A.S.No.28 of 2009 The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Sipcot Unit, Sriperumbudur. .. Appellant.
/versus/
1. Sundari Bai
2. The Managing Director, SIPCOT, having its office at 19-A,Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents.
Appeal Suit filed under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006, passed in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2004 etc. batch on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur.
All these appeals have been preferred by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2004 etc. batch, covering 115 cases. All the lands were situated in a village called Katarambakkam in different survey numbers between 581 and 778. The Acquisition Officer took into account sale deeds which were gathered from the Sub-Registrar's office of Sriperumbudur Taluk, for the period from 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997. After discarding 44 of such sale deeds, he considered the sales involved in respect of Survey No.203/2 for an extent of 0.13 acres out of 0.38 acres and the sale deed in respect of Survey No.599 for an extent of 4.56 acres and another sale deed in respect of Survey No.580/1 for an extent of 1.52 acres. As far as the land in respect of Survey No.599 was concerned the same was discarded by the Acquisition Officer on the ground that an extent of 4.56 acres was sold for Rs.91,200/- which works out to Rs.200/- per cent and the same was rejected as it was lying on the bank of Peria Eri and manavari land. As far as the land in respect of Survey No.580/1 was concerned though it falls within the scheme area, the same was also discarded by the Acquisition Officer on the ground that it is on the road and fetched higher price. Ultimately, the Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale in respect of Survey No.203/2 in an extent of 0.13 acres for a sale consideration of Rs.3,250/- which works out to Rs.250/- per cent. The said land was stated to be dry land. On that basis, the Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable for all the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition and covered by the impugned judgment of the Court below.
2. The Court below after examining the various contentions of the parties stated before it, both on the side of the appellant as well as the respondents/claimants has noted that the total acquisition in respect of all the lands covered by the different survey numbers in Katrambakkam 'A' and 'B' block villages. The lands were all stated to be "Manavari" dry . The acquisition came to be made by invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications issued under
Section 4(1) were between the years 1996 and 1999.
3. After considering the respective submissions of the counsel who appeared for the appellant and respondents/ claimants, the Court below noted that the Acquisition Officer himself discarded the sale in respect of Survey No.580/1 wrongly mentioned as 580/2. As far as the sale covered in respect of Survey No.203/2 was concerned the Court below held that the same was not comparable inasmuch as the survey number was in respect of the land which is not located near the vicinity of the acquired lands. Apparently, the Court below was not inclined to accept the land value in respect of Survey No.203/2 as the acquired lands were all in Survey Nos.518 to 778.
4. On behalf of the claimants four documents were placed before the Court below which were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. The sale consideration in those documents was ranging from Rs.5,400/- to Rs.6,540/- per cent. They were in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.342 Part, and 328/2D. All the sales were of the year November, December, 1995, February and April, 1996. The extent of lands sold ranged from 1800 to 3600 sq. ft. The Court below while rejecting the stand of the Acquisition Officer held that the sales in Exs.C.1 to C.4 were before the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and these lands are closer. Since the extent of the land sold were less as compared to data lands, the Court below reduced the sale price to an extent of 30% apart from imposing further reduction of 25% towards development charges. On that basis the Court below fixed the value at Rs.3,800/- per cent and directed the appellant to work out the compensation on that basis.
5. Assailing the said judgment and decree of the Court below, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, contended that the reasons assigned by the Court below for discarding the data land relied upon by the Acquisition Officer were not justified. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that the lands were all barren lands and that every other development was made by the appellant in order to make the lands fit for use, as an industrial park and in the circumstances, the Court below ought to have affirmed the award of the Acquisition Officer who relied upon the sale in respect of Survey No.203/2 which was located adjacent to the acquired lands.
6. As against the above submissions Mr.S.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ claimant contended that the Court below rightly relied upon a sale deed which was in respect of the lands situated in the very same village namely, Katrambakkam village and such sale deeds were also during the six months of the notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the reliance placed upon Exs.C.1 to C.4 by the Court below was justified. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in RAVINDER NARAIN v. UNION OF INDIA (2003 (4) SCC, 481); THAKARSIBHAI DEVJIBHAI v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (2001 (9) SCC, 584) and UNION OF INDIA v. HARINDER PAL SINGH (2005 (12) SCC, 564) in support of his submissions.
7. The issues that arise for consideration in the above appeals are:
(1) What is the market value to be fixed for the purpose of working out compensation?
(2) To what relief the claimants are entitled?
8. Having heard learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and after having perused the award of the Acquisition Officer as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and all the material papers placed before us, we find that the reliance placed upon by the Court below on the documents Exs.C.1 to C.4 placed at the instance of the claimants cannot be faulted. We find from the award of the Acquisition Officer that one of the data lands relating to Survey NO.580/2 was discarded by the Acquisition Officer himself. In so far as the Survey No.203/2 is concerned, the same is outside Katrambakkam village. Therefore, the Court below rightly rejected the said document for arriving at the market price of the land. As against the above materials relied upon by the Acquisition Officer, in so far as the documents relied upon by the first respondent/ claimants are concerned, we find that all the five documents relied upon by the claimants were all relating to the lands situated in the very Katrambakkam village itself. The sale deeds were either in November/December, 1995, February or April, 1996. We find that though the extent of the land covered by the sale deeds were ranging between 1800 and 3600 sq. ft., inasmuch as the acquisition came to be made by invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which was made in August or September, 1996, there was very little scope to doubt the genuineness of those sale deeds. In an identical case arising out of the same purpose for which acquisition was made relating to the same Kattrambakkam village in A.S.Nos.255 of 2006 etc. batch,dated 30.11.2009 we took note of the earliest sale namely, 1.12.1995 in respect of Survey No.354/3 for an extent of 2400 sq. feet covered by Ex.C.6 in the said case. We find the sale value in a sum of Rs.4600/-. As noted by us earlier, the acquisition was relating to the larger extent of 117.0.0 hectares. There is no dispute that the acquisition was on the National Highway and the lands were 34 K.Ms. away from Chennai. Since the acquisition was for setting up of an Industrial Park, the appellant as well as the Requisitioning Body viz., SIPCOT had to incur heavy expenses for the development of the land.
9. On behalf of the appellant and SIPCOT, it was pointed out before the Court below that heavy expenses were incurred for developing the Industrial Park since the purpose of acquisition was for setting up the Industrial Park to be invested by multi nationals and N.R.Is. It is stated that crores of rupees were spent for providing electricity supply, water supply, road formation and other infrastructural facilities and R.W.2 was examined to support the said stand.
10. Having regard to the above factors, we are of the considered opinion that for fixing the land value as stated by us earlier, it will be safe to rely upon the sale deed dated 1.12.1995 in respect of Survey No.354/3 which land is also located in the very same Katrambakkam village which was marked as Ex.C.6 in the earlier batch of cases as referred above. Though this document has not been marked in the present case, we are inclined to take note of this document for arriving at a fair market value, and there is no serious objection by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to this course of action to be adopted. Further, the acquisition covers an area of 117 hectares, and hence we are of the view that in order to apply a uniform sale value, a moderation can be made to the sale value covered by the said Ex.C.6. In our considered opinion, the price of Rs.4,600 per cent can be reduced by 20% of the value by way of moderation. On that basis, if worked out, the sale value comes to Rs.3,680/- per cent. As stated by us, the development of the land had to be made by the SIPCOT after the acquisition for which Requisitioning Body had to incur substantial amount. As held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various decisions, having regard to the extensive development that had taken place after the acquisition, we are of the considered opinion that the percentage applied in respect of Aaraneri village which is also located 34 K.Ms. away from City of Chennai, can be applied to the case on hand. In that case, for development charges 43% was deducted for arriving at the net market value of the land. Applying the same principles and the rate of reduction at 43% on the sale value of Rs.3,680/- applicable sale value works out to Rs.2098/- which can be rounded-off to Rs.2,100/- per cent.
11. As far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the claimants are concerned, we find that since the same were involved in the special facts of those cases, the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
12. To sum up in the result, all the appeals are partly allowed as indicated below:-
(a) the land value in all these appeals are fixed at Rs.2,100/- per cent with 30% solatium. (b) the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of l2% per annum, from the date of notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, till the date of Award of the Referring Officer, or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier; (c) 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; (d) Any excess amount deposited, after satisfying the above award, is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant in all the appeals. (e) Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and learned counsel appearing for SIPCOT shall be entitled to separate fees for each of the Appeals; (f) there shall be no order as to costs. (g) All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index: Yes. (F.M.I.K.J.) (T.S.S.J.) Website: Yes. 16.12.2009. sai F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J. and T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. A.S.Nos.28 to 141/2009 etc. batch 16.12.2009. sai