AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment made in O.P. 151 of 1980 and C.C.20 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. An extent of 8.15 acres of land in S. Nos. 125/1, 126/2 and 127/2 was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the Adhi Dravidas. The Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Government Gazette on 3.1.1979, followed up by an enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act on 23.2.1979. A declaration under S.6 of the Act was published on 10.3.1979. The award was passed on 10.9.1979.
Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants-appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000 per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18286. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on the data sale deed dated 23.12.1978 relating to a sale in respect of S. No. 434 , measuring 1 acre 48 cents. Being aggrieved against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer the claimants sought for a reference under Sec.18 of the Act. claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per acre and, therefore, the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for fixing the market value of the lands acquired.
Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellants relied on the sale deeds marked as Ex.A.5 to A.11 and claimed compensation on the basis of the value shown in the said documents. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the said documents as comparable documents to the lands acquired in this case, He noticed that the average value ranged from Rs. 50000 to Rs. 80000 per acre during the years 1977 and 1978. He has rightly rejected the data sale deed on the ground it is not a comparable document. Having found that the average value of these lands range from Rs. 50000 to Rs. 80000 per acre, he adopted the market value at the rate of Rs. 60000 per acre without any basis whatsoever As the lands, covered by Ex.A5 to A.11 are admittedly the developed lands, the learned Subordinate Judge deducted one-third value towards development charges and arrived at the market value at Rs. 40000 per acre. However, he found that the first claimant (since deceased) had claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer, and therefore, restricted the compensation to that amount. Aggrieved against the said decision, the appellants nave preferred the present appeal.
Mr. Shanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants had never given a statement to the effect that the market value of the lands was only Rs. 30000 per acre. The statement relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is the one given by Sivakami Ammal, one of the claimants and who is the mother of the appellants 2 and 3. According to learned counsel; appellants 2 and 3 are also entitled to share in the lands, and, therefore, even if such a statement had been given by the mother of appellants 2 and 3, it would not bind on them. Further, he submitted that a reading of the statement shows that what was stated by Sivakami Ammal was that the market value of the land may be around Rs. 30000 per acre. She has never stated that the market value of the land would be only Rs. 30000 per acre. The learned Subordinate Judge proceeded on the basis that there was inconsistency in the claim made by the claimants. He found at the first instance that the claimants demanded only Rs. 3000 per acre at the time of enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act. Thereafter they had given a statement on 7.10.1979 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 60000 per acre. Lastly, they let in evidence through P.W. 2 and 3, claiming compensation of Rs. 75,000 per acre. After considering the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at the rate Rs. 30,000 per acre, as restricted by the deceased claimant Sivakami Ammal in her statement. We are unable to appreciate the reasonings of the learned Subordinate Judge in this regard as far as the market value of the land is concerned.
When the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the sale deeds Ex.A.5 to A.11 relied on by the appellants, he ought to have given a definite finding as to the market value on the basis of those documents. Instead, he took note of the average value as Rs. 50000 to Rs. 80000 per acre. We find even that value was not adopted by him. On the other hand, he had fixed the market value at Rs. 60000 per acre without relying on any document. On a perusal of Ex.A.5 to A.11, we find that these sale deeds, relate to the lands situated nearby to the lands acquired and the market value works out at the rate of Rs. 826, Rs. 946, Rs. 685, Rs. 800, Rs. 750, Rs. 797 and Rs. 700 respectively per cent. Considering the different values reflected in these sale deeds, we feel that the average market value can be fixed at Rs. 800/- per cent, that is to say Rs. 80000 per acre. It is no doubt true that as rightly conceded by the learned Government Advocate the appellants could be entitled to the highest value out of the rates shown in the said documents. As these sale deeds relate to small plots of land, we find that it is not proper to rely on one document and then fix the market value. Therefore, the more acceptable method of valuation would be to strike at an average at Rs. 80000 per acre. Accordingly, we fix the market value at Rs. 80000 per acre.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in deducting the one-third value towards development charges. He brought to our notice a decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Nanabhai Rathod and Others, wherein the Bombay High Court held that the one third deduction is not an invariable rule and that it depends upon the facts of each case, Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the extents involved in Ex.A.5 to A.11 and the fact that we have adopted only the average value at the rate of Rs. 80000 per acre, we feel further deduction of one-third will not be equitable. Therefore, we consider that one-fourth of the value can be deducted towards development charges. If that basis is adopted, the market value has to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 60000 per acre.
As far as the statement given by the deceased Sivakami Ammal is concerned, we find that the compensation cannot be restricted solely on the basis of the said statement. We have gone through the said statement and we find that there is nothing to show that she has restricted the market value at Rs. 30,000 per acre. Even if it is so, such a statement will not bind the appellants herein who are also entitled to share in the lands. In this context, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows at page 1578 --
We are of the view that when the learned single Judge and the Division Bench took the view that the claimants whose land was acquired by the State of Punjab under the notification issued under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Act, were entitled to enhanced compensation and the case of; the appellants stood on the same footing, the appellants should have been given an opportunity of paying up the deficit court fee so that like other claimants, they could also get enhanced compensation at the same rate as the others. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench should not have, in our opinion, adopted a technical approach and denied the benefit of enhanced compensation to the appellants merely because they had not initially paid the proper amount of court fee. It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned single Judge, and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would be tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where, as for instance, under agrarian reforms legislation, the holder of land may legitimately, as a matter of social justice, with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, he deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue, is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizens. We are, therefore, of the view that, in the present case, the Division Bench as well as the learned single Judge should have allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit court fee and awarded to them compensation at the higher rates determined by them.
As we have already come to the conclusion that the said statement of Sivakamiammal is not a bar for the appellants claiming higher compensation and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to get the real market value of the lands acquired by the Government irrespective of the claim made by them earlier. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 60000 per acre. The appellants will be entitled to compensation at the said rate with the usual solatium and interest. In so far as the solatium and interest provided under the amended Act is concerned, we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, , has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court and the matter is still pending. We find in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Munnalal Shivdin Jaiswal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to ask for review of the judgment after the decision of the Supreme Court is rendered in the said case. Following the said course, we give liberty to the appellants to ask for review of this judgment in so far as solatium and interest are concerned after the judgment is delivered by the Supreme Court in the said case. The appellants will be entitled to costs in this appeal.