Though stay petition has come up before this Court, taking into consideration that the 4(1) notification to acquire the land was made on 21.10.1997 and the possession of the property was taken on 10.03.2000 and so far, no amount was paid to the respondents/land losers, it is appropriate to take up the Appeal Suit itself for disposal.
2. The property measuring about 2.40.5 hectare comprised in S.No.256/A, Virupatchipuram Village, Dharmapuri Taluk and District, belongs to the respondents. Out of this extent of land, 1.17.0 hectare lands were acquired by the appellant by issuance of
Section 4(1) notification dated 21.10.1997 and an award was passed in award No.7/1999-2000 on 01.03.2000 and possession was taken on 10.03.2000. As per the award, the value of the property was determined at the rate of Rs.1.62/- per sq. ft. namely Rs.1,73,913/- per hectare.
3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tahsildar, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed and on reference, the Civil Court determined value of the property at Rs.12/- per square feet. Against the said re-determination of the value of the property at Rs.12/- by the reference Court, the present Appeal has been filed by the Government.
4.Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) and Ms.P.T.Asha, learned Counsel for the respondent.
5.A perusal of the records would reveal that the land acquisition was made by 4(1) notification, which was issued on 21.10.1997. Ex.C1 which has been relied upon by the claimant is with regard to a plot comprised in S.No.252/2 at Virupatchipuram, which is dated 25.04.1996 and the value per square feet is Rs.11.57/-. As per Ex.C2 dated 14.11.1996, the property comprised in S.No.360/2 was sold at the rate of Rs.36/- per square feet. Ex.C3 dated 28.08.1997 is with regard to the property comprised in S.No.360/3 and the value would be at Rs.12.74/- per square feet. As per Ex.C4, dated 08.06.1997, the value of the property comprised in S.No.342/18 is Rs.31/- per square feet.
6.From the above, it is clear that all the documents Exs.C1 to C4 were executed much before 4(1) notification, especially Ex.C1. The property covered by Ex.C1 is located in S.No.252/2, whereas the acquired land is located at S.No.256/A, very close to the property covered by Ex.C1. The properties covered under Exs.C1 to C4 were sold as plots would prove the potential value of the property as they have been already made as plots. Further the official witness himself admitted in his evidence that the property is located very near to Salem NH Road and surrounded by Offices of District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Regional Transport Office, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri Government Arts College and Schools. The relevant portion of the evidence of official witness is extracted as follows: Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epykhdJ giHa jUkg[hpapypUe;J nryk; bry;yf;Toa beL";rhiyia xl;odhh; nghy; cs;s epyk; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhp jhd;/ epykhdJ Mh;$pjk; bra;j nghJ jUkg[hpapypUe;J nryk; bry;y Toa beL";rhiyia xl;odhh; nghy khtl;l Ml;rpah; mYtyfk;. khtl;l fhty; Jiw mYtyfk;. ePr;ry; Fsk; kw;Wk; fhy;eil kUj;Jtkid fl;lg;gl;oUe;jJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rhp jhd;/ nkny brhd;d fhy;eil kUj;Jtkidia xl;odhh; nghy; cs;s rhiy tHpahf jhd; Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyj;jpw;F bry;y ntz;Lbkd;why; rhp jhd;/ me;j rhiyahdJ jUkg[hpapypUe;J nryk; bry;y Toa rhiyapy; ,Ue;J gphpe;J Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyk; tiu bry;yf;ToaJ vd;why; rhp jhd;/ Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyj;jpw;F rk;ge;jg;gl;l rh;nt vz;zpy; Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;glhjh kPjp epyj;jpYk;. Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyj;jpYk; me;j epyj;jpw;F gf;fj;jpy; cs;s epy';fspYk; fl;ol';fs; fl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rhp jhd;/ Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epykhdJ fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F nghJkhd kz; tsj;Jld; cs;s epyk; vd;gjhy; jhd; Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rhp jhd;/ From the above evidence, it is very clear that the property is surrounded by offices, layouts and other amenities and it is suitable for making construction of house.
7.Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the property acquired is an agricultural land, whereas the properties covered by data sale deeds Ex.C1 to C4 are sold as plots. Therefore, the value of the smaller extent of land could not be taken as data value for determining the value of the acquired property. No doubt, the value of smaller extent of land could not be taken for determining the vast extent of property. It is pertinent to note that the very purpose of acquisition is for providing housing plots to the weaker section. Even, as per the official witness, the acquired land has got the potential of being sold or being used as housing plot. In that event, there cannot be any prohibition to use the value of the data sale deeds Exs.C1 to C4 for determining the value of the acquired land.
8.As already observed, the property conveyed under Ex.C1 is comprised in S.No.252/2C, whereas the acquired land is located in S.No.256/A, which is very close to each other and hence both the properties are similar properties. Hence, the value in Ex.C1 could be very safely taken.
9.Even other documents, namely, Exs.C2, C3 and C4 gets higher value per sq. ft., namely Rs.36/-, Rs.12.74/- and Rs.31/-. The properties under Exs.C2, C3 and C4 are located away from the acquired land and therefore the said lands are not taken into consideration for determining the value of the acquired land. The Civil Court also rightly determined Rs.12/- per sq.ft as value of the property.
10.Though the Civil Court determined the value correctly as Rs.12/- per sq. ft., no deduction was made towards Development charges. When the property is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites, definitely, it requires deduction towards the development charges namely for developing infrastructure like roads, public parks, Schools, etc. Therefore, from Rs.12/-, 1/4th is deducted towards development charges. After deduction, the value of the property would be Rs.9/-per sq.ft. The respondent is entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits.
11.The appellant is directed to calculate the compensation payable to the respondents within twelve weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observation this appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.If the amount as per the order of this Court is not either deposited or paid to the respondents, the respondents shall appear before this Court on 09.10.2017.
Post the matter for compliance, regarding payment to the respondents, on 09.10.2017.
22.06.2017 sai/tkp Index: Yes/No To The Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.
sai/tkp A.S No.206 of 2017 22.06.2017