AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from 0.54 Paise to Rs. 100/- per sq. ft in respect of the lands
acquired in Mudalaipatti village for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and National
Highways Authority of India have filed these appeals. Since all the appeals arise out of the common order and the points for consideration are one
and the same, all the appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The brief facts are that large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town to a stretch of about 8 km and an
extent of 5.71.5 hectares of land in Mudalaipatti village in various sub-divisions comprised in Survey Nos. 249, 250, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266,
267, 272 and 277. Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 22.9.1993 and the same was also
published in the two Tamil dailies viz., ""Kumari Murasu"" and ""Makkal Kural"" on 23.9.1993 respectively. The substance of the notification was also
published in the village locally on 25.10.1993. The draft declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette dated 20.7.1994 and the notification was also published in two Tamil dailies viz., ""Dinamalar"" and ""Vetrimalar"" on 21.7.1994 respectively.
The substance of the notification was also published in the locality on 8.8.1994.
To determine the market value of the lands, Land Acquisition Officer has taken the sales statistics for the period of three years prior to 4(1)
notification in the locality i.e., from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993. During the said period, there were 82 sales in the said village. For fixing the market
value of the Manavari dry lands and irrigated dry lands, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) considered the sales statistics. In respect of Manavari
dry lands, in Sl. No. 25 of sale statistics, an extent of 0.58.0 hectares of land in S. No. 205/3 of Mudalaipatti village was sold out for Rs. 34,000/-
as per sale deed dated 12.12.1991 [Document No. 1238]. The said land was taken as the data land and the Land Acquisition Officer took the
view that the said land is of same taram and quality and fixed the value of Manavari dry lands at Rs. 58,620/- per hectare i.e., Rs. 23,732/- per
acre.
In respect of irrigated dry lands, in Sl. No. 32 of sales statistics, an extent of 0.09.5 hectares in S. No. 218/1C of Mudalaipatti village was sold
for Rs. 13,500/- under sale deed dated 26.6.1992 [Document No. 764] and the LAO took the view that the said land is of same tharam and
quality and taking the said land in S. No. 218/1C as the data land, LAO fixed the value of irrigated dry land at Rs. 1,35,000/- per hectare i.e., Rs.
54,655/- per acre. By fixing the above value for Manavari and irrigated dry lands, the LAO passed Award No. 1/95 (27.7.1995) ordering 30
percent solatium and 12 percent additional market value on the compensation from 25.10.1993 to 7.8.1995 i.e., for a period of one year and 287
days. LAO has also fixed the appropriate value for trees in the acquired lands.
On objection raised by the land owners, references were made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. References were taken on file as LAOP
Nos. 31, 32, 33/1996; LAOP Nos. 1, 18, 20/1997 and 22/2002. In the Reference Court, LAOP Nos. 31 to 33/1996 and LAOP Nos. 1, 18
and 20/1997 were taken up together and disposed on 31.1.2003 as one Batch. Applying the same rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft., LAOP No.
22/2002 was disposed on 27.8.2004. Before the Reference Court, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Divisional Engineer, National
Highways, Salem alone were the Respondents. The Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body viz., National Highways Authorities of India [NHAI] for
which the lands were acquired, was not made as a party.
In the Reference Court, the Claimant in LAOP No. 32/1996 was examined as CW1 and one Palanisamy, scribe of Ex.C1 was examined as
CW2. Sale deed dated 10.5.1994 was marked as Ex.C1 and Judgment in LAOP No. 3/1996 Batch was marked as Ex.C2 on the side of the
Claimants. No witness was examined and document was marked on the side of the Respondent. In LAOP. No. 22/2002, 1st Claimant
Radhamani was examined as CW1. The decree and judgment in LAOP. No. 32/1996 were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. No oral and
documentary evidence on the side of Respondent.
In LAOP No. 32/1996 Batch, Reference Court held that Ex.C1 sale deed dated 10.5.1994 is seven months subsequent to 4(1) notification and
the value thereon i.e., Rs. 290/- per sq. ft. cannot be taken as the market value. However, based upon Ex.C1-sale deed, Reference Court held
that the acquired lands are very near to Namakkal and adjacent to Namakkal - Salem main road and the acquired lands are fit for formation of
layout and being nearer to the existing National Highway, the acquired lands are in an advantageous position having potential for future
development. Based upon common judgment in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1996 batch, Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 100/- per sq.
ft. Reference Court ordered (i) enhancement of compensation from 0.54 Paise to Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. (ii) 12% additional market value from
22.09.1993 to 27.07.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of
taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation.
In LAOP No. 22/2002, applying the Judgment and Decree in LAOP. No. 32/1996, Reference Court has ordered: (i) enhancement of
compensation from 0.54 Paise to Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. (ii) 12% additional market value from 22.09.1993 to 27.07.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the
enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15%
p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation.
Challenging the enhancement of compensation, the LAO/Special Tahsildar [LA] and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways [not National
Highways Authorities of India] have preferred these Appeals. In the Appeals, on Petition filed by the National Highways Authorities of India -
Requisitioning Body, National Highways Authorities of India was impleaded as 3rd Appellant.
Main contention of learned Additional Solicitor General is that to determine just and proper compensation the Beneficiary - National Highways
Authorities of India ought to have been made as a party. It was further submitted that though the Divisional Engineer, National Highways was one
of the Respondent in the LAOPs, there was no representation for National Highways Authorities of India. Main plank of argument of the
Appellants is that without proper and effective representation of NHAI, the compensation amount was enhanced prejudicially affecting the interest
of National Highways Authorities of India/Union of India which has to bear the heavy compensation.
Drawing our attention to the additional documents filed in the C.M.Ps., Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
even from 1991, there were protests and demonstrations in and around Namakkal for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town and that after
knowing about the scheme for formation of bye-pass road, land owners have brought into existence the sale deeds boosting the land value and the
consideration stated in Ex.C1-sale deed is fancy value to make a boosted claim for compensation. Taking us through the sales statistics and also
the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company in respect of the property in Vallipuram village, learned Additional Solicitor General has
submitted that there was only slow increase in price of the lands and the sudden spurt in the value of the land in Mudalaipatti was boosted as it was
after the grant of administrative sanction for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town.
Learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that in these cases, Reference Court has adopted the value fixed in LAOP. No. 3/1996
Batch. If the additional documents are received in evidence, it would be evident that Ex.C1-sale deed was brought into existence boosting the
value by Ramalingam and Sekar. It was further argued that when large extent of land is acquired, there cannot be determination of market value on
square feet basis and the enhancement of compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is not supported by any objective assessment. It was also urged
that for formation of highways, National Highways Authorities of India has spent huge amount for laying road and developing it and while so,
Reference Court erred in not making any deduction for development charges.
We have also heard Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader [AS] appearing for the Appellants 1 and 2, who submitted that LAO
has taken the relevant sale deed which is prior to Section 4(1) notification and has rightly fixed the market value at 0.54 Paise per sq. ft. and while
so, Court below erred in relying upon Ex.C1-sale deed and Ex.C2-Judgment in LAOP. No. 3/1996 Batch without any basis. In support of his
contention, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance upon P. Rajan and Another Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another, and
M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, . Placing reliance upon (1996) 6 SCC 41
[Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors.], the learned Special Government Pleader contended that it is the bounden
duty of the Court to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market and the value fixed by
the Reference Court is exorbitant.
On behalf of the Claimants, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel contended that unlike the other lands, the lands in Mudalaipatti village
are very near to Namakkal situated very close to the then existing highways and unlike the other lands, Mudalaipatti has potential for future
development. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the acquired lands in Mudalaipatti being very closer to the then existing highways,
Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. fixed by the Reference Court is very reasonable. Placing reliance upon Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others Vs. Executive
Engineer, Gujarat and Another, , it was contended that if the Reference Court is not able to get the documents of the same village, Reference
Court can refer to the documents of adjoining village and the same can be taken into consideration. In so far as deduction, placing reliance upon
Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others, , the learned Senior Counsel for Claimants contended
that when the acquired land is in the midst of developed area, there need not be any deduction and the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.
100/- per sq. ft. without any deduction is correct and reasonable. Claimants have also filed CMP No. 9206/2006 in A.S. No. 1003/2004 under
Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents.
We have also heard Mr. R. Bharanidharan, appearing for some of the Respondents. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions of learned
Senior Counsel.
We have carefully examined the submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General and learned Special Government Pleader and also the
learned Senior Counsel for Claimants.
Land measuring 5.71.5 Hectares in Mudalaipatti village in various sub-divisions comprised in S.F. Nos. 249, 250, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266,
267, 272 and 277 have been acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town. To determine the market value of the lands under
acquisition, sales statistics for the period of three years from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993 were gathered and there were totally 82 sales during the
said period in the village. Upon careful analysis of the said sales, it is seen that under Serial No. 25 - sale deed dated 12.12.1991 an extent of
0.58.0 Hectares of land in S.F. No. 205/3 was sold by Karuppa Gounder infavour of Kandasamy for Rs. 34,000/- i.e. Rs. 58,620/- per hectare
[0.54 Paise per sq. ft].
Analysis of various sale deeds contained in the sales statistics would show that there was only slow increase in the value of the lands as is seen
from the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. No. Doc. No. S.F. No. Extent Name of Name of Sold Rate per Hectare/
and Date sold Vendor Vendee at Rs. Per sq. ft. Rs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 571 290/2 1400 sq. ft. Veerappan Kaliyappan 16,900/- 7.04
13.06.1991 and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 818 293/12 748� sq.ft. Subramani Kandasamy 20,000/- 12.35
05.09.1991 and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 900 260/2B 4360� sq.ft. Sengoda Govindarani 61,000/- 13.99
24.09.191 Gounder
and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 1279 299/5 2000 sq.ft. Thangavelu Murugesan 28,000/- 14.00
30.12.1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 1377 291/1A, 1E 2121 sq.ft. Shanmugam Kandasamy 19,000/- 8.96
11.09.1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 1400 291/1A, 1B 2000 sq.ft. Shanmugam Manickam 18,100/- 9.05
15.09.1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 584 288/3A 326 sq.ft. Palanisamy Arukkani 5,352/- 16.42
15.03.1993 Gounder
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 1984 293/13 1565 sq.ft. Kolanda Sivagami 18,400/- 11.75
04.10.1993 Gounder Sundari
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 569 277 255 sq.ft. Subramaniam Periyannan 4,400/- 17.05
25.02.1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By analysis of the above sales, it is clear that there was only very slow increase in the value of the lands. Even it was stated that the lands were near
to the highways, we find that none of the sale deeds were for more than Rs. 14/- or 16.42 or Rs. 17.05 per sq. ft.
The contention of the Claimants is that the acquired lands in Mudalaipatti village is very near to Namakkal and also to the then existing
highways. To prove that the lands would fetch more market value and that they have potential for future development, Claimants have filed Ex.C1-
sale deed [10.05.2004] executed by Ramalingam infavour of Sekar for Rs. 43,500/- in which an extent of 150 sq. ft. in S.F. No. 293/12 was sold
i.e. Rs. 290/- per sq. ft. To prove Ex.C1-sale deed, the scribe viz., Palanisamy was examined as CW2. In his evidence, CW2 has stated that the
plot sold under Ex.C1 is just opposite to the acquired lands and that the acquired lands would have the same potential for future development.
Ex.C1-sale deed dated 10.05.1994 is seven months after 4(1) notification. Before fixing the market value at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. based upon the
Judgment in LAOP No. 3/1996 Batch[Ex.C2], Reference Court observed that even though, Ex.C1-sale deed is after 4(1) notification, the same is
within seven months after 4(1) notification and that Ex.C1 would show that the acquired lands have higher potential for future development.
The approach of the Reference Court in referring to Ex.C1-sale deed dated 10.05.1994 is per se erroneous. As per Section 23 of Land
Acquisition Act, Court shall taken into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of 4(1) notification. The market value
of the land is required to be determined on the date of publication of 4(1) notification; it cannot be determined with reference to any other date. u/s
23(1) of the Act, the Court has to determine the market value of the land. One of the methods of valuation is the price paid, within a reasonable
time, in bonafide transactions of purchase of land acquired, or of the land adjacent to the land acquired having similar advantages. Such
transactions of sale indicate the price of the land acquired on the date of the notification. The Court has to consider whether or not any particular
transaction of sale affords a fair criterion of the market value of the land acquired.
In estimating the market value of property compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it cannot be laid
down as a general rule that post-notification transactions should necessarily be ignored altogether. All transactions are relevant which can fairly be
said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the property as on the date of the notification. If any considerable interval has elapsed the Court will
naturally attach little or no value to subsequent sales, just as transactions long prior to the notification will usually be discarded. The approach of the
Reference Court referring to Ex.C1-sale deed dated 10.05.1994 to hold that the acquired lands have potential for future development is per se
erroneous and cannot be countenanced.
Learned Senior Counsel for Claimants contended that Mudalaipatti village is in an advantageous position than the other villages and the
acquired lands in Mudalaipatti village would fetch more value than the lands in Vallipuram village. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the
acquired lands are surrounded by School, Lorry building workshop, Tea shops, Hotels and Banks and layouts are formed nearby. Contention of
the Claimants is that the acquired lands being very close to the then existing highways, Mudalaipatti is in advantageous position and the
compensation fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. by the Reference Court is very reasonable.
u/s 23(1) of the Act, the Court has to determine the market value of the land. One of the methods of valuation is the price paid, within a
reasonable time, in bonafide transactions of purchase of land acquired, or of the land adjacent to the land acquired having similar advantages. Such
transactions of sale indicate the price of the land acquired on the date of the notification. The Court has to consider whether or not any particular
transaction of sale affords a fair criterion of the market value of the land acquired.
By perusal of documents now filed as additional documents, there had been protests and demonstrations even from 1991 for forming bye-pass
road to Namakkal town. Administrative sanction was granted vide Proceedings C. No. 45/93/JDO dated 09.01.1993. Ex.C1-sale deed is after
the administrative sanction. Reference Court was swayed by Ex.C1-sale deed and does not appear to have carefully examined Ex.C1-sale deed
which are not compatible with the trend of slow increase of the land value.
Viewed from any angle, the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is exorbitant and very much on the higher side. The
various aspects like demonstration for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town from 1991 and other relevant aspects would have been
brought forth before the Reference Court had the Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body - National Highways Authorities of India been was impleaded.
Without impleading the National Highways Authorities of India in the LAOPs and without any basis, Reference Court had fixed the market value
of the acquired lands on the higher side unmindful of financial implications.
Yet another material aspect is relevant to be noted. When large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal
town and when the acquired lands are far away from Namakkal town, Reference Court erred in determining the value of the land per square feet.
Holding that when large extent of lands are acquired, determination of value on the square feet basis is a wrong principle and market value could
be fixed only per acreage or per cent, in P. Rajan and Another Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another, , the Supreme Court held as
under:
When a large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on the foot of a cent, square yard or square foot is a wrong principle. The
principle of fixation on acreage basis would be the correct principle. If the land acquired is situated in a developed area and is converted into
buildings in a colony after obtaining sanction from the competent authority or is situated in a well-developed area like in the heart of a commercial
centre, determination of the compensation could be on square yard basis after giving due deduction according to law. Determination on square foot
basis would be confined only to highly developed commercial land or land situated at a place in the heart of a city like Nariman Point in Bombay or
Connaught Place in Delhi.
Yet another infirmity in the Judgment of Reference Court is also to be noted. Large block of land will have to be developed for formation of
bye-pass road. Even though, Highways is a strip for which common space like roads, drainage and other common space may not be required yet
like any other Housing scheme, huge amount will have to be spent for formation of road i.e. place has to be lifted and treated and side ways are to
be formed and for forming Highways and developing proper infrastructure huge amount will have to be spent. This factor can be balanced only by
making a deduction by way of allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for the land required to be
set apart for forming bye-pass road. As pointed out earlier, though the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. no
percentage of deduction for development charges was made. More over, we do not find that any development had taken place in the acquired
land as on 4(1) notification. No piece of evidence has been produced by the Claimants showing that layout has been approved by the competent
authority and that the lands were converted as house sites prior to 4(1) notification.
Holding that the market value fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is exorbitant and very much on the higher side, by an elaborate Judgment, we have
set aside the Judgment in LAOP. No. 3/1996 Batch [A.S. No. 751/2001 Batch] and remitted the matter back to the Reference Court. In this case
also since the Reference Court has adopted the value fixed in LAOP. No. 3/1996, the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft.
in respect of the acquired land in Mudalaipatti is very much on the higher side and the same is to be set aside.
National Highways Authorities of India - necessary party: non-impleading of Beneficiary/NHAI in LAOPs:
In the LAOPs, the Respondent was only the State Government i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways,
Salem. Requisitioning Body - National Highways Authorities of India who has to pay compensation was not made a party. Only if National
Highways Authorities of India had been made as a party being Requisitioning Body, NHAI would have put forth their objection by filing counter
and by adducing evidence.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.S. Krishnan submitted that Divisional Engineer was already a party and even though opportunity was given,
the Government neither chose to file any documents showing lesser land value nor elaborately cross examined the Claimants. It was further
contended that after the purchase of lands by Ashok Leyland Company and TVS Group, the value of the land had naturally gone up and based
upon Judgment in LAOP. No. 3/1996 Batch [Ex.C2] and Ex.C1-sale deed, Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value at Rs. 100/- per
sq. ft.
The contention of National Highways Authorities of India is that the acquisition not having been for Tamil Nadu State Government but for the
National Highways Authorities of India and therefore, it was incumbent on the Reference Court to issue notice to the 3rd Appellant - National
Highways Authorities of India before considering the claim of the Claimants for enhancement of compensation. Even though, the Divisional
Engineer, National Highways, Salem was shown as 2nd Appellant, the said Divisional Engineer is stated to be to the Divisional Engineer of
National Highways who was represented by State Government Pleader himself. It cannot be disputed that Requisitioning body - National
Highways Authorities of India was not made as a party in the LAOPs nor any opportunity was afforded to National Highways Authorities of India
to adduce evidence.
Section 20(c) makes it obligatory for the Court to issue notice to the person or authority for whose benefit the acquisition is made. Section 20
of Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:
Service of notice. - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determining the objection,
and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:
(a) the applicant;
(b) all the persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the
compensation awarded; and
(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.
The Court having seisin of the reference is empowered u/s 20 of the Act to direct appearance before him not only of the: (a) applicant that is
applicant for reference but also; (b) all persons interested in the objection except such (if any) of those as have consented without protest to
receive payment of the compensation awarded. The term ""interested"" in Clause (b) is wide enough to include both, the persons interested in
supporting, or opposing the applicant, that means, Clause (b) must have reference to parties having conflicting claims to the compensation either
whole or party, as against the applicant and otherwise. The Court therefore, had power, irrespective of any reference in that behalf, to investigate
the claims.
The scheme of the Act makes it clear that when the land is acquired for the Government, only the Requisitioning Body is expected to
participate in the proceedings and to safeguard the interest of the Government for whom the land is acquired. If the Government for whom the land
is acquired can be regarded as a ""person interested"" in the reference, there is no need to have an independent provision like Clause (c) of Section
20 giving right to the person or authority other than the Government of being notified and participating in the proceedings. Further, it is not
reasonable to presume that the legislature intended to make a redundant provision in Clause (c) of Section 20 of the Act.
Section 54-A of Land Acquisition Act was inserted by the Tamil Nadu State by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996
(Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1997), so as to enable to implead the requisitioning body as a party in the cases filed before the High Court. Section 54-A
reads as under:
54-A. Service of notice by High Court.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), the
High Court, before which an appeal has been filed u/s 54, shall cause a notice, specifying the date on which such Court will proceed to hear the
case and directing the appearance before such Court on that day, to be served on the person or authority also, other than the Government, for
whom the acquisition is made.
Only if the Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body is impleaded as party, it could put forth its point/objection through counter-affidavit.
Observing that it was mandatory on the part of Reference Court to have caused a notice on the Requisitioning Body before proceeding to
determine the compensation, in Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, , the Supreme Court has held as under:
Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the Respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the
Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the Court of reference to have caused a notice served on the
respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it
was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the Court, the judgment rendered ion the reference case was illegal and not binding on
the Corporation.
The Authority or Company for whose benefit the land was acquired who is a beneficiary is necessary party. Holding that beneficiary is a
necessary party, in M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, , the Supreme Court has held
as under:
...The beneficiary, i.e. the local authority or company, a co-op society registered under the relevant State law, or statutory authority is a person
interested to determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person. The beneficiary has the right to be heard by
the Collector or the Court. If the compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the
Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of the Court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil
Court u/s 26 or of the judgment and decree u/s 54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Article 226 and assail its legality or correctness. When
the award made u/s 11 of the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition apart
from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector or Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and appropriate action. These are very
valuable and salutary rights. Moreover, in the language of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the
higher compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. So it
is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right to a person
interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
By perusal of the records of Reference Court, it is seen that the State Government Pleader appeared for Land Acquisition Officer and also
represented the Divisional Engineer, Highways. We do not think that the the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India
or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do
not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will
be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced. In this Batch of LAOPs, no evidence was adduced on the side of LAO
and no document was marked. Observing that Government Agencies remain insensitive even if stakes involved run into several crores of public
money, in M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, , the Supreme Court held as under:
The reasons are not far to seek. It is notorious that though the stakes involved are heavy, the Government Pleader or the Instructing Officer do
not generally adduce, much less proper and relevant, evidence to rebut the claims for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be
formal, haulting and ineffective. Generally, if not invariably the Governmental agencies involved in the process take their own time and many a time
in collusion, file the appeals after abnormal or inordinate delay. They remain insensitive even if the stakes involved run into several crores of public
money. The Courts insist upon proper explanation of every day''s delay. In this attitudinal situation it would be difficult to meet strict standards to fill
the unbridgeable gaps of the delay in filing the appeals and generally entail with dismissal of the appeals at the threshold without adverting to the
merits in the hike in the compensation. On other hand, if the notice is issued to the local authority etc. it/they would participate in the award
proceedings under Sections 11 and 18 adduce necessary and relevant evidence and be heard before determining compensation. For instance that
without considering the evidence in the proper perspective, the Court determined the compensation.
If there is no right of hearing or appeal given to the beneficiary and if the State does not file the appeal or if filed with delay and it was
dismissed, is it not the beneficiary who undoubtedly bears the burden of the compensation, would be the affected person? ...But suffice it to state
that when the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is served with the notice and brought on record at the state of enquiry by the
Collector and reference Court u/s 18 or in an appeal u/s 54, it/they would be interested to defend the award u/s 11 or 26 or would file an appeal
independently u/s 54 etc. against the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or proper party affected by the determination of higher
compensation, the beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the award made by the Reference Court u/s 18 or in appeal u/s 54
etc. Considered from this perspective we are of the considered view that the appellant-company is an interested person within the meaning of
Section 3(b) of the Act and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC. The High Court had committed
manifest error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person interested.
[underlining added]
National Highways Authorities of India is a person or authority for whose benefit and for whom the land is being acquired and who may have
to pay the compensation ought to have been impleaded as Respondent in the LAOP proceedings. Without being made as a party, National
Highways Authorities of India was subjected to serious hardship in being deprived of an opportunity in putting forth its case. In the absence of
beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired who is ultimately to bear the higher compensation, there is no complete and effectual
determination. Without impleading the Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body, there is no effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation
to the acquired lands could be made. In our considered view, without impleading the National Highways Authorities of India - Requisitioning
Body/Beneficiary, there is no effective determination of compensation. Denial of right to a ""person interested"" is negation of fair and just procedure
offending Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Petitions Under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC filed by NHAI: CMP. No. 1694/2009 in A.S. No. 1003/2004; 1695/2009 in A.S. No. 1004/2004;
1696/2009 in A.S. No. 1005/2004; 1715/2009 in A.S. No. 333/2005; 1679/2009 in A.S. No. 334/2005 and 1716/2009 in A.S. No. 6/2006
and CMP. No. 9206/2006 in A.S. No. 1003/2004:
Stating that they have not been impleaded as party in the LAOP and that they have been deprived of opportunity of putting forth relevant evidence,
the National Highways Authorities of India has filed applications to receive the documents as additional evidence. The National Highways
Authorities of India has filed various documents which are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Date Description of document
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 29.12.1992 Xerox copy of Representation of Makkal Development Council,
Namakkal addressed to the Prime Minister of India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 - Xerox copy of pamphlet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 27.11.1992 Copy of Letter No. 12014/272/92-TN by Government of India,
Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) addressed to
the Special Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 09.01.1993 Xerox copy of Letter C. No. 45/93/JDO addressed by
Divisional Engineer (NH), Salem to the District
Collector, Namakkal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 26.08.1997 Xerox copy of Decree in LAOP. No. 63/1991 on the file of
Sub-Court, Namakkal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 29.04.2003 Xerox copy of Judgment in A.S. No. 34 of 2000 on the file
of High Court of Judicature, Madras.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 - Xerox copy of Award No. 8/1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 03.05.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by
Mahalingam infavour of Aushgar Basha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 12.06.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by
Mahalingam infavour of Saravanan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 12.06.1991 Xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed executed by
Mahalingam infavour of Saravanan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There had been protests and demonstrations demanding bye-pass road to Namakkal town even from 1991. By perusal of the additional
documents filed, it is also seen that on 09.01.1993, administrative sanction was given to the scheme for formation of bye-pass road. Thereafter,
Ex.C1 sale deed [10.5.1994] came into existence. As regards the evidentiary value of the recitals, particularly the consideration aspect, the
documents will have to be examined in the light of the additional documents filed by National Highways Authorities of India and also other
documents like other contemporaneous sale deeds executed.
It is also seen from the additional documents filed along with the Petitions that for the lands acquired for Master Plan Complex and
Neighbourhood scheme, the value of the land was fixed at very lesser rate and in our considered view that the additional documents are very
relevant to be marked. We are of the view that National Highways Authorities of India has to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence and to
demonstrate its stand in respect of Ex.C1-sale deed.
In the light of the additional documents filed by the National Highways Authorities of India and having regard to the serious doubts that arise
regarding genuineness of Ex.C1-sale deed, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Reference Court in the LAOP Nos. 31, 32,
33/1996; LAOP Nos. 1, 18, 20/1997 and 22/2002 are to be set aside and the matters are to be remitted back to the Reference Court for
consideration of the matter afresh.
We are conscious that the lands were acquired about 1� decades ago i.e., in the year 1995 and in the LAOPs, Judgment was pronounced
in 2003 and 2004 respectively. We are also conscious that under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, the first Appellate Court can itself receive the
documents produced as additional evidence and thereafter proceed to analyse the matter by receiving the additional documents. From the chart
filed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it comes to be known that as against the estimated cost of acquisition of about Rs. 1 crore and
odd, by the impugned Judgment, several crores were awarded by enhancement of compensation. Having regard to the higher stakes involved, we
are of the view that National Highways Authorities of India has to be given sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence apart
from the additional documents filed before us. In such view of the matter, having regard to the higher stakes involved, notwithstanding the passage
of time, the matter has to be remitted back to the Reference Court for consideration of the matter afresh by affording sufficient opportunity to the
Appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
Though, LAOP. No. 22/2002 was disposed of by Fast Track Court No. III, Namakkal and all other LAOPs were disposed of by the
Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, as the common Award was passed in respect of the subject lands , we are of the view that LAOP No. 22/2002
also has to be heard and disposed of afresh by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
In the result, the Judgments of the Reference Court LAOP Nos. 31,32,33/1996 and LAOP Nos. 1, 18, 20/1997 dated 31.1.2003 and
LAOP No. 22/2002 dated 27.8.2004 respectively are set aside the these Appeals are allowed and all the LAOPs are ordered to be remitted
back to the Reference Court [Sub-Court, Namakkal] for fresh disposal.
Reference Court - Sub-Court, Namakkal is directed to implead the Project Director and General Manager, National Highways Authorities of
India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, No. 10, Kamadhenu Nagar, Karur-639 001 as Respondent in LAOP Nos. 31, 32,
33/1996; LAOP Nos. 1/97, 18/97, 20/97 and 22/2002. Reference Court is directed to receive the documents filed by National Highways
Authorities of India filed in these Appeals as well as other documents to be filed by National Highways Authorities of India. Reference Court is
further directed to afford sufficient opportunity to National Highways Authorities of India and also to Appellants to adduce oral and documentary
evidence. The Reference Court is directed to receive the additional documents filed by NHAI and other documents to be filed by NHAI and
afford opportunity to adduce oral evidence. The Reference Court shall also afford opportunity to the Land Acquisition Officer and also to the
Respondents/Claimants who are already on record to adduce oral and documentary evidence and consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate
orders preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
In A.S. Nos. 1003 to 1005/1994 and A.S. Nos. 333 to 335/2005, as per the order in CMP Nos. 1638 to 16440/2004 dated 08.10.2004 and
as per the order in CMP. Nos. 19031 to 19033/2005 dated 14.12.2005 respectively, 50% of the enhanced compensation was deposited to the
credit of LAOP Nos. 31 to 33/1996 and LAOP Nos. 1, 18 and 20/1997. From out of the deposited amount, in LAOP Nos. 31 to 33/1996 and
LAOP Nos. 1,18 and 20/1997, Claimants have withdrawn part of the amount of compensation with security/without security. The amount so
withdrawn by the Claimants varies in the Petitions. The amount so withdrawn by the Claimants with security/without security shall be subject to the
result of the final order to be passed by the Reference Court. The balance compensation amount shall continue to remain in the fixed deposit on
reinvestment plan. The security furnished by the Claimants is also ordered to be retained.
In A.S. No. 6/2006, as per the order in CMP. No. 6216/2006 dated 20.4.2006, 25% of the enhanced compensation was deposited to the credit
of LAOP. No. 22/2002 and Claimants have not withdrawn any amount. The compensation so deposited shall continue to remain in the fixed
deposit on reinvestment plan.
All the parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 19.04.2010.
In view of the remand of the matter and permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence, all CMPs including Petitions filed for reception of
additional documents are closed.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals.
The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) shall be entitled to legal fee as per Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners Fee Rules.