AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The plaintiff is the appellant in the above suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 88,958/- with subsequent interest or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the schedule properties from the defendant.
The case of the plaintiff is that the schedule properties belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant applied for permission to dig a well and construct a overhead tank and pump-shed in the schedule properties and that permission was granted by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras, on condition that the defendant should pay the the value fixed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and the defendant accepted the condition and took possession of the schedule properties on 12.01.1987. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, fixed valuation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per Cent and communicated the value of 71-1/2 Cents to the defendant and directed the defendant to pay the same. The defendant refused to pay the same stating that the amount fixed by the Commissioner is on the higher side. Therefore, a suit was filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs afore stated.
The defendant in the written statement denied that he accepted the condition proposed by the Commissioner for handing over the possession of the land and the land was handed over to them by the Trustees without any condition and the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras, has valued the land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre and if that value is accepted the value of the suit properties would be Rs. 21,450/- and they are not liable to pay the value fixed by the Commissioner and it is the further contention that there were no completed contract between the parties thereby the defendant has to pay Rs. 1000/- per Cent.
During trial the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses and marked 9 documents and the defendant examined one witness and marked 4 documents.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the trial judge framed the following issues:
Whether it is true that the defendant agreed to pay the value fixed by the Commissioner for the schedule properties?
What is the amount payable to the plaintiff as value of the land?
The learned Sub Judge after analysing evidence on both oral and documentary held that the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment fixed the valuation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre and on that basis the learned Sub Judge, valued the suit property at Rs. 21450/- and decreed the suit with interest for a sum of Rs. 25,525/-. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the above appeal.
The point for consideration in this appeal whether the respondent is liable to pay the value as fixed by the Commissioner as per Ex.A1?
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per Ex.A1, it has been made clear that the defendant should be the value at the rate fixed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment is liable to pay interest, till the date of making the payment. He further contended that the defendant agreed to the above condition and on that basis only possession of schedule property was handed over to the respondent and therefore, it is not open to the respondent to go back against Ex.A1 and offered to pay a lesser amount. Further he contended that the contention of the respondent that they would pay the amount only as per the rate fixed by the Revenue officials cannot be accepted. In short, the case of the appellant is having accepted the condition as stated in Ex.A1, the respondent is estopped from questioning the valuation and they are bound to pay the amount as demanded by the Commissioner.
In this case, before going to the merits some dates are relevant to decide the issue involved in this case. Admittedly, the possession of the land was given to the respondent on 08.05.1986. It is seen from Ex.B2 that the Commissioner has, by his order dated 31.03.1986, permitted the respondent to enter upon the suit property and thereafter, on 08.05.1986 the respondent had taken possession of the suit property for the purpose of digging up a well and to construct a overhead tank with pump-shed. It is further admitted that the defendant completed the work on 12.01.1987. From 08.05.1986 till 12.01.1987, no communication has been received from the appellant regarding the value of the land to be paid by the defendant. Only on 13.09.1988, the Commissioner has fixed the value at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per Cent and demanded Rs. 71,500/- towards the value of the property. While taking the said sum of Rs. 1000/- per Cent, no reason has been stated by the Commissioner for arriving at that figure. In other-words the basis on which Rs. 1000/- fixed per Cent by the Commissioner was not made known to the respondent/defendant and during trial also it was not made known. On the other-hand, Mr. Vellaisamy learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon Ex.B1, which is dated 03.01.1986, a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tirunelveli to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras and vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner valued the property at Rs. 30,000/- per acre and accordingly, valued the suit property at Rs. 21,450/- and recommended to the Commissioner that the respondent/defendant can be directed to pay the same amount for consideration for the land taken over for the purpose of digging a well and constructing a overhead tank. Therefore, he contended that from from Ex.B1, it is seen that the land was valued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, in the year 1986 at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre and without considering that, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, demanded Rs. 1 lakh per acre and on that basis filed the suit. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that the value was fixed 18 months after the completion of the work and had it been informed while taking possession they would not have taken possession.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondent having accepted the condition are bound to pay the amount as fixed by the Commissioner. No-doubt the respondent agreed to pay the value fixed by the Commissioner and on that condition the land was handed over to the respondent. But the value was not fixed by the Commissioner immediately after taking over of possession by the respondent or before the completion of construction.
As stated supra, the construction was over on 12.01.1987 and 18 months thereafter the Commissioner has fixed the value and no reasons or particulars were mentioned in that order for fixing the market value of Rs. 1000/- per Cent. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is can be the appellant relied upon Ex.A1 and demanded the amount from the respondent. In my opinion, the appellant is entitled to rely upon Ex.A1 for the limited purpose that the respondent has agreed to pay the value fixed by the Commissioner. But that would not give any power to the Commissioner to fix any amount as value of the land without stating the reason or basis for fixing the value. In other-words, in my opinion, the respondent has agreed for the Commissioner to act as an arbitrator for fixing the value of the land and agree to pay the value fixed by the arbitrator. Therefore, the Commissioner is bound to follow certain principles while fixing the value of the land.
In this case, admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, even in the year 1986, under Ex.B1 fixed the value at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The Commissioner has not stated any reason for rejecting the value fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and in my opinion, the Commissioner has arbitrarily fixed the value at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre and therefore, even though the respondent agreed to pay the value fixed the Commissioner, the Commissioner having fixed the value arbitrarily without any basis the value fixed by the Commissioner cannot be accepted and the respondent is not liable to pay that amount.
The next question that would arise in this appeal is if the Commissioner valuation is not accepted then what would be the value of the land that can be paid by the respondent. As stated supra, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment, on the basis of Executive Officer''s letter and as per the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees fixed the value at Rs,30,000/- per acre and according to me, that value would represent the correct market value for the land and the respondent/defendant is liable to pay only that amount. The learned Sub Judge, on a perusal of the document also has held that the respondent/defendant is liable to pay Rs. 21,450/- with interest and I am agreeing with the finding of the learned Sub Judge.
Before parting in this appeal, I would like to express my displeasure over the manner in which the case was filed by the appellant. Both the appellant and respondent are statutory bodies and the respondent for the purpose of providing water to the villages sought the permission from the appellant for using their land. The respondent did not require the land for commercial purpose, but for the purpose of providing water to the villagers. Therefore, the appellant ought to have given the land free of cost to the respondent, because the purpose for which the land is required is to cater to the basic needs of the general public. Unfortunately, the appellant demanded a huge sum and not being satisfied with the amount granted by the lower Court has chosen to file this appeal, claiming the balance amount. In my opinion, such attitude of the appellant should be deprecated and the appellant should be magnanimous in their approach in serving the public.
In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and the decree and judgment of the trial Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed without costs.