Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appellant and Mr.R.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These Appeal Suits were filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, MMRD Scheme, Saidapet, Chennai and the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Saidapet, Chennai. In all these five appeals, the challenge is to the common judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.3, Poonamallee dated 30.09.2004.
3. The following table will show the Name of the claimant, LAOP Numbers of the court below and the corresponding Appeal Suit numbers:
Sl.No Name of the Claimant LAOP.No.
A.S.No.
Selvaperumal LAOP.147/2001 A.S.173/2005 2 Gothandaraman LAOP.148/2001 A.S.174/2005 3 Kothainayagi LAOP.149/2001 A.S.175/2005 4 Vijayalakshmi LAOP.150/2001 A.S.176/2005 5 Pushpavalli LAOP.151/2001 A.S.177/2005
4. The lands of the respective claimants situated in OggiamTthuraipakkam village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the purpose of Radial Road connecting Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR) and the G.S.T.Road (N.H.45). The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per cent for wet land and Rs.55.55/- per cent for dry land. The aggrieved land owners raised objections with reference to the low rate of compensation provided. Therefore, under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, reference were made to the jurisdictional reference court to determine the market value of the lands acquired. The various references were registered as LAOP.Nos.147 to 151 of 2001. The matter was assigned to the Fast Track Court No.3 cum Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
5. Before the Reference Court, these five LAOPs were clubbed together and common evidence was let in. On behalf of the claimants, M/s.Selvaperumal was examined as C.W.1 and Krishnan was examined as C.W.2 and on their side, seven documents were filed viz., Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.7. On the side of the acquiring authority, one Velusamy was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were filed on their side probably they were satisfied with the statistical data available with the acquiring Authority.
6. The Court below on consideration of the evidence (both oral and documentary) came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the acquiring authority was on a lower side. The Court below also accepted the evidence let in by C.W.1 and C.W.2 and relied upon Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.7 for arriving at the market value.
7. Admittedly, Ex.C.2 to C.7 came into existence before the date of 4(1) notification viz., 19.10.1997. Though Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) contended that Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 belonged to Perungudi and not to OggiamThuraipakkam, Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3 relied on by the court below belonged to OggiamThuraipakkam village, Survey No.100 is more closer to the land acquired. The Court below arrived at the value of one cent of land from Exhibits C.2, C.3, C.5 to C.7 and the same is as follows:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The Court below dividing the same arrived at the average value of Rs.2,646/-. After giving discount of 15% fixed the market rate of compensation at Rs.2,250/- vide its common judgment dated 30.09.2004.
8. While assailing the above common judgment in all these appeals, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Govenment Pleader (AS) would make two contentions. The first contention was that the Court below arrived at average rate of different sale deeds and it is not sustainable. The second contention was that the exemplars found in Ex.C.2 to C.7 cannot be true indicator of market value as the lands were acquired on the basis that they are agricultural land.
9. Before venturing into deciding the contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader, it must be noted that in the present case, the acquiring authority did not lead any evidence contradicting the evidence let in by the claimants. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 has laid the guidelines for determining market value. In paragraphs 4(1) and 4(3), it was observed as follows:-
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:-
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
...
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it."
10. Therefore, it cannot be said in the present case, that the acquiring authority acquitted themselves by giving proper data before the Reference Court. On the other hand, it is the claimants, who have come forward to give proper evidence not only regarding the location and the purpose for which acquisition was made but also to the extent possible they placed all the documents in their custody for arriving at the market rate of compensation.
11. Though the contentions raised by the Special Government Pleader (AS) regarding the method of average sale value based on the various sale deeds cannot be a appropriate method of arriving compensation and that Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 ought to have been eschewed from the calculation as they belong to neighbouring village, but, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Reference Court only went by exemplars found in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. On the contrary, the market value arrived at by the Reference Court was more based upon Ex.C.2 and C.3. Therefore, assuming that the average value arrived was an improper exercise, in the present case, the value fixed was more closer to Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, and those lands are situated in the same village.
12. The other argument that it is agricultural land cannot be accepted. The court below had accepted the evidence of Ex.C.2 and found that the lands are already used as road and it is only for the purpose of further expansion and that no further development was required in those lands. The Court below gave discount of 15% towards development charges. It is not as if the market value arrived is an exorbitant value. The court below based on records and taking note of precedents and in tune with
Section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, correctly arrived at the market value. Hence the judgment of the court below did not call for any interference.
13. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. However, under the peculiar circumstances of the cases, parties are allowed to bear their own costs. It is needless to state that though a common judgment is pronounced, the Special Government Pleader (AS) is entitled to get separate fees.
nvsri To The Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.3, Poonamallee