilities with the acquired land to say that the market value of both the lands should have been equal as on the date of 4(1) Notification. Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land concerned in the said LAOP, namely Survey No.666/96, was started only on 16.05.1986 (the date on which the 4(1) Notification was issued in that case) which was more than one year since the acquisition proceedings in the case on hand was started. Therefore, the market rate fixed in the said LAOP cannot be compared with the market value of the land acquired in the case on hand as on the date of 4(1) Notification. Hence, this court finds no defect or infirmity in the judgment of the court below in placing no reliance on Ex.C4 for fixing the market value of the acquired land.
18. So far as Ex.C5 is concerned, the same cannot be taken as a sale genuinely reflecting the correct market value. A small piece of land having an extent of 150 sq.ft. was sold under the original of Ex.C5 on 31.01.1983 for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. It cannot be stated that the price for which the sale was effected was the price for which a willing purchaser and a willing vendor would agree in the normal course of transaction. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that such a small piece of land could be of strategic importance to the purchaser therein and that could be the reason why he had chosen to agree for a higher rate than the actual rate the property could bring in the open market. Furthermore, the land sold under Ex.C5 is comprised in Survey No.204/1B in Varadarajapuram, of course a hamlet of Ambattur village. The said property is situated at a far off place on the south of east-west Chennai-Arakkonam railway line whereas the acquired land is situated at a considerable distance on the north of the said railway line. Therefore, the omission of the learned Subordinate Judge to rely on Ex.C5 as the data sale reflecting the market value of the acquired land, cannot be termed erroneous or defective.
19. After eliminating all the above said documents, there remains two documents for consideration to fix the market value of the acquired land. They are Ex.R2 relied on by the Referring Officer and Ex.C2 relied on by the claimants. Almost both the documents came into existence within a gap of 1= months, to say that they are contemporary documents. Ex.R2 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 29.09.1984. Under Ex.R2 an extent of 1822 sq.ft. of land comprised in Survey No.618/6 of Ambattur village was sold for a sum of Rs.4,555/-. It was sold as a manavari dry land describing it to me meant for use as a house site. The description of the property would show that the same was an unapproved lay out. Apart from the same, the very fact that the market value of the property was shown to be Rs.6,835/- will show that the same could not be a genuine sale reflecting the correct market value. None of the persons like the vendor, purchaser or attestor of the said sale deed has been examined to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the correctness of the amount quoted as the sale consideration. When compared with the property sold under Ex.C2, the property sold under Ex.R2 is not nearer to the acquired property. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly held that the said document could not be the one based on which the market value of the acquired land could be fixed.
20. Under Ex.C2, an extent of 2031 sq.ft. of land was sold for a sale price of Rs.35,340/-. The said property, in all respects resembles the acquired land. Therefore, this court finds no defect or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court selecting Ex.C2 as the data sale reflecting the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification. As per Ex.C2, an extent of 2031 sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.35,340/-, which works out to Rs.7,586.40P per cent. However, the learned Subordinate Judge erroneously took it as Rs.7,000/- per cent, allowed a deduction of 20% and fixed the market value at Rs.5,600/- per cent. Hence the same deserves interference.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in (2002) 3 SCC 688 and in Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 395, argued that when a sale deed prior to the date of 4(1) Notification is taken as the data sale for fixing the market value, price escalation should also be taken into account and thus a higher rate than the one reflected in Ex.C2-sale deed should have been fixed as the market value of the acquired land, as on the date of 4(1) Notification. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases has observed that when a sale which took place prior to 4(1) Notification is taken as the basis for fixing the market value, then the market value shall be increased taking into consideration the escalation in the market value @ 10% per each completed year. The sale under Ex.C2 took place on 15.11.1984. Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 08.03.1985. Therefore, there is only a gap of four months and hence strictly speaking, it is a case in which we can rule out addition due to escalation in the market value. However, considering the fact that the acquired property is located in a fast developing area and the properties surrounding acquired have been developed into commercial sites for locating shops, theatres etc., this court deems it fit to allow 4% increase in the market value to offset the escalation. Then the market value of the property as on the date of 4(1) Notification can be worked at Rs.7,889.86, which can be rounded to Rs.7,890/-. As the acquired property is larger extent and the property compared is a smaller property, as rightly done by the learned Subordinate Judge, 20% deduction must be allowed towards conversion of the larger property into house sites or commercial sites and for developmental charges. Thus, the market value of the acquired land can be fixed at Rs.6,312/- per cent. This court comes to the conclusion that the market value as on the date of 4(1) Notification should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.6,312/- per cent. In view of the same the total compensation should be worked out as follows:
Market value of the land @ Rs.6,312/- per cent x 155 cents = Rs. 9,78,360.00 30% solatium as per
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 = Rs. 2,93,508.00 Additional market value as per Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value for the period from the date of 4(1)notification till the date of award of the land Acquisition Officer. i.e.from 08.03.1985 to 04.03.1988 (i.e.1091 days) is = Rs. 3,50,920.15 ________________ The total amount of compensation to which the appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000/ claimants are entitled = Rs.16,22,788.15 (Rounded to Rs.16,22,788.00) Out of the said amount, each one of the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265/2000 shall be entitled to 1/4 share, that is equal to Rs.4,05,697/-. The amount already received as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer by each one of the claimants/ appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265/2000 shall be deducted from the said amount and the balance shall be payable as enhanced compensation.
On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimants shall be entitled to an interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which the Government took possession of the land, namely 05.03.1988, for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount is deposited.
22. In the result, A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 are dismissed. A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 are allowed in part and the award of the trial court is modified as follows:
a) The total market value of the property is fixed at Rs.9,78,360/-
b) A sum of Rs.2,93,508.00 being 30% of the market value is awarded as solatium under
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
c) A sum of Rs. 3,50,920.15 is awarded as additional market value calculated @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award.
d) The total amount of compensation, (market value + solatium + additional market value) is fixed at Rs.16,22,788.00. This amount shall be divided equally among the claimants. Each claimant shall be entitled to Rs.4,05,697/- representing 1/4 share.
e) From the above said amount shown in clause (d), the amount received as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer by each one of the claimants (each one of the appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000) shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid as enhanced compensation.
f) On the enhanced amount of compensation, respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 shall be entitled to an interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which possession was taken by the government, namely 05.03.1988 for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount is deposited.
And
g) There shall be no order as to cost in these appeals.
asr To
1)The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee
2)The Special Tahsildar (RC) Saidapet Madras 15