AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 25.09.2000, made in L.A.O.P. No. 47 of 1996.
The Referring Officer before the court below is the Appellant herein and the claimant therein is the present Respondent before this Court.
Besides some more extent of land belonging to other persons, an extent of 60 cents of dry land comprised in S. Nos. 111/1 and 111/2 in Karambakudi village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District was acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for providing house sites to the members belonging to Maruthuvar community, a Most Backward Class. The acquisition was made under the Act 1 of 1984. Notification u/s 4(1) of the ''Act'' was published on 09.11.1994. After following the procedure for effecting the declaration, award enquiry was conducted by the Appellant herein, who happened to be the Land Acquisition Officer. At the conclusion of the award enquiry, the market value of the property acquired from the Respondent was fixed at Rs. 320/-per cent and an award was passed in Award No. 7/95-96, dated 18.03.1996. Apart from the market value, other statutory benefits have also been included in the compensation awarded by the Appellant.
The Respondent herein/claimant, who was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and made a request for making a reference to the court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, a reference was made and the same was taken on file by the court below as L.A.O.P. No. 47 of 1996. After getting the claim statement of the Respondent herein/claimant and the objections of the Appellant herein/Referring Officer, the court below tried the L.A.O.P and disposed it of by its judgment, dated 25.09.2000. In the trial, five witnesses were examined on the side of the Respondent herein/claimant as C.W.1 to C.W.5 and 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the Appellant herein/Referring Officer,R.W.1 was examined as the sole witness and three documents were marked as documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, considered the evidence in the light of the points urged on either side in the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and, upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification could be reasonably fixed on the basis of a sale deed dated 05.08.1993, a copy of which was produced on the side of the claimant as Ex.A9. Accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,100/-per cent and awarded enhanced compensation without allowing any deduction towards developmental expenses for conversion of a large extent of land into house sites. The learned Subordinate Judge has also applied other provisions regarding the enhanced market value, solatium and interest.
Aggrieved by and challenging the decree passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, awarding enhanced compensation on the basis of the fixation of the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,100/-per cent as against Rs. 320/-per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the State through the Referring Officer has come forward with the present appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of appeal.
This Court heard the submissions of K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Appellant and Mr. N.C. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent. The material available on record were also perused.
The short point that arise for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the fixation of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of Ex.A9 and the consequent direction to pay enhanced compensation is erroneous and whether enhanced compensation awarded by the court below deserves either disapproval in toto or reduction?
The Appellant/Referring Officer(Land Acquisition Officer) in his award chose to rely on a document dated 18.04.1994, under which 99 cents of land comprised in S. No. 121/6, in Karambakudi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District had been sold, as the document reflecting the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the Respondent herein contended before the court below that reliance placed on the said document was erroneous; that there were other documents which were contemporary having come into existence within the period of scrutiny and the market value of the acquired land should be fixed on the basis of such documents and that if it was done so, she would be entitled to more amount as compensation.
Though, the Respondent/claimant chose to produce as many as 11 documents in support of her claim for enhanced compensation, the court below has chosen to reject Ex.A2 to A5, A7, A8 and A10 as the values quoted therein were not proved by examining the persons connected with the execution of those documents. The Respondent/claimant has not raised any objection, even in this appeal, against the exclusion of those documents from the purview of consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land. So far as the copy of the sale deed dated 27.04.1994 produced and marked by the claimant as Ex.A6 and the document dated 16.08.1993, marked under Ex.A11, were concerned, they were taken out from the purview of consideration on the ground that small extents of lands classified as ''Natham'' were the subject-matters of those sale deeds, whereas, the acquired land was classified as ''dry land''. As against the exclusion of those documents from the purview of consideration for fixing of the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification, the Respondent/claimant has not raised any objection in this appeal.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai has chosen to refer to Ex.A1, the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. No. 34 of 1992, wherein the court had fixed the market value of S. Nos. 65/3A, 65/4,65/5A and 65/6A in Karambakudi vilalge, at the rate of Rs. 3,200/-and took it as a guiding factor to consider the reasonableness of the market value reflected in Ex.A9, copy of the sale deed relied on by the court below. Under Ex.A9, 10 cents of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-on 05.08.1993. According to the learned Subordinate Judge by examining the purchaser under the said document as C.W.4. the amount for which the sale deed was executed was proved to be the correct market value.
On the other hand, except R.W.1, who did not have any personal knowledge regarding the transactions, no other witness was examined on the side ofthe Appellant herein/Referring Officer. In fact, the only document relied on by the Appellant herein/Referring Officer was marked as Ex.B3. It is a xerox copy of a sale deed, dated 18.04.1994, bearing Document No. 260 of 1994, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Karambakudi. It is pertinent to note that the same is not a copy certified by the competent authority, namely, the Sub-Registrar to be a true copy. The Land Acquisition Officer himself has chosen to certify the same to be the true copy of the original document. Nobody connected with the said document was examined on the side of the Appellant herein/Referring Officer. It is a well established proposition that the mere production of document will not be enough to prove the correctness of the market value quoted therein. In addition to the fact that nobody connected to the execution of the said document was examined as a witness to show that the document reflected correct market value, the copy itself is not a proper certified copy capable of being admitted as a piece of evidence. Therefore, the court below has rightly refused to place reliance on Ex.B3. As such the decision arrived at by the court below to fix the market value of the acquired land on the basis of Ex.A9 holding that the land sold under Ex.A9 was comparable with the acquired land cannot be found fault with. Further, no grievance is aired by anybody against the adoption of one cent as the unit of valuation. The Respondent claimant has established that the acquired land had the potentiality to be developed into house sites by showing that there are Cinema theatre, Sub-Registrar''s Office and Higher Secondary School near the acquired land and that the land had easy access to the main road. The objections raised on behalf of the Appellant herein against the selection of Ex.A9 as data sale deserved to be rejected.
No doubt, the selection of the document for fixing the market value adopting the comparison method seems to be proper. But the calculation of the market value based on the said document is also attacked by the Appellant herein/Referring Officer as erroneous insofar as no deduction was allowed, when the market value for a smaller property was sought to be adopted for a larger property on the basis that the said property had the potentiality for being developed into house sites. The above said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be rejected as untenable. There is much susbtance in it. It is also a settled proposition of law that if a house site is taken as a data land for the purpose of fixing compensation, larger extent of land acquired on the ground that the acquired land did have the potentiality to be developed into house sites, a reasonable deduction for development purposes should be allowed. Deductions have to be made, taking into account the probable space that has to be set apart for public purpose, streets, open space etc., and also the expenditure to be incurred for converting the land into house sites, namely, the expenditure for laying roads and the expenditure for getting approval for the lay-out.
In this case, though Ex.A9, an extent of 10 cents describing it to be a land unfit for cultivation was conveyed, there is nothing to show that it was developed into a pucca house site and necessary developmental charges had been paid. On the other hand, it was described as punja land which will give rise to a presumption that it was sold as an unapproved house site. Keeping in mind the said fact and a further fact that the extent of the property acquired from the Respondent/claimant is only 60 cents, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which minimum deduction alone shall be made. Normally, if the value of a house site is taken into account for fixing the market value of a large extent of land on the ground of its potentiality to be developed into house sites by making comparison, deductions may be allowed between 20% to 50% depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, for the reasons stated above, this Court deems it reasonable to allow a deduction of 25% alone. On the basis of the above said observation, the decree of the court below deserves modification by reducing the total value calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,100/-per cent by 25% as expenses towards developmental purposes. The court below has rightly allowed 12% increase in the market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier, 30% of the market value as solatium and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15%. The same needs no interference.
In the light of the above discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the court below deserve to be modified by reducing the market value fixed by the trial court by 25%. The total market value of 60cents at the rate of Rs. 3100/-per cent comes to Rs. 1,56,000/25% of the said amount comes to Rs. 46,500/-. Hence, the net market value after deduction for developmental purposes is to be fixed at Rs. 1,39,500/-.
For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the decree of the court below is modified by reducing the market value to Rs. 1,39,500/-All other statutory benefits as awarded by the court below will stand confirmed subject to corresponding modification based on the reduction of the market value. No costs.