AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ratnam, J.—These appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the common order passed by the Sub Court, Chengalpattu on
references made to it under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') in C.R.O.P. Nos. 182, 183 and 184 of 1979,
1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 23, 24 and 25 of 1980 and in C.R.O.P. 25 of 1980. Originally, an extent of 221.85 acres situate in different survey numbers
in Kodungaiyur village, was notified under S. 4(1) of the Act, dated 5th February, 1975 for the purpose of development of North Madras
Neighborhood Scheme. Later, it was found that excepting an extent of 71.16 acres, the rest had already been declared as house-sites and plans
had also been approved by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, even prior to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings were confined to the extent of 71.16 acres only. As the lands surrounding and adjoining the acquired lands had already
been approved for lay out purposes the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis that
they were house sites. Considering as many as 1044 instances of sales and classifying such instances of sales into five categories, the Land
Acquisition Officer rejected all the sales in categories 1 to 4, but accepted one out of three instances of sales in category 5 to compute the market
value of the acquired lands at Rs. 222.62 per cent and rounded it off to Rs. 223 per cent at the time of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act.
The instance of sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer had been marked as Ex.A50, dated 14th September, 197(sic) and that sale related
to an extent of 5870 sq.ft in survey No. 167/1A. There were also some palmyra trees, wells and other superstructures in some of the acquired
lands and the Land Acquisition Officer also determined the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the wells and other
superstructures, as the trees had been cut and removed by the claimants themselves. Aggrieved by this, the claimants sought references before
Court under S. 18 of the Act. On behalf of the claimants, quite a large number of documents were filed to establish the market value of the
acquired lands, while, on behalf of the Government no documents as such were produced. On a consideration of the instances of sales made
available in evidence, the court below found that Ex. A60 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer had been executed as a distress sale and
cannot be relied upon to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands and that another instance of sale marked as Ex.A43 would afford a just
and a fair basis for the fixation of the compensation awardable to the claimants in respect of the acquired lands. The market value reflected by Ex.
A43 was Rs. 491.60 per cent and deducting 36% of that value towards development and other charges the court below arrived at the market
value of the acquired lands on the date of S. 4(1), notification at Rs. 315 percent. Taking into account what the court below called a steady
increase in the land value around the acquired area, a sum of Rs. 10 was added on to the amount of Rs. 315 to cover the interval of time between
the instance of sale under Ex.A43 and the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act and finally, the market value of the acquired lands was determined
Rs. 325 percent. Regarding the value of the wells, pumpset sheds, etc., the court below accepted the estimate given by the Union Engineer and his
testimony to conclude that the amount determined as compensation for the wells and the pumpsets sheds was in order. In the reference out of
which A.S. 382 of 1982 has arisen, the common order C.R.O.P. 182 of 1979, etc. batch whereby the market value was fixed at Rs. 325 percent
alone was marked and adopting the same value the compensation in respect of the acquired lands was also fixed at Rs. 325 percent therein. It is
against this that the claimants have preferred these appeals. Mr. M. Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals, first contended
the court below ought to have proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands for the purpose of payment of compensation claimants on
the basis of Exs.A44 to A46 and that from out of those instances of sales, the maximum rate as reflected by Ex. A46 should have been awarded.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the instances of sales under Ex. A44 to A46 were not in the vicinity of the
acquired lands and would not, therefore, be comparable instances of sales and that the court below was quite justified in relying upon Ex. A43
relating to Survey No. 180/1, which is adjacent east to some of the acquired lands and to the north of the other lands acquired.
There is no dispute that the acquired land shave been recorded in the revenue records as wet and dry. Even so, the Land Acquisition Officer as
well as the court below have approached the question of determination of the market value of the acquired lands as if they were house sites and
deducting therefrom the improvement and other charges to fix the market value of the lands as on the date of notification under S.4(1) of the Act A
look at the sketches Ex. A1 and B2 show that to the north and to the east of the acquired lands, there is a road running from Moolakkadai to
Tondiarpet. Portions of the acquired lands like Survey Nos. 79, 74, 2(sic)2 and 281 lie on that road. To the south of the acquired lands several
housing colonies, designated as Nagars, have sprung up, as could be seen from the plans referred to earlier. To the immediate south of the
acquired lands, Vasuki Nagar, Vivekananda Nagar and Krishnamurthi Nagar have come up. There are two other housing colonies of the name of
Munusami Reddiar Nagar, and Thiruvalluvar Nagar, but they are not situate immediately to the south of the other housing colonies earlier referred.
It is seen from the sketches that between the acquired lands and Munuswami Reddiar Nagar in the south and west, Survey No. 99 intervenes.
Similarly, between the acquired lands and Thiruvalluvarnagar, Vasuki Nagar in Survey Nos. 154 and 153 intervenes. However, it is clear from the
plans that the acquired area is surrounded by housing colonies, Vasuki Nagar and Vivekananda Nagar in the south and Krishnamurthi Nagar in the
southeast. Ex.A41 is the layout plan in respect of Vivekananda Nagar and Ex.A47 is a similar layout plan for Vasuki Nagar. The neighboring lands
have been plotted out as house-sites and some of them have also been sold and under these circumstances the market value of the acquired lands
cannot be determined on the footing that they are agricultural lands. The court below was, therefore, quite correct in proceeding to determine the
market value of the acquired lands on the footing that they should also be treated as house sites.
The next question that has to be considered is, whether the market value has to be fixed on the basis of Ex. A44 to A46 or Ex. A43. Though
there is one instance of sale under Ex.A60, dated 14th September, 1972 relating to 5,860 sq.ft. in Survey No. 167/1-A immediately to the south
of the acquired lands, the court below was not inclined to accept the same, as, according to it, it was a distress sale. The recitals in that document
considered in the light of the evidence of C.W. 2 Saraswathi Ammal would clearly make out that there was pressing need for funds and that was
the reason the sale under Ex.A60 came to be executed. That sale cannot be considered to reflect the correct market value of the property sold
thereunder and no reliance can, therefore, be placed on it. The Court below was right in rejecting Ex.A60. From the sketches Ex.A1 and B2, it is
seen that Survey No. 154 comprised in Vasuki Nagar and Survey Nos. 155 and 159 comprised in Vivekananda Nagar are the only lands situate
closest to the acquired lands. The instances of sales with reference to these survey numbers would be useful in deciding the market value of the
acquired lands. With reference to Survey No. 154 in Vasuki Nagar there are three instances of sales under Ex.A24, A26 and A27, dated 12th
September, 1973, 26th September, 1973 and 15th November, 1973, respectively. The lands sold under these documents are situate to the
immediate south of the acquired lands and the average rate per cent works out to Rs. 452.20. In Survey No. 155 comprised in Vivekananda
Nagar situate to the east of Vasuki Nagar and again south of the acquired lands, there is one instance of sale available under Ex.A39, dated 10th
October, 1974 and the rate works out to Rs. 453.70 per cent. Ex.A43, dated 1st July, 1974 relied on by the court below is in respect of an extent
of 1,418 sq.ft. in Survey No. 180/1 which, as could be seen from the sketches, not only abuts the road from Moolakkadai to Tondiarpet, but also
is situate to the east of the acquired lands, namely, Survey No. 76/3. The rate per cent works out to Rs. 491.60. It is thus seen that the maximum
rate with reference to the sale of lands immediately adjacent to the acquired lands is Rs. 491.60 as evidenced by Ex.A13. Ex.A44 relied on by the
claimants is a sale deed, dated 25th December, 1973 in respect of an extent of 2,409 sq.ft. in Survey No. 145/1-A. The rate works out to Rs.
542.50 per cent. The sketches made available show that Survey No. 145 is situate to the west of Munuswami Reddiar Nagar and far away from
the acquired lands and very near to the Panchayat Union Elementary School in the village site in Survey No. 144. The land sold under Ex.A44 is
far away from the acquired lands in the south west and separated by Survey Nos. 99 and 146 to 1:0. That instance of sale cannot, therefore, be
accepted as truly reflecting the market value of the acquired lands. Ex.A45 is another instance of sale dt. 20th December, 1973 with reference to
an extent of 17 cents of land in Survey No. 145/3 The rate per cent works out to Rs. 544.50. Here again, it has to be remembered that the land
dealt with under Ex.A45 is situate in Survey No. 145/3 far away from the acquired lands and in the same survey number as the land sold under
Ex.A44 though in a different sub-division. Whatever applies to Ex.A44 would, therefore, be applicable to Ex. A45 as well. Therefore, Ex.A45
cannot also be regarded as reflecting the correct market value of the lands acquired. The only other document relied on by the claimants is
Ex.A46, dated 24th December, 1974. Thereunder, an extent of 2040 sq.ft, situate in Survey No. 165/4 had been sold and the rate percent works
out to Rs. 640.60, It is seen from the sketches that Survey No. 165 is situate to the south of Survey N0.167/1-A, a portion of which had been
dealt with under Ex.A60, dated 14th September, 1972. While Ex.A60 reflects the market value of Rs. 222.62 per cent and that has been held to
be a distress sale, it does not appear as to how in the transaction evidenced by Ex.A46 relating to a small extent of 2040 sq.ft. in Survey No.
165/4 situate south of Survey No. 167/1-A, the value had been given at almost three times the value reflected by Ex.A60. None of the persons
connected with Ex.A46 has been examined to show that the sale was a normal one and the value reflected represents the correct market value on
the date of sale. Besides, the instance of sale evidenced by Ex.A46 is not that near to the acquired lands as Ex.A24 to A27 or Ex.A39 or Ex.A43
referred to earlier. Ex.A46 relates to a very small extent of 2,040 sq.ft. and cannot be adopted as the basis for fixing the compensation in respect
of such a large extent of 71.16 acres acquired in this case. Compared to the instances of sales with reference to areas close to the acquired lands,
Ex.A46 does not deserve to be accepted as truly reflecting the market value of the acquired lands. The steep difference in the rates reflected by
Ex.A60 and A46 is an indication that there perhaps was some competition or anxiety to purchase the extent covered by Ex.A46. Ex. A46 cannot,
therefore, be accepted as a proper basis for awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands.
It is thus seen from the documents referred to above that the highest rate prevalent in the areas immediately adjacent to the acquired lands is the
one reflected by Ex.A43 at Rs. 481.60 per cent, as the other similar sales under Ex.A24 to A27 and A39 show only a rate of Rs. 452.50 and Rs.
453.70. The Court below has proceeded to adopt the value reflected by Ex.A43 as the basis. Having regard to the instances of sales available,
particularly very near the vicinity of the acquired lands, it does not appear that the court below committed any error in having adopted Ex.A43.
The highest rate with reference to the lands nearest to the acquired lands is one reflected by Ex.A43 and the market value of the acquired lands,
has, therefore, to be fixed at that rate.
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the event of the Court accepting Ex.A43 as reflecting the market value of the acquired
lands at or about the time of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, a substantial increase should be given to cover up the increase in the market
value of the lands between the date of sale under Ex.A43 and the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, namely 5th February, 1975. It was also
said that the amount of Rs. 10 per cent awarded by the court below was too low. That quite a number of instances of sales are available in
evidence has already been referred to. In 1972, there have been five instances of sales under Ex.A60 and A4 to A7. Ex.A60 has already been
held to be a distress sale and has, therefore, to be left out of account. The average market rate reflected by Ex.A4 to A7, is Rs. 486.05 per cent
inclusive of the improvement charges. In 1973, there have been eleven instances of sale from February, 1973 up to December, 1973 under Ex.A8
to A12, A24 to A27, A44 and A45. The average per cent during 1973 works out to Rs. 485.40 inclusive of development charges. In 1974, there
are 27 instances of sales under Ex. A36, A 13, A 43, A25, A 14. A31, A29, A30, A32 to A34, A15 A43, A26 to A18, A37, A38, A19, A45,
A20, A39, A21, A40, A 22, A23 and A46. The average market rate during the year 1974 based on the aforesaid documents works out to Rs.
470 per cent. Even amongst the aforesaid instances of sales, it is seen that between February, 1974 and 13th December, 1974. (Ex. A23), the
highest rate was Rs 491.60 per cent reflected by Ex.A43, dated 1st July, 1974. Between 8th February, 1974 (Ex. A35) and 12th June, 1974
(Ex.A15) the rate was lower than Rs. 491.60 per cent. Similarly, between 29th July, 1974 (Ex. A16) till 13th December, 1974 (Ex. A23) the rate
was lower than Rs. 491.60 percent. The only instance of sale in excess of the market value as reflected in Ex.A43, dated 1st July, 1974 for the
year 1974 is Ex.A46, dated 24th December, 1974 wherein the rate per cent works our to Rs. 640.60. It is thus seen that between Ex.A16, dated
29th July, 1974 and Ex.A23 dt. 13th December, 1974 the rate has either remained at Rs. 472.33 per cent or in some cases, it had registered a
downward trend. The first indication of any increase is only under Ex.A46 and the increase is Rs. 149 per cent (difference between Rs. 640.69
and Rs. 491.60) over six months between 1st July 1974 and 24th December, 1974 though there is no increase as such till 24th December 1974,
and in some cases there has been a steep decline in prices also. Considering the down ward trend in the prices between 1st July 1974 and 13th
December, 1974 when compared to the rate under Ex.A43, this cannot be considered to be a case of steady increase in prices from 1972 to
1974, when the lands were acquired. Even so, taking into account the fluctuation in prices as seen from Exs.A43 and A46 over a period of six
months, it would be, in my view, just and fair that a sum of Rs. 25 is added on to the value reflected under Ex.A43, namely, Rs. 491.60 plus Rs.
25: Rs. 516.60 in order to compensate for the increase in prices between the date of Ex.A23 dated 13th December, 1974 and the notification
under S. 4(1) of the Act on 5th February, 1975. In other words, the compensation awardable to the claimants would be Rs. 516.50 per cent
instead of Rs. 491-60 as fixed by the court below based on Ex.A43.
However, the market rate reflected in Ex. A43 is with reference to a developed house site and not land like the acquired lands, which had to be
developed in future. Therefore, from the market value so arrived at on the basis of Ex.A43 with reference to a developed house site, deductions
will have to be made towards improvements charges, provision of roads, water supply, drainage, etc. The Court below was inclined to deduct
36% of the value of the development house sites towards the charges for the aforesaid improvements and had arrived at Rs. 315 per cent as the
market value of the undeveloped site. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a deduction of 36% towards the improvement charges
was on the high side. It is seen from the evidence of Janardhanam examined as C.W. 1, that improvement charges will be about 20%. On the other
hand, the evidence of R.W. 1 is to the effect that there is a difference of 2 to 3 feet on all sides between the level of the road and the acquired
lands. He is also positive that the acquired lands have to be leveled up before building; as otherwise, the buildings, if any, built, would get
submerged. It is also further seen from the cross-examination of R.W. 1 that metalled roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, etc, have
also to be provided for. It is thus seen from the evidence of R.W. 1, that though the acquired lands are on a level, yet, when compared to the level
of the road and considering the proposed use of the acquired lands, as house-sites, it would be necessary to undertake the process of filling up to
bring the acquired lands on level with the road so that buildings, if built, can remain without being affected by water. The cost of leveling up,
provision of metalled roads, drinking water, drainage channel and other incidental facilities would undoubtedly account for one third of the cost of
the developed site. The Court below had fixed it at 36% based upon the decision cited before it. However, on the evidence available in this case,
in my view, it would be sufficient to deduct 33-1/3% towards charges for conversion and development into house sites. Deducting 33-1/3% from
the market value as fixed earlier, namely, Rs. 516.60, the market value of the acquired lands could be justly and reasonably fixed at Rs. 344 as
rounded off.
The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the claimants will be entitled to interest under S. 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12
per cent per annum on the market value of the lands, in addition to the market value, for the period from 5th February, 1975 (the date of
publication of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act) till the date of award (15th June, 1979) or the taking of possession (25th February, 1979),
whichever is earlier. Reliance was also placed in this connection upon the decisions in Raghbir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1985 Del 228, and
Union of India Vs. Maria Olivia Carvalho and Others, On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate strenuously opposed this contending
that S. 23(1-A) of the Act is not applicable except to cases mentioned in S. 30(1) (a) and (b) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of
1984) (hereinafter referred to as the ''Amending Act'') subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated therein and cases of acquisition arising
by initiation of proceedings after 24th August, 1984.
S. 23 (1-A) of the Act was inserted in the body of the Act by clause (a) of S. 15 of the Amending Act. However, under S. 30(1) of the
Amending Act, it is provided that S. 23(1-A) of the Act, as inserted by clause (a) of S. 15 of the Amending Act, shall apply and shall be deemed
to have applied, also to, and in relation to, (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of
April, 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People in which no award has been
made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date,
whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. There is no dispute that the Amending Act came
into force on 24th September, 1984. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that by the introduction of S. 23 (1-A) of the Act,
that section should be deemed to have become part of the Act since its inception or at least from 24th September, 1984, as to attract that
provision to pending matters as the law applicable to such cases. The ordinary rule is that in the absence of a specific provision contra, the
amended provisions would apply and take effect prospectively. In other words, interest under S. 23 (1-A) of the Act should be ordinarily awarded
by court in every case decided or determined after 24th September, 1984, the date on which S. 23 (1-A) of the Act inserted by the Amending
Act, came into force, and became law. Nevertheless, the scope of the applicability of S. 23 (1-A) of the Act as inserted by clause (a) of S. 15 of
the Amending Act, has been extended backwards by the transitional provisions S. 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the Amending Act, not only by applying it,
but also deeming it to have been applied before 24th September, 1984. There has thus been a recognition of a restricted retrospective application
of S. 23 (1-A) of the Act, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in S. 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the Amending Act. Under that section,
S. 23 (1-A) of the Act is made applicable, and is deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to the proceedings mentioned under S. 30 (1)(a)
and (b) of the Amending Act. In order to claim the benefit of the application retrospectively of S. 23 (1-A) of the Act for the period anterior to
24th September, 1984, it is necessary that the proceeding for acquisition commenced earlier should be pending on 30th April, 1982, when the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 was introduced in the House of the People, in which no award has been made by the Collector before
that date. Similarly, with reference to proceedings for acquisition commenced after 30th April, 1982, whether or not an award had been made by
the Collector before 24th September, 1984. S. 23 (1-A) of the Act would be attracted. Apart from these two cases set out in S. 30 (1) (a) and
(b) of the Amending Act, S. 23 (1-A) of the Act was not intended to apply retrospectively, to cases anterior to 24th September, 1984. In this
connection, it is also necessary to bear in mind the provision in S 30 (2) of the Amending Act. S. 30(2) of the Amending Act refers only to Ss.
23(2) and 28 of the Act, as amended by Ss. 15 (b) and 18 of the Amending Act, and states that the amended provisions would apply, and shall be
deemed to have applied to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court of Supreme Court, in appeal
against any award under the provisions of the principal Act after 30th April, 1982, the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Bill, 1982, and before 24th September, 1984. This section is confined only to solatium under S. 23(2) and interest under S. 28 of the Act This is
also an indication that S. 23 (1A) of the Act would not apply to any award of the Collector or the court between 30th April 1982 and 24th
September, 1984, unless the case falls within S. 30(1)(a) or (b) of the Amending Act in which case, S. 23 (1-A) of the Act would stand attracted,
subject to the conditions prescribed therein, enabling the court to give effect to S. 21 (1-A) of the Act.
The decision in Raghbir Singh v Union of India, AIR 1985 Del 228. relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants supports the above
view. In that decision, after referring to S. 23 (1-A) of the Act, and S. 30(1) of the Amending Act, it is stated that S 23 (1-A) of the Act is
prospective in character and will apply to all cases decided after 24th September, 1984, and that it is made retrospective only in two contingencies
specified in S. 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the Amending Act and further that it may not be applicable to cases other than the one falling within S. 30(1)(a)
and (b) of the Amending Act prior to 24th September, 1984. That decision also recognises that the amended provision of S. 23 (1-A) of the Act
has been made retrospective only to the limited extent provided for under S. 30(1) (a) and (b) of the Amending Act. The ratio of this decision
would enable the appellant to claim interest under S. 23 (1-A) of the Act. In Union of India Vs. Maria Olivia Carvalho and Others, the
proceedings were initiated on 19th November, 1977 and the award was passed on 27th August, 1984. That would be a case to which S. 30(1)
(a) of the Amending Act would stand attracted rendering applicable S. 23 (1-A) of the Act. Consequently, on the basis of the reasoning aforesaid
and the decisions referred to, the claim of the appellants for interest on the market value at 12 per cent per annum from 5th February, 1975 to 25th
February, 1979 has to be accepted.
The learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the claimants would also be entitled to solatium at 30% and interest at 9% instead
of 15% and 4% respectively, awarded by the Court below in accordance with the amended Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Since there is no dispute
that these appeals were pending on 30th April, 1982 by virtue of S. 30(2) of the Amending Act the appellants will be entitled to claim enhanced
solatium and interest as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land
acquisition collector, Chandigarh, . In addition, the learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that interest at 15 percent per annum should
be paid to the claimants in accordance with the Proviso to S. 28 of the Act. This claim is unsustainable as there is no material before Court to show
that the excess compensation was paid into court after the expiry of the period of one year. In other words, there is no material to establish the
date of payment and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the date of such payment was after one year from the date of taking possession.
In view of the absence of materials, the appellants'' claim for interest cannot be upheld. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed in part to the
extent indicated. There will be, however, no order as to costs.