AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Since the appeals and the cross-objections arise from the common award of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Sivakasi and the
Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur
dated 6.10.1999 made in L.A.O.P. Nos. 74, 77, 79 and 82 of 1993 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 100 per cent to Rs. 3,050 per cent,
have preferred the above appeals. The respondents/ claimants preferred the cross-objections seeking further enhancement at Rs. 450 per cent.
Certain extent of lands as described below were acquired by the Government for establishing a 230 KV Sub-station by Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board in Anuppankulam village, Sattur Taluk under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as
the Act"").
A.S.No. L.A.O.P. Survey No. Extent No. Award by Award by Sub
L.A.O. Court
79 of 2000 74 of 1993 745 0.65.0 Hectare Rs. 100 per Rs. 3050 per
(1.64 acres) cent cent
A.S.No. L.A.O.P. Survey No. Extent No. Award by Award by Sub
L.A.O. Rs. Court Rs.
80 of 2000 77 of 1993 943 0.84.0 Hectare -do- -do-
(2.08 acres)
81 of 2000 79 of 1993 747 1.00.0 Hectare -do- -do-
(2.47 acres)
82 of 2000 82 of 1993 748 1.29.0 Hectare -do- -do-
(3.18 acres)
Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act had been published in the Government Gazette dated 20.4.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award No.
5/90 fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre (Rs. 100 per cent). Not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, at the instance of the land owners, the matters were referred to the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur u/s 18 of the Act, which resulted in
L.A.O.P.Nos. 74, 77, 79 and 82 of 1993. Before the Sub Court, the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos. 77 and 74 of 1993 were examined as C.Ws. 1
and 2 respectively and two more witnesses were examined as C.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.C-1 to C-6 were marked in support of their claim for higher
compensation. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and an officer from the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board was examines as R.W.2, besides marking Exs.R-1 to R-7 in support of their stand. The learned Subordinate Judge after
framing necessary issues and after considering oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,050 per cent (Rs.
3,05,000 per acre) and also granted other statutory amounts payable under the Act. Against the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer has
preferred the above appeals and for enhanced compensation, the claimants have also preferred the cross objections.
Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for first appellant, Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the second appellant and
Mr. A. Svaji, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimants.
Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, after taking us through the entire acquisition proceedings and the common
order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, has raised the following contentions:
(i) The Sub Court, Srivilliputhur has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the Land Acquisition Original Petitions after issuance of the
notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu, namely, G.O.Ms.No. 1014, Home (Courts.III) Department dated 30.7.1998 constituting a Sub
Court at Sivakasi;
(ii) When R.W.2, an officer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board gave evidence and he was subjected to cross-examination, the contrary
conclusion arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge that ""as his evidence was incomplete, it cannot be relied upon while deciding the issue"" is
liable to be set aside. In any event, in order to consider the evidence of R.W.2, the matter has to be remitted back to the Sub Court;
(iii) Inasmuch as the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on Ex.C-2 wherein 10 cents alone were sold that too for the purpose of path-way, the
same cannot be compared or relied on for determining compensation of the acquired land, which is larger in extent. In any event, according to him,
the learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ex.C-2, a sale deed in respect of a small extent of 10 cents, for fixing compensation in the present cases
wherein a large extent of land is involved, hence he ought to have allowed more deduction towards development charges.
Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the 2nd appellant- Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reiterated the very same points as contended
by the learned Additional Advocate General.
Mr. A. Sivaji, learned Counsel for the respondents, has raised the following contentions:
(i) Regarding competence of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur to try these cases on the point of territorial jurisdiction, the said objection has not been
raised before the said Court (Sub Court, Srivilliputhur). Further, even the transfer petition filed by the 2nd appellant- Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
came to be dismissed by the District Court as not pressed. According to him, on the relevant date, the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur alone has territorial
jurisdiction and the impugned judgment cannot be assailed for want of jurisdiction;
(ii) On merits, in view of the fact that the acquired land lie near Sivakasi-Sattur highway nearer to Sivakasi town, it has potential value of being
used as house-sites, hence the land owners are entitled to higher compensation than that arrived by the Sub Court; accordingly he prayed for
enhanced compensation at the additional amount of Rs. 450 per cent.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
With regard to first contention, namely, competence of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur to try these cases on the point of jurisdiction, the learned
Additional Advocate General by drawing our attention to G.O.Ms.No. 1014 Home (Courts III) Department dated 30.7.1998, would contend that
in view of formation of a Sub Court at Sivakasi from 30.7.1998, the Sub Court, Sivakasi alone has territorial jurisdiction to enquire the dispute in
question and the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur ceased its territorial jurisdiction from the said date. No doubt, a perusal of the said Government Order
shows that besides other Courts a Sub Court at Sivakasi was constituted by shifting the existing Additional Sub Court at Srivilliputhur. However, it
is not brought to our notice the actual date of commencement of the Court. Apart from the said aspect, Mr. A. Sivaji, learned Counsel for the
respondents, would contend that the said objection regarding jurisdiction was not raised before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur during the pendency
of the Land Acquisition Original Petitions. He also contended that though the second appellant-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, beneficiary of the
present land acquisition proceedings filed 18 transfer petitions before the District Court at Srivilliputhur for transferring the Land Acquisition
Original Petitions pending before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur to the Sub Court, Sivakasi, for the reasons best known to them, four transfer
petitions relating to the impugned Land Acquisition Original Petitions were dismissed by the District Court as not pressed by the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board. This aspect has not been disputed and no explanation was offered for not pursuing the transfer petitions nor any objection raised
before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur at the appropriate time. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Objections to jurisdiction: (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection
was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement,
and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or
revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are
settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(3) xx xx xx.
Section 21-A bars filing of suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing. We have already referred to the admitted position, namely,
the first appellant- referring officer failed to raise any objection before the Sub Court, did not pursue the same, which lead to the dismissal of the
petitions. Only at the appellate stage the objection regarding jurisdiction is being raised before this Court for the first time. At this juncture, it is
useful to refer a decision in Venkatarama Vathiar v. Sambasiva Aiyar 37 M.L.J. 349. In that case a suit was brought in the High Court, in the
exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction, for the recovery of certain jewels or payment of their value. The plant contained no averment showing
that the cause of action or part thereof arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court but alleged that the defendant resided within
the local limits of its jurisdiction. The defendant received a summons from the High Court while he was in Madras, and at the time took no
objection to the jurisdiction of that Court but merely asked that another summons should be sent to him. He did not appear at the hearing of the
suit and an ex parte decree was passed against him. He applied to the High Court to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he had not
been served with summons but his application was dismissed and the order dismissing if was confirmed on appeal. In a suit filed by him in the Sub
Court of Tanjore for a declaration that the decree of the High Court was null and void for want of jurisdiction, the Division Benches has held that,
he must be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the High Court and could not therefore subsequently question its jurisdiction"".
In R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Valllabh Glass Works Ltd., their Lordships after referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, have held as follows: (para.7)
7...The above provision clearly lays down that such objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court subject
to the following conditions:
(i) That such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity;
(ii) in all cases where issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues;
(iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.
In K. Muthiyan Nadar v. R. Vijayarani and four Ors. 1988 T.L.N.J. 149, Srinivasan, J. (as he than was) reiterated the above three conditions to
be essential in a question relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 21, C.P.C.
In The Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. Vs. P.J. Pappu and Another, their Lordships have held that unless there has been a consequent failure of
justice, the question regarding jurisdiction cannot be raised at a later stage. We have already referred to the conduct of the appellants which
amounts to a waiver, or which precludes them from raising the objection.
In Seth Hiralal Patni Vs. Sri Kali Nath, their Lordships have held that: (para 4)
4...It is well-settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a
Court to try a case. Competence of a Court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent
lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given a
statutory recognition by enactments like Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having consented to have the controversy between the parties
resolved by reference to arbitration through Court, the defendant deprived himself of the right to question the authority of the Court to refer the
matter to arbitration or of the arbitrator to render the award...
In the light of Sections 21, and 21-A of the CPC and in view of the conduct of the appellants in not raising the objection before the trial Court,
particularly the conduct of the second appellant in not pursuing the transfer petitions before the District Court and also in the absence of specific
notification containing details as to the actual date on which the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur ceased its jurisdiction to try the present cases as well as
the legal position referred to above, we are unable to accept the contention regarding jurisdiction; accordingly we reject the same.
As regards the second contention of the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the
requisitioning body that in view of the non-consideration of the evidence of R.W.2 and the incorrect final conclusion upon the evidence of R.W.2,
the matter has to be remitted to the Sub Court for fresh disposal, we have verified the evidence of R.W.2. R.W.2 is none-else than the Assistant
Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Sivakasi. A careful perusal of his evidence would show that after chief examination, he
was subjected to cross examination by the claimants. We are satisfied that the evidence of R.W.2 is available in full form and complete before the
Sub Court and the contrary conclusion arrived by the learned Subordinate Judge in para 5 that his evidence is incomplete, hence his evidence
cannot be relied upon is liable to be set aside. However, on the score we are not inclined to remit the matter as contended since this Court being
the appellate Court can consider his evidence along with the evidence of R.W.1.
Regarding the other contention, namely, the merits of the order in determining compensation, we have already referred to the publication of
4(1) notification in the Gazette on 20.4.1988 and the purpose of acquisition as per the notification is for erection of a 230 K. V. Substation by the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board: The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 10,000 per acre (Rs. 100 per cent) based on the sale-deed
Ex.R-1, dated 28,10.1985 wherein 26 cents in S.No. 618 were sold for Rs. 2,600. The Sub Court based on the oral and documentary evidence,
particularly basing reliance on Ex.C-2, dated 5.11.1986 fixed compensation at Rs. 3,390 per cent and by deducting 10 per cent towards
development charges it fixed the marked value at Rs. 3,050 (Rs. 3,390 - 340) per cent for the acquired land. The claimant in L.A.O.P.No. 77 of
1993 has been examined as C.W.1 whereas C.W.2 is the claimant in L.A.O.P.No. 74 of 1993 and purchaser of 10 cents of land in S.No. 744/2
for Rs. 36,943 under Ex.C-2. P. W.3 is the vendee under Ex.C-6 and C.W.4 is the attestor of the sale deed under Ex.C-4. Based on the
contentions raised, we have carefully perused all the sale deeds produced by the claimants. Under Exs.C-3, C-4 and C-5 house-sites in square
foot were sold to various parties. Ex.C-6 sale deed was effected after the 4(1) notification; accordingly the same was rightly rejected by the
learned Subordinate Judge. Under Ex.C-3, dated 2.3.1987, 2 1/2 cents were sold for Rs. 2,616, under Ex.C-4, dated 26.10.1987 1307 sq.ft.
(house-site -approved lay out) were sold for Rs. 2,616 and under Ex.C-5, dated 29.1.1988 an extent of 715 sq.ft of the same house-site in
approved lay out were sold for Rs. 2,616. Since the land sold under Exs.C-3 to C-5 are approved house-sites and smaller in extent, the same
have been rightly rejected by the Sub Court. Basing reliance on Ex.C-2, dated 5.11.1986 which is prior to the date of 4(1) notification, the learned
Subordinate Judge fixed compensation at Rs. 3,390 per cent. The learned Additional Advocate General by pointing out that 10 cents alone were
sold under Ex.C-2 that too for a path-way, the same cannot be relied on for determining the market value of the acquired land which is vast in
extent. The sale deed under Ex.R-1, dated 28.10.1985 relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing compensation at Rs. 10,000 per acre is
nearly 3 years prior to the 4(1) notification and it does not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land. We have already discarded the
documents under Exs.C-3 to C-5 on the ground that the land sold under these documents are house-sites and approved lay out. Further, as Ex.C-
6 is well after the 4(1) notification, the only document to be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land is Ex.C-2.
Though the learned Counsel for the appellants would state that the compensation arrived on the basis of Ex.C-2 is on the higher side
considering the lesser extent involved and the purpose for which the lands were purchased, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents prayed
for higher compensation, namely, a further amount of Rs. 450 per cent by stating that the lands purchased have got potential value of being used as
house-sites. C.W.1 would state that the acquired lands can be used as house-sites and the same lie adjacent to Srivilliputhur- Sattur highroad on
the southern side. There is no dispute that Sattur and Sivakasi are connected by State highway. He also referred to the existence of various match
factories and other industrial units near the acquired lands. There cannot be any doubt regarding the existence of many factories in and around
Sivakasi. He further deposed that the acquired lands lie at a distance of 1 K.M. from Sivakasi. The other witness examined on the side of the
claimants is C.W.2, who is the purchaser of land under Ex.C-2. With regard to the contention that the land sold under Ex.C-2 has been purchased
for purpose of a path-way, C.W.2 has explained that,
In the light of the explanation offered by C.W.2 and in view of the fact that the land sold under Ex.C-2 lies near the acquired lands and the said
transaction had taken place well prior to the 4(1) notification and also in the absence of any other materials, we are of the view that the learned
Subordinate Judge is fully justified in determining the market value of the land basing reliance on Ex.C-2.
Now we shall consider whether the learned Subordinate Judge is right in allowing deduction only to an extent of 10 per cent from and out of
the amount of compensation or more could have been deducted as claimed by the appellants. We have already referred to the fact that the only
document to be considered is Ex.C-2 and the same is well prior to the 4(1) notification. It is the evidence of C.W.1 that the acquired lands have
potential value of being used a house-sites. The learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our notice a latest decision of the Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh 2001 Sol. Case No. 397- Civil Appeal No. 6016 of 1999), wherein their Lordships have held that while
fixing market value on the basis of Section 23(1) of the Act, the Court cannot grant any amount over and above the market price. While
determining the market value of the land, the following factors have to be borne in mind/ vide Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, :
(1) Determined as on the crucial date of publication of the modification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6
and 9 are irrelevant)
(2) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification u/s 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that
the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(3) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the
index of market value.
(4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land).
(5) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not
motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(6) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(7) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market
value of the land under acquisition may be deducted by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition
by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(8) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors evaluated in terms of price variation as a
prudent purchaser would do.
(9) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for
plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
Their Lordships have also illustrated plus and minus factors. No doubt, the evaluation of these factors depends on the facts of each case and there
cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. By applying the above principles, the only document
that has to be considered is Ex.C-2 since it is nearer to the acquired land and the transaction therein had taken place well prior to the 4(1)
notification. Though it is stated that the land pertaining to C-2 document was sold for the purpose of path-way, the same has been properly
explained by the purchaser of the same, namely, C.W.2.
It is well settled that if the acquisition is for construction of houses under various schemes, certain areas have to be earmarked for laying roads,
putting up water and drainage channel etc. In other words, to develop a land which was purchased for being used under various schemes, some
amount has to be spent. As per the judgment in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh 2001 Sol. Case No. 397, on account of potential value no amount
over and above the market price can be fixed. In this regard, it is relevant to note that as per the notification published u/s 4(1), declaration u/s 6
and award proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, it was specifically stated that the lands mentioned therein are needed for the
formation of a 230 K.V. Electricity Sub-station at Anuppankulam Village. However, R.W.1, Revenue Inspector in the office of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, has deposed that the land was acquired for formation of a 230 K.V. sub-station and for construction of quarters for
Divisional Engineer and Assistant Divisional Engineer. In cross-examination at the instance of the beneficiary, R.W.1 has deposed that,
Though there is no reference regarding construction of residential quarters for officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the notification,
R.W.1 alone has deposed that certain residential quarters have to be constructed in the acquired land. Considering the purpose of acquisition, even
if we accept the evidence of R.W.1, it is to be noted that apart from the formation of electricity sub-station, it is clear that at the most they required
housing of only few quarters in the land in question. In such a circumstance, there is no need to allot more areas for the purpose of formation of
roads, drainage etc. No doubt, for the use and maintenance of the proposed 230 K.V. electricity sub-station and for the few residential quarters
intended for the officers, lesser area alone is required. Considering all the above aspects, more particularly the factors and methodology as pointed
out in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, the public purpose as mentioned in the notification as
well as the evidence of R.W.1, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge is fully justified in allowing deduction to the extent of 10 per
cent towards development charges. It is also relevant to note that even R.W.1 has also admitted that Sattur-Sivakasi high road is running south of
the acquired land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that,
Taking note of the locational advantage, namely, nearer to the Sattur-Sivakasi high road and also of the fact that as the land is required for
establishing an electricity sub-station, all the requirements are not needed except a road for covering a few residential quarters of the officers and of
the fact that the lands are even lands and no additional expenditure is needed for levelling the same, we are inclined to confirm the deduction to the
extent of 10 per cent only. Further, though it is stated that vast extent of lands were acquired, if we verify the individual case, it is clear that in
L.A.O.P. No. 74 of 1993 the total extent acquired is 11.64 acres; in L.A.O.P. No. 77 of 1993 it is 2.08 acres; in L.A.O.P. No. 79 of 1993 it is
2.47 acres; and in L.A.O.P. No. 82 of 1993 it is 3.18 acres. Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no need to allow more deduction.
Therefore, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gulzara Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, every endeavour must be made to
fix the fair and reasonable market value on the lands acquired.
We make it clear that the claimants are entitled to 30 per cent solatium only for the market value of the lands acquired. Further, they are
entitled to an additional amount at 12 per cent per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of passing of award or delivery of
possession, whichever is earlier. In addition to this, the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of
possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till date of deposit. The claimants are not entitled to interest
on solatium and additional amount. We further make it clear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is pending before the larger Bench
of the Supreme Court, and depending upon the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, the claimants are permitted to file appropriate
petition before the competent Sub Court.
In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any ground for interference by this Court in the amount arrived by the learned Subordinate
Judge; accordingly we dismiss the appeals and cross-objections. No order as to costs.