The appellant is the owner of the lands with an extent of 1.93.0 Hectare comprised in Survey No.120/1B, which was acquired by the respondent for the benefit of Arunthathiar Community people, by passing an award No.5/97-98 on 06.08.1997. The Referring Officer viz., the respondent, valued at Rs.74,900/- per acre for the lands belonging to the appellant. Aggrieved against this, the appellant had preferred C.M.A.No.40 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Namakkal, for enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,18,000/- per acre. But, the learned Sub Judge, Namakkal, had fixed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,02,000/- per acre and the interest for the amount to be paid at the rate of 9% and also solatium at 15%. Aggrieved as against the same, the appellant is before this Court. The following substantial question of law was framed by this Court at the time of admission of the Second Appeal:
"Whether the Court below has committed an error of law in discarding Ex.C1 and misreading the deposition of P.W.1 in the process of fixing the compensation payable to the appellant for the acquired land?"
2. In the proof affidavit for his Chief Examination, the appellant has stated that the lands are fit for construction of houses and the valuation of the same should have been made in terms of value per square foot, that the data land has no proper access, but his land has got Panchayat road and they are situate nearer to Tiruchengode-Vellore main road, that the data land should not have been compared with the acquired lands, that adjacent to his lands, a colony is there, that even on 01.06.1994, the value was fixed at Rs.76,300/- by the Government, that even in 1994 a square foot, next to his lands was sold for Rs.5.50, i.e. in Survey No.220/1A, an extent of 7 3/4 cents was sold at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre on 17.11.1993 and the purchaser Chellakkannan paid stamp duty as directed by the authority under Section 47A of the Registration Act, on the basis of Rs.4,36,000/- per acre and the appellant's lands are adjacent to the above said land, that the trees standing in his lands are worth about Rs.5,000/- and hence, an acre may be valued not less than Rs.2,18,000/-.
3. In the proof affidavit filed for Chief Examination by the respondent, it has been mentioned that the sale deed dated 17.11.1993 was not made within the period between 01.01.1995 and 29.02.1996, that the sale should have taken place within one year earlier to the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and that in an enquiry conducted on 04.08.1997, this appellant has accepted that by means of 15.09.1992 sale deed, one acre was sold for Rs.1,01,935/-.
4. The learned Sub Judge, Namakkal, even though observed that the quality, valuation and facilities as regards the acquired land are far better than the data land, the sale deed dated 17.11.1993 may be considered for fixing the value of the acquired land also, since the appellant had already admitted in his cross-examination in an enquiry dated 04.08.1997 that one acre was sold for Rs.1,01,935/- and that value may be fixed for the acquired land.
5. In the view of this Court, the said finding is not sustainable. It is not known in which survey number the land covered by the sale deed dated 15.09.1992 lies. The entire statement before the respondent has been marked as Ex.P5 in which in the next line he has stated that five years later, the value of the property has increased manifold but the valuation fixed by the authority is very low. The subsequent portion of the statement was not considered by the learned Sub Judge. The tenor of the statement of the claimant would go to the effect that in 1992 the value of one acre was Rs.1,01,935/- and after five years i.e. during the period of acquisition, the value of the land might have been increased. Hence, the alleged admission as stated above will not lay a bar, nor operate as estoppal against his present claim.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would place much reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 2004-1-L.W. 299, (A.M.Abdul Kareem v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Maduranthagam Town and Taluk, Kancheepuram District) wherein it has been held as follows:
"13. As per Ex.C3, dated 25.09.1992, 3 cents of land in Survey No.12/3 was sold at Rs.3270/-, viz., at the rate of Rs.1090/- per cent. Therefore, the Court below ought to have passed an award at the rate of Rs.1090/- per cent. Hence, answering the substantial question of law accordingly, the award passed by the respondent dated 27.03.1996 in Award No.9/1995-96 as modified by the judgment and decreed of the learned Subordinate Judge of Maduranthagam, dated 18.01.2001 in H.W.C.M.A.No.43 of 1998 is modified directing the respondent herein to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.1090/- per cent for the entire extent of 2.67 Acres (1.08.0 Hectares) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and solatium at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of awards."
7. This Court has also followed two decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 650 (Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Company Ltd.) and (2001) 10 SCC 669 (Land Acquisition Officer v. B.Vijender Reddy).
8. Identical situation prevails in this case also. 29.02.1996 is the date of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act and Ex.A1 is dated 17.11.1993. Hence, there is no impediment to value the acquired lands on the strength of the valuation assessed by the authorities for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. By means of Ex.A1, one Chellakkannan purchased 7 3/4 cents of land for a sum of Rs.12,000/- which is comprised in Survey No.220/1A in Kothamangalam village, which is adjacent survey number to the acquired land. It is also mentioned therein that 7 3/4 cents is sprawling to an extent of 3,379 square feet. The authority has collected an additional stamp duty by fixing the market value at Rs.33,790/- as per the endorsement made in the Ex.A1 which goes thus:
"S.R.228/94 PVR Dt.10/94 This is to certify that the difference in amount namely, Rs.2006.00 (Rupees Two Thousand and six only) between the stamp duty fixed under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules 1968 and the stamp duty already paid has been remitted in chalan No.115, dated 10.10.94 at State Bank of India,... and that the instrument has been properly stamped the market-value of the property is fixed Rs.33790.00 (Rupees thirty three thousand seven hundred and ninety only) S.Seeniappan 31.10.94 Special Deputy Collector Stamps, Salem.
9. As the prescribed authority, for assessing the market value of the property, i.e. the Deputy Collector (Stamps) himself had made the valuation as per the above said certificate, there could be no embargo to adopt the same value for the adjacent land also, that is the acquired land. It is not shown whether the acquired land remains with lower quality than the land covered by the Ex.A1 sale deed. The quality of the soil, etc., of the two lands should have been identical and valuing the acquired land less than the valuation in Ex.A1 land could not be countenanced.
10. In the light of the above said observations and of the earlier views expressed by this Court, following the decisions of the Apex Court, it is held that the value of one acre of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.2,18,000/-. The substantial question of law is answered as indicated above.
11. In fine, the Second Appeal is allowed fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs.2,18,000/- per acre and the compensation shall be paid at this rate for the entire extent of acquired lands along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and solatium at the rate of 15% from the date of possession of the property till the date of deposit with costs.
srm To
1.The Sub Judge, Namakkal,
2.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal