AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ratnam, J.—We have resorted to a grouped disposal of all these appeals, not because common questions of fact or law arise for decision in
these appeals, but on account of the judgments appealed against being vitiated by one or more of many errors and infirmities common to them all.
The judgments appealed against are so unsatisfactory that we have also been provoked into a restatement of the basics of the procedure in relation
to references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the manner in which they should be dealt with and disposed of by the courts. Broadly and
briefly stated, for the purpose of various housing schemes, provision of house sites to Harijans, for construction of E.S.I. dispensary and staff
quarters, for widening the Tindivanam Road, for the formation of by-pass road (east coast road) and for assignment of free house sites to the
landless labourers in the rural areas, large extents of land situate in Kurumbapet, Sadarpet Olandai, That tanuehavadi, Oulgaret, Murugambakkam,
Ariyankuppam, Tengatitt, Karuvinatham and Goodapakkam were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications u/s
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were dated 21st October 1975, 1st February, 1974, 2nd March, 1976, 1st September, 1970, 27th March,
1971, 9th April, 1974, 4th April, 1978, 18th May, 1970, 18th October, 1977, 28th September, 1976, 11th May, 1976 and 29th June 1977
respectively. Before the Land Acquisition officer, the owner''s of the acquired lands prayed for the determination of the market value of the
acquired lands at figures, which varied considerably from owner to owner. On the basis of the sales statistics, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived
at the market value of the acquired lands at different figures viz., Rs. 45: per Are, Rs. 34-47 per kuzhi, Rs. 338-98 per Are, Rs. 854-70 per Acre
Rs. 206-93 per kuzhi, Rs. 488-88 per Are, Rs. 430 per Are, Rs. 394, per Are, Rs. 250 per Are, Rs. 196.48 per Are, Rs. 339 per Are and Rs.
251 per Are. Not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation of the market value of the lands acquired, several claimants sought a reference to Court u/s
18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the sub Court, Pondicherry, determined the market value of the lands acquired at different rates viz., Rs. 373-
56 per Are, Rs. 373 per Are, Rs. 130 per kuzhi, Rs. 5,918 per Are, Rs. 2,000 per kuzhi, Rs. 2-50 per sq.ft. Rs. 3-50 per sq.ft., Rs. 6-50 per
sq.ft., Rs. 3-25 per sq.ft., Rs. 800 per kuzhi, Rs. 500 per kuzhi and Rs. 373-80 per Are. Complaining that the method as well as the manner of
fixation of the market value of the acquired land by the Court below is erroneous, the State has preferred these appeals.
The learned Government Pleader contended that in the process of ascertaining the market value of the acquired properties for the purposes of
awarding compensation to the owners thereof, the Court below had proceeded on the basis of documents, which had not been marketed in
evidence and with reference to guidelines which had not been brought into evidence and with reference to post Section 4(1) notification sales also.
In addition, it was also pointed out that in some cases, the Court had proceeded to accept the guideline value of house sites with reference to the
wet and dry lands acquired, while the guideline values with reference to the lands acquired was available. Further, it was also brought to our notice
that in a few of the cases, the Court below had not awarded the solatium and interest as contemplated by the statute. Yet another defect was also
brought to our notice in that in some of the cases, the Court below had not incorporated at the end of its judgment a chronological index of the
documents marked as evidences in the proceedings and a list of witnesses examined and therefore, there was no knowing as to on what
documents and oral evidence, if any the Court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand, Counsel
appearing for the owners of the acquired lands in these appeals would attempt to support the determination of the market value by the Court
below and say that though the criticism levelled with reference to the method as well as the manner of disposal of the matters by the learned
Subordinate Judge may, to some extent, be justified, yet, the award of compensation on the basis of the guidelines and other materials, is just and
reasonable and therefore, does not deserve to be disturbed. We have carefully perused the judgments of the Court below in all these appeals. We
have also bestowed or careful attention to the submissions made on both sides. Section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act lay down the
matters which should be considered in determining the compensation and masters which ought to be neglected in that process. These provisions
have to be primarily kept in view in the disposal of reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. We may however observe that in matters relating
to award of compensation arising under the land Acquisition Act a duty is cast on the Court to determine on the basis of evidence, the market
value of the land acquired, which a willing buyer would be inclined to pay, if sold by a willing seller on the date of the notification, u/s 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. To enable the Court to justify and reasonably award compensation to the owner of the property who has been deprived of
the same, several matters have to be considered and taken info account. Instances of normal sales of like property in the locality of acquisition
enjoying the same or similar advantages would be the best evidence for the ascertainment of the market value of the acquired lands. Special
features and advantages have also to be carefully considered. Potential user has to be given due weight. All these must necessarily enter into the
conveyartion of and the determination of market value to afford evidentiary basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the lands as
aforesaid, such documents of sales have to be marked in evidence. It would not suffice if those instances of sales are mentioned in the award and
merely referred to by court and relied on. The documents, be they originals or registration copies of the instances of sales, must be market in
evidence and form part of the record. That would enable the Sales as well as the claimants not only to place all the relevant documents before
Court, but it would also further assist in finding out the circumstances under which a transaction had been into by an examination of the parties to
the transaction if necessary. This would facilitate the Court to ascertain whether a particular instance of sale relied upon is a normal one or no and
whether the price reflected under that transaction is reasonable or no. A mere reference to the instances of sales found mentioned in the statistics
collected by either the Tahsildar or the concerned department for passing an award would not be evidence in the proceedings in the absence of the
production and marking in evidence of the documents themselves. No reliance can be placed on a document not before Court. The examination of
the parties would be necessary for farther elucidating, the circumstances under which the document came to be executed as well as the nature of
the property and the special features therein, if any. If on such evidence, the market value of the acquired land is ascertained, the claimants ought to
be given the benefit of the most advantageous market price and fixing an average market price with reference to the data available, ought to be
avoided. In addition to instances of sales, the guidelines issued by the Government with reference to the market value of the lands would also
furnish an acceptable and reliable basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. For purposes of payment of stamp
duty, while registering documents, the Government has fixed the market value of the properties, either by grouping them together into blocks or
even with reference to individual survey fields. In cases where such a guideline is available immediately prior to the notification u/s 4(1) of the land
Acquisition Act with reference to the particular property acquired or with reference to the block in which the property acquired may be situated,
then that guideline has to be taken into account and considered after marking it as evidence in the proceedings though it may be that the guidelines
issued by the Government in some cases may not be in relation to the particular acquired, but with reference to a nearby property, in such a cases
also, the Court can consider the guideline available an a piece of evidence reflecting the value of the market price near about the acquired property
at the time the guideline was issued. The Government has fixed up guide line values in respect of various categories of lands like dry, wet, house-
site, etc. The guidelines are relevant as the market value of the property cannot be different as the market value of the property cannot be different
for purposes of stamp duty and for purposes of payment of compensation to the owner who had been deprived of the same. Where such
guidelines are available with reference to particular property acquired. The market value shown therein would be the minimum to which the
claimant will be entitled, unless the claimant is in a position to show that for other reasons the market value ought to be higher than that mentioned
in the guideline. As stated earlier, where it is possible to certain a guideline, value with reference to the particular property under acquisition
immediately before the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that would be the best material available and the minimum that should be
made available to the claimant by way of compensation would be the amount so mentioned in the guideline but this may not always be so. Where
the guideline is not available with reference to the particular property acquired, the Court can taken into consideration the guidelines with reference
to the neighboring properties. Even in such s, it would be open to the claimants to establish that compensation that a rate higher than that mentioned
in the guidelines should be awarded on account of some special features or peculiar advantages which enhance the value of the acquired property.
In reconsidering the guidelines the Court ought to be careful against the application of the guideline value in respect of wet lands to dry lands and
dry lauds to house sites or vise verse. The ascertainment of the market value of the acquired property has primarily to be done with reference to
the classification of the property in the revenue records though that is not an inflexible rule. Weightage has to be given to the potential value with the
possibility of the property being put to diverse uses like house sites, etc., the nearness to habitation and the advantages and other amenities enjoyed
by it. Though the guidelines may be pressed into service us the best material for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands
a rigid adherence to the guideline value may not be possible in every case, but there must be an overall consideration of all the relevant aspects in
the matter fixation of the market value of the acquired lands even on the basis of the guidelines.
In the matter of fixing the market value of the acquired lands with reference to other instances of salts, it is essential that the Court should have
before it a plan of the acquired property, as well as a topo-sketch, clearly dedicating the acquired lands and also indicating thereon the date sales
relied on by the State and other relevant details. It is at once plain that providing this should be the duty of the State, as, the claimant may not be in
a position to secure the plan, as well as the details of that other relevant data relating to sales of lands in the vicinity. It would be easy for the
Government to have the plan as well the topo-sketch prepared in order to see to it that the court is in a position to appreciate the situation of the
land, the advantages and amenities enjoyed by it, the location as well as the situation of the other lands taken as date land, etc.
Apart from marking the instances of sales, guidelines, plan, topo-sketch, etc., as evidence at the end of the proceedings, it would be necessary
to indicate at the end of the judgment, not only the documents marked in the proceedings chronologically, but also to set out the names of the
persons, who have been examined either on behalf of the claimants or the State. Where the Referring Officer figures as the Petitioner, the
documents relied on his behalf have to be marked as exhibit. A series and the witnesses on his behalf have to be referred to as P.Ws. while, the
documents relied on by the claimants may be marked as exhibit B series and their witnesses R.Ws. and vice versa. It is also essential that the court
should have before it as part of the pleadings, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the form of reference, the claim statement of the
owners, the objection of the State, if any, in order that the Court may scrutinise the same and decide whether the claim made is in order and how
for the market value ascertained in the course of the award enquiry can be justified by the materials placed before the Court at the time of the
reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. To avoid any controversy with reference to the compensation claimed by the owners of the
properties acquired, the claimants should clearly set out their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. They should also put in a statement before
court indicating the account of compensation claimed by them. This would assist the Court in appreciating any possible objection that may arise u/s
25 of the Land Acquisition Act. It would also be the duty of the Court in all cases where the market value is redetermined for purposes of
awarding compensation to award the statutory solatium and interest. These reliefs are available to the claimants u/s 23(2) and Section 28 of the
Land Acquisition Act and it is not as if these are matters in the discretion of the Court. We have indicated above broadly the many manifold
matters that have to be taken into account by a Court in dealing with a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in order that the fixation of
compensation by the Court may be not only just, fair and reasonable, but also would accord with the legal and procedural requirements.
We now proceed to consider the judgments of the Court below appealed against in the light of what we had stated earlier. In Appeal Suit No.
743 of 1980 against LAOP No. 120/78 the land acquired is classified as dry land. The court proceeded to fix he market rate of the acquired land
treating it as a house site relying upon an instance of sale stated to be marked as exhibit B-5 in the proceedings. However, it is found that no such
document was marked in evidence. The contents of Exhibit R-5 are unknown. There is no index appended to the judgment to chronologically
indicate the documents marked in the course of the enquiry before the Court. There is no indication whether any witnesses at all have been
examined. How the market value was arrived at on the basis of a document not marked in evidence is not clear to us.
The Court below in Appeal Suit No. 67 of 1981 against LAOP. No. 121 of 1978 has relied upon the judgment in LAOP No. 120 of 1978
appealed against in Appeal Suit No. 743 of 1980. Earlier, the infirmities in the order in LAOP No. 120 of 1978, have been pointed out. It is
obvious that reliance upon the, judgment in LAOP No. 120 of 1978 which is by itself defective, cannot carry matters any further and is of no use in
arriving at the market value of the acquired lands in another appeal. It is also further seen that a paper advertisement has been relied on. There is
no indication in the judgment as to how and why this has been relied on as evidence. The claimant had examined herself as R.W. 1, but there is
absolutely no reference to her evidence. The fixation of market value cannot therefore be stated to be based on evidence.
Appeal Suit No. 92 of 1981 in arriving at the market late of the lands forming the subject matter of acquisition, the land classified as dry has
been treated as house site and there is no indication in the judgment as to on what basis this has been done. Further, reliance is placed on the
adjudications in LAOP Nos. 120 of 1978 and 121 of 1978. In view of what has been stated earlier with reference to the adjudications in LAOP
Nos. 120 of 1978 and 121 of 1978, the Court below was in error in having proceeded to as certain the market value on the basis of that arrived
at in LAOP Nos. 120 of 1978 and 121 of 1978.
Similarly, in Appeal Suit No. 60 of 1981 arising out of LAOP No. 57 of 1975, the Court below has purported to fixed the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of three documents exhibits R-1 to R-3. While Exhibits R-1 is with reference to a very any piece of property which
normally should not be adopted and acted by on this larger extents are acquired exhibits R-2 and R-3 and past Section 4(1) notification sales. The
reliance placed by the Court below on sales of small extents of land is certainly not correct, as it may be that a small bit had been paid for clearly
for certain resulting advantages owing to such an acquisition. Ordinarily, post notification sales ought not to be solely relied upon, as it is not
improbable that the proposal for acquisition had boosted up the market value of the property dealt with by those sales. R.W. 1 is stated to have
been examined, but there is nothing to show how that evidence has assisted the court to fix the market value. There is no and ex at all to show
what documents were market and who were examined as witnesses.
The lands acquired in Appeal Suit No. 62 of 1981 are wet lands and the Court below had relied upon the guideline value for a totally different
land and had treated the property as house site, Even the guideline has not been marked in evidence. Excepting for a reference to certain Post
Section 4(1) notification sales as exhibit R-1 to R-3, there is no indication in the judgment as to the evidence that was let in by the claimant and the
contra evidence made available by the State and how the Court on the evidence proceeded to ascertain the market value of the land. Solatium has
also not been awarded.
The Court below in Appeal suit No. 68 of 1981 had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of a 1970 guideline,
but it is not disputed that there was no guideline at all in the year 1970. Even assuming such a guideline was there, it had not been marked in
evidence and therefore, the fixation of the market value of the lands has absolutely no evidentiary support whatever.
With reference to Appeal Suit No. 66 of 1981 no document has been marked by the Court below and there is no other evidence, excepting
the oral testimony of P.W. 1. Reliance is placed on a guideline in the course of the judgment and it is found that the guideline has not been marked
in evidence. Therefore, the Court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the lands acquired without any evidence in support of the same.
In Appeal Suit No. 104 of 1981, reliance is placed on a sale deed referred to as exhibit R-1, but it is seen that it is subsequent to the
notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and such a sale cannot obviously be relied upon as the sole basis for the fixation of the market
value for purposes of awarding compensation. No other evidence, excepting oral evidence of P.W. 1, has been made available. There is no
discussion in the judgment of the Court below to indicate as to how the Court proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands as it did.
In Appeal Suit No. 106 of 1981, the judgment appealed indicates that reliance had been placed on guideline valve of a house site, while the
land acquired is wet land. Even the guideline value with reference to the house site relied upon has not been filed in the proceedings and marked as
an exhibit and in this case also the fixation of the market value of the acquired land''s has no evidentiary basis.
In Appeal Suit No. 61 of 1981 and Appeal Suit No. 65 of 1981 arising out of LAOP Nos. 108 of 1978 and 107 of 1978, the lands acquired
are wet lands; but the Court below has proceeded to rely upon the guideline value of house sites. Even that guideline had not been marked in
evidence. A perusal of the judgment in Appeal Suit No. 65 of 1981 indicates that it has no index of documents marked and witnesses examined.
There is no knowing as to what documents had been marked in evidence and who were the persons that were examined. In the absence of any
thing to indicate even the nature of evidence stated to have been available before the Court below, it is too much to believe that the Court below
had looked into the evidence before the market value of the acquired lands was ascertained by it in the manner done.
In Appeal Suit No. 100 of 1981, the lands acquired are wet lands, but the Court below had proceeded to fix the market valve of the acquired
lands on the basis of guideline value of house site. This again has not been marked and therefore the market value arrived at by the Court below is
not supported at all by the evidence.
Dry and wet lands had been acquired in Appeal Suit No. 57 of 1981 but the Court below has proceeded to rely upon exhibit R-1, the
guideline maintained by the Revenue Department for house suites and not the guideline either for dry or wet lands for or near about the lands under
acquisition. Besides, the guideline is for the year 1977, while the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is on 4th April 1978. A
perusal of the judgment also discloses that solatium has not been awarded.
In Appeal Suit No. 58 of 1981, dry lands had been acquired and the Court below has proceeded to rely upon exhibit R-1, which is stated in
the judgment to be a certificate regarding a well. How relying upon a certificate relating to a well, the market value of the lands had been fixed is
impossible to explain. Reliance is also placed on exhibit R-2 guideline; but that has not been marked in evidence. Besides, solatium has not been
granted.
The guideline relied on in Appeal Suit No. 59 of 1981 had not been marked and there is no index in the judgment to indicate what documents
were relied on and who were examined on behalf of the claimants as well as the State. It is not known as to who P.W. 1 on whose evidence the
reliance has been placed is or vvh3t he had deposed. The ascertainment of the market value of the acquired tends on the basis of the materials
disclosed in the judgment cannot be supported at all.
In Appeal Suit No. 69 of 1981, the Court below had relied upon, an instance of sale of a very small bit of land for the purpose of fixing the
market value of the acquired lands, which are dry lands of a large extent. It is well settled the small bits cannot be taken as the basis for the
purpose of fixing the market value of acquisition of large extents of land. Here also, there is nothing to indicate in the judgment, what documents
were filed by the claimant and the State and who were examined as witnesses. There is no evidentiary basis disclosed by the judgment of the Court
below to sustain the fixation of the market value as has been done.
Regarding Appeal Suit No. 73 of 1981, where dry lands have been acquired, the Court below has proceeded to adopt the guideline value in
aspect of house site and that it too for the year 1977, while the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 11th May, 1976.
In this case also, the Court below had not chosen to award solatium.
Dry lands have been required in Appeal Suit No. 109 of 1981 and before the Court below, no documents have been relied on as seen from
the judgment. It does not appear whether no documents as all were filed or having been filed, they, have been omitted to be looked into. The
Court merely proceeded on the basis of the oral evidence and fixed the market rate of the acquired lands on the oral testimony and on some
certificates relating to compound walls.
From what has been stated above, it is seen that the method and manner in which the reference u/s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act have been
dealt with by the Court below is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The evidence touching upon the ascertainment of the market value of the acquired
judgments appealed against bear the stamp of perfunctoriness and cannot at all be allowed to stand. To do substantial justice between the State on
the one hand and the persons, who have been deprived of their properties, on the other, the only course open is to set aside the judgments of the
Court below in all these appeals and to remit the LAOPs to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, to be disposed of by him afresh
in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained hereinafter giving an opportunity to the claimants and the state to place before
the Court oral as well as documentary evidence to establish the market value of the acquired lands on the date of the notification u/s 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. It is also needless to point out that the Court below should bear in mind and give effect to Rules 79 and 84 of the Civil Rules
of Practice which are applicable to the territory of Pondicherry in letter and spirit and all documents admitted in evidence should be chronologically
indexed and appended to the judgment. If this is done, it would enable not only the trial court, but also the appellate Court, to readily rivet its
attention upon the relevant evidence and this may result in the saving of considerable valuable judicature. That would also obviate the need for the
Court to delve into the record every time and pick out the relevant data. It is indeed unfortunate that the aspects touched upon earlier have not
been borne in mind at all by the Court below in the disposal of the reference and that has necessitate a denovo consideration of the matters on the
lines indicated above. Consequently, Appeal Suit Nos. 57 of 1981, 58 of 1981, 59 of 1981, 60 of 1981, 61 of 1981, 62 of 1981, 65 of 1981, 66
of 1981, 67 of 1981, 68 of 1981, 69 of 198l, 73 of 1981, 92 of 1981, 100 of 1981, 104 of 1981, 106 of 1981, 109 of 1981, and 743 of 1980
are all allowed and the LAOPs. remanded for fresh disposal. The Appellant will be entitled to a refund of the court fee paid on the memoranda of
appeals.