The Special Tahsildar, v. Periasamy Gounder,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.01.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU S.A.No.1744 of 2002 1.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition ADW Kangeyam 2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by its District Collector, Erode. ... Authorised Officer/ Respondents/Appellants v.
Periasamy Gounder Rep.by his power agent Tmt.Rajalakshmi ... Claimant/Appellant/Respondent Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act (Act 31/1978) read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2001 made in CMA No.8/1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram modifying the award dated 29.01.1998 made in Award NO.22/1995 by the Special Tahsildar, ADW, Kangeyam.
For Appellants : Dr.S.Surya Special Government Pleader(CS) For Respondent : Mr.S.Saravanan
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is to the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2001 made in CMA No.8/1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram modifying the award dated 29.01.1998 made in Award NO.22/1995 by the Special Tahsildar, ADW, Kangeyam.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the trial Court. The respondents are the appellants herein.
3.The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows: The lands comprised in S.F.No.743 measuring an extent of 2.52 acres was proposed to be acquired for the providing house sites to 60 Adi Dravidar families as the existing Adi Dravidar colony had become congested. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 was also published on 28.06.1996 and notices were also sent to the landlords, whose lands are sought to be acquired.
4. On 02.01.1998, enquiry was conducted under Section 5(1) of the said Act by the Village Administrative Officer and Rs.59,000/- per acre was fixed as compensation by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangeyam. However, the power of attorney of the claimant objected to the said award by stating that the award fixed was very low and the award has been fixed by the Special Tahsildar based on the sale in respect of S.No.733, which is far away from the acquired land and she relied on the sale value of other land ie., S.No.709, which has higher sale value. However, award was passed by the Special Tahsildar fixing the compensation of Rs.59,000/- per acre and for the total extent of land, the total compensation would be Rs.1,48,680/- and 15% solatium would be Rs.22,302/- and the total compensation would be Rs.1,70,982/-.
However, the claimant received the compensation under dissatisfaction. Challenging the award, the claimant, ie., power of attorney of original claimant, filed CMA No.8 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Dharapuram for enhancement of compensation from Rs.59,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.
5. The following substantial questions raised by the trial Court as follows:
Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement for enhancement of compensation ? If so, to what extent she is entitled for?
6.In order to prove the case of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B5.
7.On considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Court
below was pleased to hold that the Special Tahsildar has wrongly considered S.No.733 as model document, while valuing the property of the claimant, which is far from the property in question and accordingly, enhanced the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,79,600/-, which was inclusive of 15% solatium amounting to Rs.75,600/-. The trial Court directed the respondent Department to deposit the enhanced award amount, less the amount already received by the claimant, ie., Rs.1,70,982/-, within a period of three months, with interest at the rate of 6%, from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the respondent Department.
8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:
"1.Whether the Court below was right in not applying the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court, while fixing the market value of the lands acquired?
2.Whether the Court below was right in enhancing the value from Rs.59,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre?
3.Whether the Court below was right in not deducting the developmental charges for the acquired land?"
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/authorised officer and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:
The finding rendered by the Court below is contrary to law and need interference. The lower Court failed to see that the sample sale deed was not placed equally with the standard of the lands acquired and the lands covered under Exs.C1 and C2 are of smaller extent. The Court below ought to have seen that the developmental charges are to be deducted for providing roads, playgrounds etc. The Court below ought to have seen that the agricultural lands are acquired lands, which are to be converted for residential purpose. The Court below has wrongly presumed that in order to avoid payment of stamp duty, the value of the
lands are reduced, which is contrary to law and the same cannot be countenanced.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant made the following submissions:
While passing the award, the acquisition officer relied upon the sale taken place on 22.09.1995 in S.No.733, which was far away from the acquired property, at S.No.743 and fixed the value of Rs.59,000/- per acre. The claimants relied upon two sale deeds that had taken place on 05.02.1996 and 29.02.1996 in S.No.709. The claimant claimed that S.No.709 is situated in close proximity to S.No.743. He also claimed that near the acquired land, there were shops, cooperative bank, school, power looms etc. Neither C.W.2 has been impeached nor the same has been rebutted. There is no contra evidence to C.W.2, which clearly shows that the acquired land is a developed land. Considering these factors, the Court below has rightly fixed the market value without providing any deduction. For all these reasons, the respondent/claimant prays for dismissal of the appeal.
12. To support the case of the respondent/claimant, the respondent relied on the following judgments: (i) AIR 1992 SC 2298 [Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and another] and (ii) Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi and two others v. Kanaswamy Gounder and others in SA No.1771 of 2003 dated 28.03.2016.
13. Perusal of record shows that the Court below on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has chosen to award a fair and just compensation of Rs.5,79,600/- by fixing Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. While fixing the compensation, the learned Judge has taken into consideration S.No.709 the nearby land to justify the sale value. He has also taken into consideration that the acquired land is situated nearer to a developed area, where school, cooperative bank and power looms are located. Hence, the amount enhanced by the lower appellate Court does not require any interference from this Court.
14. When the second appeal was taken up for hearing on 13.12.2021, this Court passed the following order: "Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Dr.S.Suriya, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent has given a proposal for 10% reduction and she has communicated the same to the
department and a report is yet to be received and hence, she sought for short accommodation."
15. In my considered view, though a proposal of 10% reduction was given by the respondent, considering the overall circumstances and the market value of the land, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below was just and reasonable. In view of the legal precedents, the decision of the Court below enhancing the compensation is well within the legal norms and the factual matrix laid before it and I do not think that the second appeal deserves any consideration. Accordingly, as per the findings of the lower appellate Court, the respondent/claimant is entitled for the said enhanced amount, without any reduction.
16.In fine, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR RR To The Sub Court, Dharapuram.
Copy to 1.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition ADW, Kangeyam.
2.The District Collector, Erode.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.15758 +1cc to M/s.S.Saravanan, Advocate Sr.14859 S.A.No.1744 of 2002 jp-ii[co] srg 07/04/2022