S.Ravi @ Ravichandran v. The Union Of India,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA S.Ravi @ Ravichandran ...Appellant in A.S.No.954 of 2015 S.Manikavasagam ...Appellant in A.S.No.955 of 2015 S.Selvam @ Selvaraj ...Appellant in A.S.No.956 of 2015 1.S.Srinivasan 2.S.Venkadesh @ Venkadesan ...Appellants in A.S.No.957 of 2015 -Vs1.The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Secretariat, Puducherry.
2.The Deputy-Collector (Revenue)- cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.
... Respondents in all appeals 1/12
Prayer in A.S.No.954 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal. Prayer in A.S.No.955 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal. Prayer in A.S.No.956 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal. Prayer in A.S.No.957 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal. For Appellants :
Mr.R.Narayanan (in all appeals) For Respondents :
Mr.J.Kumaran (in all appeals) Additional Government Pleader Puducherry C O M M O N J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] All these appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge, Karaikal in L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 21 of 2012 dated 16.10.2014.
2/12
2.
Since all these appeals arise out of the Awards passed pursuant to a Notification issued under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 17.09.2007, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. It is admitted that the date of publication of 4[1] Notification was on 15.02.2008. 3.
An extent of 3.88.0 Hectares in Thennankudi Revenue Village of Karaikal District belonging to various land owners was acquired for expansion of Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Madura Village. An Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.07.2011 and a Revised Award dated 05.09.2011 was also stated to be passed in respect of the acquired lands. 4.
As per the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per Are for the land acquired from the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 21 of 2012. Aggrieved by the quantum, the land owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court, namely, the District Court at Karaikal, entertained several Land Acquisition Original Petitions (L.A.O.Ps). Though the Reference Court disposed of all the L.A.O.Ps by individual orders, the orders in all the L.A.O.Ps' revealed that they are similar in nature. In all the cases, the 3/12
Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.5,979/- per Are. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in the above Land Acquisition Original Petitions, viz., L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 & 21 of 2012, the above Appeal Suits have been preferred by the land owners. 5.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the acquisition proceedings though initiated under the Central Act, 1984, the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) in view of the fact that substantial compensation was not paid before 01.01.2014. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by passing the Award was not accepted by the claimants and therefore, the proceedings which was initiated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should not be treated as pending without payment of compensation and the pendency of the reference cannot be cited to deny the benefit of new Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellants are entitled to get compensation in the manner contemplated under the Act 30 of 2013. Further the learned counsel submitted that the sale exemplar reflecting highest market value should be 4/12
referred and that the Reference Court ought to have calculated the compensation on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the claimants under Exs.C2 to C5 which reflect the sale price offered for nearby lands but instead relied on sale data marked as Ex.R4.
6.
With regard to the question of whether the Appellants can claim for a higher compensation under Act 30 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled the law with reference to legal principles of expanding the application of Section 24 (2) to lapsed land acquisition proceedings. For reference, Section 24(2) of the Act is extracted below: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- ...
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance 5/12
with the provisions of this Act".
7.
In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in [(2020) 8 SCC 129], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below:
".........
363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided Under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings Under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of 6/12
the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition Under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation Under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest Under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition Under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided Under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed Under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount Under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated Under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession Under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided Under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has 7/12
been taken there is no lapse Under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and timebarred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.
..."
(Emphasis added) In light of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the petitioner, who has sought for higher compensation, cannot claim compensation in the manner prescribed under Act 30 of 2013. 8.
In the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held follows:- 8/12
"... where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
9.
In the present case, the appellants have filed documents Exs.C1 to C5. The learned counsel submitted that Ex.C1 is a document in respect of a land and building, and the price offered by the purchaser is @ Rs.35,820/- per Are. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The document Ex.C1 does not reveal the value of land and building separately. From the document it is also seen that the seller has quoted the price for the building rather than the land that was conveyed under the sale. It is admitted before this Court that documents under Exs.C2 to C5 are all in respect of small plots of wet lands without reference to much development which show the market value ranging from Rs.15,037/- to Rs.15,180/- per Are. However, the Lower Court found that the Sale Deeds were executed by showing the lands as Plots and not as wet lands and therefore discarded them. Since the acquisition is for the purpose of agricultural research, this Court is of the view 9/12
that the entire land is going to be used for research purpose and there need not be substantial deduction. Since the comparable plots sold under documents Exs.C2 to C5 are sold as developed plots, some deductions towards development of the acquired land in this suit is inevitable. This Court is of the view that 30% deduction will be appropriate. It is seen that the acquired lands are within 3 Kms from Thirunallar Saneeswar Bahawan Temple and other lands had been acquired for establishment of ring road, rest for pilgrims etc., The Land Acquisition Officer has admitted that several industries are around the acquired lands and this Court has no hesitation to rely upon Exs.C2 to C5 which reflect the market value for the lands as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act.
10.
The Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.5,979/- per Are. Based on Exs.C2 to C4, the market value should be Rs.15,180/- per Are less the appropriate deduction. Apart from the market value, the claimants are further entitled to 30% solatium on this market value and 12% additional compensation and interests as per the Land Acquisition Act. 11.
In the result, the market value for the acquired land is fixed at 10/12
Rs.15,180/- per Are less 30% deduction. Deducting 30% towards development, the market value for the acquired lands will be Rs.10,626/- per Are. The appellants are entitled to 30% solatium on the market value and 12% additional compensation as per Section 23 [1A] of the Act. The appellants are also entitled to statutory interest at 9% for 1 year from the date of possession and at 15% till payment for the enhanced portion of the compensation amount as per Section 28 of the Act.
12.
Therefore, the Appeal Suits are partly allowed as indicated above. No costs.
[SSSRJ] [NMJ] 17.10.2022 cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND 11/12
N.MALA, J., cda To 1.The District Judge, Karaikal.
2.The Secretary, The Union of India, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Secretariat, Puducherry.
3.The Deputy-Collector (Revenue)- cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.
4.The Section Officer, VR Records, High Court, Chennai.
17.10.2022 12/12