As regards the judgement reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 ( Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu and others), it has clearly settled the point as follows ... Admittedly, the lands acquired are agricultural lands. It is on record that these lands have potentialities for conversion into house sits. They are acquired for the third phase of expansion of industrial estate. In these circumstances, certain amount has to be deducted towards developmental charges. Ordinarily, on-third deduction towards developmental charges would be made, but in these cases, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly taking note of the fact that the lands are acquired for expansion of industrial estate, that too for the third phase and also taking note of the fact that the lands acquired are levelled lands adjoining to developed lands for Phase I and Phase II of industrial estate, we think it is just and appropriate to deduct 15% per cent towards development charges."
21. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid judgements of our Hon'ble Supreme Court, it could be seen that the deduction of value could be varied according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex court had upheld the deductions made by the High Court in various percentages according to the evidence and the facts and circumstances of those cases.
Madras High Court
P.G.Sivaraj vs R.Bhaskaran
DATED: .01.2009These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Dharmapuri in LAOP Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994 respectively for enhancement of the compensation for the lands acquired.
2. The State had filed the Cross Objections questioning the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court.
3. The lower court had clubbed LAOP Nos.5, 6 and 14 of 1994 together since all the references were made by the land acquisition officer, which were arising out of a single award dated 08.10.1992 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respective extent of lands acquired for the said purpose in the land acquisition proceedings were 0.27.0 Hectare in S.No.683/1 A 1 in L.A.O.P.No.5/1994; an extent of 0.43.0 Hectare and 0.42.5 Hectare in S.No.683/3 in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 and 0.27.0 Hectare in S.No.682/1A1 in L.A.O.P.No.14/1994 in Pennagaram Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
4. The purpose of land acquisition was towards public need of providing house sites to the Arundathiar community by the Government through G.O. No.1697 (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department) dated 9.10.1990. Originally, notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.08.1999 and other proceedings were carried out in accordance with the procedure contemplated. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value of the property at Rs.1,18,560/- per Hectare in respect of the properties acquired and had also fixed 30% of the solatium and 12% of the additional value from the date of 4(1) notification till the award was passed and accordingly fixed a sum of Rs.53,128/- for the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.14/94; a sum of Rs.53,128/- to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1994 and a sum of Rs.84,611/- and a sum of Rs.83,628/- respectively for the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994.
5. Aggrieved upon the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had not accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, they requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the cases to the Land Acquisition Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the reference made therein, they were taken on file by the court concerned as L.A.O.P.No.14, 5 and 6 of 1994 respectively. Accordingly, the claimants have examined the first claimant in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 as C.W.1 and 3 other witnesses as C.Ws.2 to 4 and they had produced Exs.C-1 to C-3. The court had come to the conclusion of enhancing the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.ft. after appraising the evidence and documents placed before it.
6. The respondent namely, Acquisition Officer had produced Exs.R-1 to R-3 in support of their case. The lower court had considered the evidence placed before it and had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. equivalent to Rs.6,53,400/- for one acre. It had also given the enhanced value of compensation for one Hectare (2.47 acres) at Rs.16,13,898/-. The lower court had come to the conclusion of valuing the acquired lands as house sites and had accepted Exs.C-1 to C-3 produced by the claimants. The lower court also come to the conclusion of fixing the value after deducting 50% of the original value of the land acquired since the acquired lands have to be developed as house sites for the purpose of allotting them to the Arundadiar community. Therefore, the lower court had arrived at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. as original value in respect of acquired lands as per Exs.C-1 to C-3.
7. The appellants in all the three appeals have challenged the deduction of 50% of the value for fixing the market value for the development of the acquired lands as house sites.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has filed cross objections in all the three appeals questioning the fixation of original value for the acquired lands at Rs.30/- per sq.ft, since the lands acquired were not actually house sites but were the lands to be developed in future.
9. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) for the respondents and cross objections.
10. On a careful perusal of the proceedings, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the evidence adduced before the lower court and the common judgment passed by the lower court, the grounds raised in appeals as well as the cross objections and the arguments advanced on either side. The important points to be considered in these appeals are as follows:- (i) Whether the fixing of market value for the acquired lands at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. is liable to be set aside?
(ii) Whether the reduction of 50% as fixed by the lower court is sustainable? If so, to what extent deduction can be ordered?
(iii) Whether the appeals are liable to be allowed?
(iv) Whether the cross objections are liable to be allowed?
11. For convenience sake, the ranks of parties before the lower court are referred in this judgment also.
12. Point Nos.(i) & (ii) : According to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the lower court had correctly fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.30 per sq.ft but, the deduction of 50% towards the development charges was not proportionate to the case on hand. He would submit in his argument that the evidence adduced by the claimants would go a long way to show that the acquired lands are adjacent to the property to which the lower court adopted its market value namely, S.No.No.676/1 as mentioned in Ex.C-2 dated 12.4.1989 and the other lands situated in S.No.675 in Ex.C-3 and C-1 are very near to the lands acquired in S.Nos. 682/1 A 1 and 683 and 662/1 and the date of those documents were also very near to the 4(1) notification date and no other documents showing larger extent of the property were available for comparison and therefore, reliance made by the lower court on Exs.C-1 o C-3 to fix the value were perfect. He would also submit that the reliance placed before the Land Acquisition Officer in his list of documents were not located very near to the acquired lands. He would further submit that the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2008(2) SCC-568 (Atma Singh (dead) throughLRS. and others v. State of Haryana and another) would apply to the fact of this case and therefore, the fixation of the market value by lower court at Rs.30/- pr sq.ft. Maybe upheld.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit in his arguments that the percentage of deduction at 50% from the market value ascertained from Exs.C-1 to c-3 is not at all justifiable as the property described in Ex.C-2 is adjacent to the property acquired in the proceedings. Therefore, the lower court should have deemed that the acquired land themselves had attained the character of house sites. The classification of acquired lands as punja lands may not be available for reducing the market value, as the said property described in Ex.C-2 was also a punja land turned house site. He would draw the attention of this court to the various judgements of our Hon'ble Apex court to show that the percentage of deduction made by the lower court at 50% was exorbitant. He would draw the attention of this court to a judgement of our Apex court reported in 2003(10)SEC 525 (Tejjumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRS. And others v. State of U.P.). He had also cited the judgment of our Apex court reported in 2004(12) SEC 425 (State of W.B. v. Kedarnath Charit Trust Estate) in respect of fixing the percentage of deduction. He had also cited yet another judgement of our Apex court in this regard reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 ( Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu and others). He would further submit in his argument that the principles laid down by our Apex Court would clearly show that the percentage of deduction is purely depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and according to his submission it would be at best 10% could be fixed towards deduction for development charges as the acquired lands are situated adjacent to the house sites as described in Ex.C-2. Therefore, he would request the court that the appeals may be allowed accordingly.
14. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader(A.S.) would submit in his argument that the lower court had applied the documents Exs.C-1 to C-3 for fixing the value which were relating to house sites. Whereas, the lands acquired were punja lands and documents showing the value as punja lands alone should have been utilized for consideration by the court. He would further submit in his argument that the Land Acquisition Officer had properly considered the value of available punja lands int he sale deed very near to the date of 4(1) notification and had fixed the market value and therefore, there cannot be any serious objection for accepting the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would further submit that the lower court had wrongly fixed the value and enhanced the compensation on the basis of value of the house for a larger extent of punja lands. Therefore, he pleaded that enhancement of compensation as ordered by the lower court should have been set aside.
15. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) would further submit in his argument to the effect that the percentage as fixed by the lower court is perfectly all right and the development charges for improving the punja lands into house sites were properly considered and the percentage has been fixed as per the decision of the Apex court. Therefore, the appeals need not be allowed.
16. Considering the submissions made by both sides, we could see through Ex.R-3, the Village Map that the acquired lands were located in between the West of Pennagaram and Nagarmarai main road and virtually the acquired lands were surrounded by roads. It is also pertinent to note that the land in S.No.674 shown in Ex.C-2 is seen located adjacent to the acquired land. In these circumstances, the sale deeds which are referred in Ex.R-2 list, without any detailed particulars cannot be made suitable to fix the market value of acquired property. The date of Ex.C-2 was very close to the date of 4(1) notification. In the judgment of our Apex Court reported in 2008(2) SCC 568 (Atma Singh (dead) through LRS. and others v. State of Haryana and another), it was held as follows: "8. ... Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the acquired land had the potentiality for being used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes and there was fair possibility of increase in its market value in the near future. Therefore, the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the small pieces of land could not be a ground to discard them specially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. They could, therefore, be used as a safe guide for determining the market value of the land." In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the lower court on Exs.C-1 to C-3 for fixing the market value is found to be justified and through documents the value could be ascertained for the relevant period. It is also a well known fact that the market value of a land is the price offered by a willing purchaser to a willing vendor. Therefore, the sale deeds produced as Exs.C-1 to C-3 are found more suitable to fix the market value of the acquired lands as they took place during the relevant period of 4(1) notification. Therefore, the fixation of market value for the acquired land on the basis of Exs.C-1 to C-3 adopted by the lower court is upheld.
17. The arguments regarding the percentage of deduction at 50% from the market value is concerned, the judgement of our Apex Court are to be carefully understood and followed.
18. The judgement of our Apex Court reported in 2003(10)SEC 525 (Tejjumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRS. And others v. State of U.P.) would run as follows: "8. ... It is true that the deduction for development charges ought to be adequately provided for, but it varies from place to place, area to area and amount of developments which are required to be carried out and thus there cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges. In the present case, we find that the total land acquired was about 27 acres. We are, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate if the development charges @ 25% are deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants."
19. Similarly, the judgment as refried by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2004(12) SEC 425 (State of W.B. v. Kedarnath Charit Trust Estate) would run as follows: "4. ... As the acquisition was of a large piece of land, the High Court was right in making the deduction of 20%. It cannot be said that the deduction of 20% is reasonable. Even otherwise, on the basis of parity, the High Court was right in making the same deduction. To this extent, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment."
20. As regards the judgement reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 ( Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu and others), it has clearly settled the point as follows: "4. ... Admittedly, the lands acquired are agricultural lands. It is on record that these lands have potentialities for conversion into house sits. They are acquired for the third phase of expansion of industrial estate. In these circumstances, certain amount has to be deducted towards developmental charges. Ordinarily, on-third deduction towards developmental charges would be made, but in these cases, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly taking note of the fact that the lands are acquired for expansion of industrial estate, that too for the third phase and also taking note of the fact that the lands acquired are levelled lands adjoining to developed lands for Phase I and Phase II of industrial estate, we think it is just and appropriate to deduct 15% per cent towards development charges."
21. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid judgements of our Hon'ble Supreme Court, it could be seen that the deduction of value could be varied according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex court had upheld the deductions made by the High Court in various percentages according to the evidence and the facts and circumstances of those cases. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there cannot be any deduction towards development charges as the acquired lands were situated adjacent to the land taken for value and at best, it could be a minimal percentage of 10% only. There is no dispute that the acquired lands were situated adjacent to the lands taken by lower court for fixing a market value as seen from Ex.C-2. At the same time, the acquired lands were ripe for house sites. Therefore, the deduction of 50% from the total value reached by the lower court on the basis of Ex.C-2 is sheerly on the higher side. According to the dictum made in the aforesaid judgements of our Apex court, the facts of the case discussions in the judgement reported in 2005(9) SEC 594 (Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Ramanjulu and others) are aptly applicable to the present case. In the said case, the acquired lands were at the level (developed lands) and were adjacent to the said developed lands. So far as this case is concerned, the acquired lands were also in the similar level and were lying adjacent to the house site. Therefore, the deduction of 15% towards the development charges made in the judgement is applied in this case also. The lower court ought to have applied the said 15% for deduction towards development charges instead of 50%. When it is applied in this case for fixing the market value of the acquired lands, its value would be at Rs.25.50 per sq.ft. When the calculation is done at this rate for one cent it comes to Rs.11,143.50(437 sq.ft. x Rs.25.50) and for one acre, it is Rs.11,10,780/-. On that basis, the market value for one hectare it comes to Rs.27,43,627/-. When it is calculated for 0.27 hectare, it would be Rs.7,40,779/- and for 0.42.5 hectare, it comes to Rs.11,66,041/- and for 0.43.0 hectares, it comes to Rs.11,93,478/-. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired lands are fixed with all monetary benefits. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the appellants and against the cross objections.
22. Points (iii) and (iv) : In view of my findings reached in point Nos. (i) and (ii), all the three appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed and the cross objections are dismissed.
23. In the result, the judgment and decree (award) of the lower Court is modified as follows:
For the claimant in
L.A.O.P.No.14/94 : Rs.7,40,779/-
with statutory benefits.
For the claimant in
L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1994 : Rs.7,40,779/-
with statutory benefits.
For the claimants in
L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1994 : Rs.11,66,041/-
: Rs.11,93,478/-
respectively with statutory benefits.
V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH
rj
24. The 30% of the solatium amount has to be fixed on the aforesaid values and 12% of the said enhanced compensation has also to be fixed for the period commencing from 10.10.1989 to 7.10.1992 for 1094 days with subsequent interest from the date of possession namely 9.11.1992 to 8.11.1993 for one pear period at 9% p.a. and thereafter from 9.11.1993, till the payment, at 15% per annum along with proportionate costs.
25. In view of the finding reached above, the appeals in A.S.Nos.669 and 670 of 1999 and 43 of 2000 are partly allowed as indicated above and the Cross Objection Nos.54, 55 of 2002 and 87 of 2008 are dismissed. No order as to costs in the appeals and cross objections.
No comments:
Post a Comment