AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 150/- per cent to Rs. 1,000/- per cent i.e.Rs.1,00,000/-
per acre for the lands acquired in Vempoondi Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District with a view to provide house sites to 175 Adi-
Dradiva families, Government preferred this appeal. Brief facts are as follows:
Lands measuring to an extent of 3.28 Hectares in S.Nos.92/3 (1.10.0 Hectares), 92/4 (0.54.0 Hectares), 92/6 (0.81.0 Hectares), 92/7 (0.49/0
Hectares), 93/10-B (0.04.5 Hectares), 93/11-B (0.04.5 Hectares), 93/12-B(0.10.0 Hectares) and 94/8-B2 (0.15.0 Hectares) in Vempoondi
Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, were acquired for providing house sites to 175 Adi-Dravida families of their colony. Section 4(1)
Notification was published on 19.11.1998. In the said lands, S.No.92/3, 924, 93/10-B, 93/11-B, 93/12-B and 94/8-B2 belong to respondent
herein, by name, Rangamannar. Section 7(3) enquiry was conducted on 10.12.1998 and the land owners appeared and gave their statements to
the Special Tahsildar. Thereafter, the proposal had been published in the District Gazette dated 12.01.1999. 22 sale deeds were gathered and out
of which, Sl.No.14, sale deed dated 27.11.1997 (Ex.R-4) relating to land measuring to an extent of 2.01 cents registered as Doc.No.1393 sold
for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was taken as sale of comparable instance and the said land was taken as data land. The Special Tahsildar based on the
said document, fixed the value per acre at Rs. 14,925/- per Acre or Rs. 36,965/- per Hectare. Award was passed by the LAO, awarding
compensation of Rs. 14,925/- per acre along with statutory payments of 15% solatium and interest till the date of realisation, fixed the total
compensation as Rs. 83,941/-.
Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tahsildar, respondent herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.18 of 1999 before the
Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam. Before the Court below, respondent-claimant examined himself as C.W.1 besides examining two other
witnesses as C.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On the side of Government, one Shanmuga Sundaram, the then Tahsildar (ADW) was
examined as R.W1 and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. Court Commissioner''s plans and report were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-4. Court below
had taken into consideration Exs.A-1 to A-3 and also Exs.C-1 to C-4 and fixed the market value at Rs. 1,000/- per cent and totally fixed Rs.
16,95,000/- (land value at Rs. 4,95,000/- and value of 4,000 teak trees value at Rs. 12,00,000/- i.e.at the rate of Rs. 300/-per tree). Court below
also ordered 30% solatium and 9% interest on the solatium amount and further directed the LAO to pay 9% interest to the enhanced market value
from the date of acquisition till date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, Government preferred this appeal.
At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration.
(1) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in allowing the respondent to let in oral evidence and also marking document in the appellate stage
especially when Section 9 of the Act does not contemplate taking any evidence and also when the application of the provisions of C.P.C.are
explicitly banned ?
(2) Whether the lower appellate court excluded in its jurisdiction in entertaining the oral and documentary evidence let in by the respondent herein
even though there is no power conferred to the appellate authority u/s 9 of the Act ?
(3) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in permitting the appellant to let in evidence as a matter of routine without recording a finding that
the appeal is an appropriate appeal for receiving additional evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court in 1995 SC 2114, State of Tamil
Nadu.vs. Ananthiammal and Others ?
(4) Whether the lower appellate court was not right in deducting the 1/3rd amount of the market value towards the development charges as held
by the Apex court reported in 1990 SC 1028 ?
(5) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in entertaining the appeal on payment of court fee of Rs. 1/- or Rs. 10/- when Section 51 of the
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act mandate the payment of Advalorem court fee on the differential amount between the amount
claimed by the land owner and the amount awarded by the prescribed authority ?
Out of the said substantial questions of law, Mr.M.Venugopal. learned Additional Government Pleader, confined his arguments only with regard
to question of law No. 4 and submitted that the Court below while arriving at compensation had failed to deduct the amount towards development
charges. Relying on the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. & Others .vs. L.A.O. and others reported in
CDJ 2011 SC 1210, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Court below ought to have deducted 33% towards development
charges. It was further submitted that the Court below had relied upon a document and has also failed to give proper deduction towards smallness
of area which was taken for comparison and the Court below erred in fixing the market value at Rs. 1,000/- per cent and the enhancement is
arbitrary and excessive.
With regard to the compensation awarded for 4000 teak trees, l it is the submission of learned Additional Government Pleader that originally in
the year 1994. Section 4(1) Notification was issued under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land. Subsequently, the said action was
abandoned by separate proceedings. Thereafter, on 19.11.1998, and on 12.01.1999, the present 4(1) Notification was issued. These trees were
planted subsequent to the earlier Notification issued in the year 1994, which facts available in this case would show that the respondent ought to
have planted trees with full knowledge about acquisition proceedings. under such circumstances, the Court below ought not to have awarded any
compensation in respect of 4000 teak trees.
On the contrary, it is the submission of respondent with reference to earlier Notification issued in the year 1994, that once the earlier notification
was abandoned and a fresh notification was issued, the compensation has to be given only based on the subsequent notification. Therefore, no
infirmity could be found in the compensation awarded by the Court below to the teak trees numbering about 4000.
We have carefully considered the contentions, materials on record and the judgment of the Court below.
Deduction towards development charges: It is the submission of Government that acquisition of land was for the purpose of providing house
sites to Adi-Dravida families. Therefore, the land has to be levelled and made suitable for the purpose for which it was acquired. In this regard,
they relied on the decision reported in CDJ 2011 SC 1210 (supra) for their submission that normally 33-1/3% has to be deducted towards
development charges from the market value.
But we are of the opinion that though deduction has to be made for development cost from the market value determined, it depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case and also the purpose of acquisition. It would be appropriate to place reliance on the judgment reported in
CDJ 2011 SC 1210 (supra) wherein it has been held that deduction to be applied would range between 20 per cent to 33 per cent. In the instant
case, by perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that when the land was purchased, it was not fit for doing agricultural operations and he
levelled the land by spending considerable amount. The relevant portion from the evidence of C.W.1 reads as follows:
(Vernacular matter deleted)
The acquired lands even though agricultural lands are already well developed. While forming the laying out for dividing it into house plots, roads
and amenities are to be provided. In the facts of this case and keeping in view the purpose of the acquisition, we are of the opinion, deduction of
20% would be appropriate in this case. Hence, we deduct 20% towards development cost and thus, the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.
800/- (Rs.1,000/- per cent minus 20% development charges = Rs. 800/-).
Deduction towards small lands: It is the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that Court below has failed to deduct 1/3rd
amount while fixing fair market value to the large extent of 3.28 acres by taking a document, in which miniscule land was sold. No doubt, if a small
extent of land was taken for determining the market value for large extent of acquired land, the deduction has to be made out. In the instant case,
Court below has relied upon documents Ex.A-3, wherein 35 cents of land was sold for Rs. 35,000/-. Therefore, we are unable to accept the
submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader since sale of 35 cents of land cannot be construed as a sale of small extent of land.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no need to deduct 1/3rd amount in this case.
Compensation awarded towards 4000 Teak Trees: It is the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that teak trees were planted
subsequent to the earlier 4(1) Notification, which was issued in the year 1994. Since the respondent had planted trees with full knowledge of land
acquisition proceedings, he is not entitled for compensation for 4000 teak trees. But we are of the opinion that once the earlier notification was
abandoned, no significance could be attached to the said Notification and entire compensation has to be decided only based on the subsequent
notification. In the instant case, 4(1) Notification was issued on 12.01.1998 under Act 31/1978. The Commissioner who had inspected the land
had filed Ex.C-4 report stating that
(Vernacular matter deleted)
Ex.C-4, the report of the Commissioner would show that the trees were planted much earlier to the 4(1) Notification dated 19.11.1998.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the said submission that respondent is not entitled for any compensation for teak trees.
With regard to the compensation awarded by Court below at Rs. 300/- per tree, considering the fact the amount towards labour spent by the
respondent - claimant for planting the trees, such as digging the land, providing irrigation facilities, cost of manure, maintenance, etc., we are of the
opinion, the said sum of Rs. 300/- fixed by the Court below is reasonable and as such, the same needs no interference. In this regard, it would be
appropriate to extract the relevant portion from the evidence of C.W.1, as under:
(Vernacular matter deleted)
As per section 12 of the said Act 31/1978, claimant is entitled for only 6% per annum. However, we find that the Court below has erred in
awarding solatium to the extent of 30% and interest at the rate of 9%. 4(1) Notification was issued under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for
Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. Hence, interest awarded by the Court below at 9% is hereby reduced to 6%. Further, the Court below has
awarded 30% solatium. As per section 7(2) of the said Act, the claimant is entitled to 15%. Hence, solatium awarded by the Court below is
reduced to 15%. In the result, the enhancement of compensation made by the Court below in L.A.C.M.A.No.18 of 1999 dated 17.04.2003 on
the file of Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam, with regard to the subject land is reduced from Rs. 1,000/- per cent to Rs. 800/- per cent.
Compensation awarded towards teak trees is confirmed. The reduced compensation is payable with 15% solatium and 6% interest. Appeal is
partly allowed.
Appellant is directed to deposit the modified amount along with proportionate interest, after deducting the amount that had already been deposited
by them with interest at 6% and solatium at 15% within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.