The Special Tahsildar(La) v. Palin Reshma Jacob
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 31.08.2015 Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.MATHIVANAN Appeal Suit Nos.574 to 583 of 2011, 46 to 52 of 2012 and 56 to 61 of 2012 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-8 Now Office at Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, Chennai - 600 092.
...
Appellant/Referring Officer(in all AS)
Versus
1. Palin Reshma Jacob, ...
1st Respondents/ Claimants in AS 574/2011 Ani Jacob ...
in AS 575/2011 Aleyamma Mathew ...
in AS 576/2011 Mohmed Abdulla ...
in AS 577/2011 S.Natarajan ...
in AS 578/2011 S.Murthy ...
in AS 579/2011 M.Kumar ...
in AS 580/2011 Usha Ramamurthy ...
in AS 581/2011 G.Sundarraj ...
in AS 582/2011 Palanivel ...
in AS 583/2011 Sarojamma ...
in AS 46/2012 C.Dhamotharan ...
in AS 47/2012
C.M.Thulasidass ...
in AS 48/2012 Hemalatha (Deceased)
1. Govindasamy
2. G.Murali
3. G.Poorani
4. G.Prabhu ...
in AS 49/2012 S. Bala Murali ...
in AS 50/2012 B.M. Thasarathan ...
in AS 51/2012 C.M.Venkadachala Naidu ...
in AS 52/2012 V.Ramu ...
in AS 56/2012 J.Rangaraj ...
in AS 57/2012 J.Venkataraj ...
in AS 58/2012 J.Srinivasan ...
in AS 59/2012 G.Sundaramoorthy ...
in AS 60/2012 B.Venkatesan ...
in AS 61/2012
2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
.. 2nd Respondent/Beneficiary in all AS except AS 49/2008 -5th Respondent.
Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, (FTC-II), Poonamallee in LAOP No.179 of 2008,182,185,188,206,209,285,210,434,444,280,281,286,292,297, 305,310,284,290,291,295,296 and 310 of 2008 respectively. dated 23.03.2011.
For Appellant :
Mr.P.Gunasekar, Addl. Govt.Pleader (AS) For Land Owners :
Mr.R.Subramanian For Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority :
Mr.C.Johnson
COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) All these appeals are filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, questioning the enhancement of compensation ordered by the Reference Court.
2. Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader (Appeal Suits), appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the land owners and Mr.C.Johnson, learned counsel appearing for the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
3. The land of a total extent of 3.89.0 Hectares situate in the Village of Morai, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, was acquired for the purpose of formation of an Outer Ring Road, as part of a project undertaken by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. After enquiry, awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 22 of 2006 etc., on 20.12.2006, fixing the compensation payable at Rs.500/- per cent. Upon a Reference being made under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Tribunal passed awards fixing compensation of Rs.16,500/- per cent. Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation so granted by the Tribunal, the Special Tahsildar has come up with the above appeals.
4. It is seen from the awards of the Referring Officer that he took note of the fact that 449 sale transactions had taken place during the period of three years immediately preceding the date of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 6.11.2003. Out of the 449 sale deeds, the Referring Officer rejected 279 transactions, on the ground that they related to sale of house sites. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer took into account the sale transaction at Serial No. 216 among the data sales, whereby an extent of about 15 cents had been sold for Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.500/- per cent.
5. Before the Tribunal, one land owner was examined as C.W.1, in the first batch of 10 cases L.A.O.P.Nos. 179 of 2008 etc., batch. The sketch showing the Outer Ring Road was filed as Ex.C1. The sale deed dated 23.5.2013 was filed as Ex.C2. On the part of Referring Officer, the Special Tahsildar, was examined as R.W.1. The Award was marked as Ex.R2. The same pattern was followed in the cases of the two batches of case also.
6. The Tribunal took note of two facts namely:
(a) that the lands sought to be acquired themselves were mostly small extents measuring about 5 cents (except in a few cases); and (b) that therefore, the fixation of market value on the basis of the transactions which related to house sites cannot be totally ignored.
After holding so, the Tribunal took note of the sale deed Ex.C2 dated 23.5.2013, which also formed part of the data sales collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Tribunal found that the rate per cent in the sale deed was Rs.16,430/-. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.16,500/- per cent.
7. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant is that the Tribunal was in error in taking note of Ex.C2 sale deed, since the extent of land covered by the said sale deed was only 1360 sq. feet. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the value of a larger extent of land cannot be decided on the basis of the consideration reflected in the sale deed related to smaller extent of land.
8. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Tribunal failed to order any deduction in the market value towards developmental charges. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the award of the Tribunal is completely contrary to law.
9. We have carefully considered the above submissions.
10. At the outset, it should be pointed out that out of the 23 appeals that are before us, 15 appeals related to the acquisition of lands of a smaller extent of about 4 cents, 5 cents, 10 cents and 12-1/2 cents. The remaining 8 appeals related to the acquisition of lands of a larger extent.
11. Moreover, even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, 449 transactions had taken place during the period of three years immediately preceding the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Out of them 275 transactions related to sale of house sites. Therefore, on the ground that the compensation for a larger extent of land cannot be fixed on the basis of the sale consideration paid for a smaller extent of land, the Court cannot do injustice to numerable land owners whose lands that were acquired were only 3, 4 and 5 cents of extent only. Hence, the contention that the sale value of smaller extent should not have been taken into account, has to be rejected, in the light of the fact that in 16 out of 23 appeals before us, the extent
of land acquired is only ranging from 4 cents to 12 cents.
12. Coming to the manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the quantum of compensation, it is seen that he took into account the sale deed which reflected lesser value. But it is needless to point out that in Mehrawal Kheaji Trust v. State of Punjab [2012 -4- L.W. 109], the Supreme Court has categorically held that the highest value among the exemplar sales have to be taken into account. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the reasonings of the Referring Officer.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Notification under Section 4(1) was dated 6.11.2003. Ex.C2 on the basis of which the Tribunal proceeded, was dated 23.5.2003. Therefore, this sale transaction was the closest to the date of notification. Moreover, there was yet another sale at serial number 398, whereby a land had been sold for Rs.16,568/- per cent. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in taking into account Ex.C2 as the test, as the value reflected therein also stood corroborated by the other sale deeds that form part of the data sales.
14. In Ex.C1 sketch filed before the Tribunal, it was indicated that the village Morai was located on the northwestern side. The Village is indicated by serial number 43. In respect of the land acquired for the very same purpose from four other villages, the dispute has been settled between the Government and the land owners before the Lok Adalats. Details of such settlements are as follows:- (i) In respect of the lands acquired from a village by name Muktha Pudupattu which is shown at serial No.55, in the sketch, parties have compromised the matter before the Lok Adalat on 21.6.2014 in Lok Adalat Case No.183 of 2015 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- per cent;
(ii) In respect of the lands in another village by name Mittanamallee shown at serial No.56, compensation was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent, before the Lok Adalat on 9.6.2012. (iii) In respect of the lands in another village by name Attanthangal, shown at serial No.2, the parties agreed to have the compensation fixed at Rs.12,000/- per cent. (iv) In respect of the lands acquired in a village by name Pammadukulam at serial number 39 in Ex.C1 sketch, this Court has confirmed the amount of compensation payable at Rs.18,000/- and Rs.19,000/- per cent.
15. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the awards passed by the Tribunal do not call for any interference. This leaves us with the last question as to whether there should have been any deduction towards developmental charges. But on this question the Supreme Court has pointed out in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2007) 9 SCC 447], that when the land is acquired for certain purposes, the question of deduction will not arise. It must be pointed out that though the lands acquired were located in Ambattur Taluk of Thiruvallur District, the Taluk itself is a periphery of Madras City and it forms part of the expanded Chennai Metropolitan area. It is admitted in evidence that the lands in the villages in Ambattur Taluk had already developed into huge residential colonies as well as industrial sites.
Almost all the villages in Ambattur Taluk now form part of the Chennai Metropolitan Area. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.16,500/- per cent in a village forming part of the expanded Chennai Metropolitan City, cannot really find fault with. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Appeal Suits) is entitled to separate fees. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gr.
To
1. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-8
2. The Additional District Judge (FTC II), Poonamallee. Copy to:
The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+23 ccs to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, sr.47222 to 47234 and 46951 to 46963 +3 ccs to Mr.C.Johnson, Advocate, sr.46746, 46748 & 46749 A.S.Nos. 574 to 583 of 2011, 46 to 52 of 2012 and 56 to 61 of 2012 jsv co kra 08.03.2016