AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram dated
21.02.1995 in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1994 in enhancing the value of compensation based on Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, made by the Land
Acquisition Officer.
During the pendency of the L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, the land owner died and hence, his legal heirs
were impleaded and during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, among the legal heirs, the wife of the original land owner also died. The
remaining legal heirs were already on record. No implementation of fresh parties are required and necessary changes in the cause title has to be
effected.
Heard both sides.
The facts in nutshell would run thus:
The appellant Tahsildar issued 4(1) Notification on 23.12.1991 for acquiring an extent of 4 acres and 60 cents land in Rameswaram village and
thereupon after complying with the formalities conducted enquiry and assessed the value of compensation as Rs. 210/- (Rupees two hundred and
ten only) per cent.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such order, at the request of the first respondent i.e., land owner, the appellant herein referred the
matter to the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act and thereupon the Sub Court enhanced the value of compensation from
Rs. 210/- (Rupees two hundred and ten only) per cent to Rs. 1200/- (Rupees one thousand only two hundred only) per cent based on the sale
deed dated 05.11.1990, which was marked as Ex.P4 during trial.
The appellant aggrieved by such enhancement, preferred this appeal on the following grounds:
The Sub Court simply relied on the said document Ex.P4 dated 05.11.1990 and enhanced the compensation disregarding the sale deed dated
10.09.1990 relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the appellant, the compensation is on the higher side by any standard.
Point for consideration is as to whether the enhancement compensation awarded by the Sub Court is in accordance with law by enhancing it
from Rs. 210/- (Rupees two hundred and ten only) per cent to Rs. 1200/- (Rupees one thousand only two hundred only) per cent?
On point:
The learned Additional Government Pleader would draw the attention of this Court to the map and develop his arguments to the effect that the
acquired land is in Survey No.371 and the sample sale deed dated 10.09.1990 is relating to the very adjacent land in Survey No.364/4 and in
such a case without any rhyme or reason the Sub Court disregarding those aspects relied on the Sale deed referred to by the land owner which is
situated in Survey No.445, which is far away from the land acquired. Certainly, this is a point to be considered.
The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 9 would develop his arguments that the Sub Court correctly rejected the sale deed dated
10.09.1990 and relied on the sale deed dated 05.11.1990, because the acquired land has got potentiality of becoming plot.
In this connection, the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Kasthuri and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in A.I.R 2003 Supreme
Court 205, could fruitfully be referred to. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
It is not debated that sale transaction covered by Exbt. P-7 relates to a small plot and the land in question acquired is about 84 acre. This land
comprising of large area is not developed although it has potential value for residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land,
roads were to be laid, provisions for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be ear-marked for other civic amenities. Thus, after, leaving
the area in the land required for the purposes mentioned above, plots were to be made for residential and commercial purposes by incurring
expenditure for other developmental works, such as providing electricity, water, etc., The acquired land is not small plot located in such a way that
no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site. It is well-settled that in respect of agricultural
land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3 amount of compensation has to be deducted
out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of
expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for the
residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the
purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be
low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who
claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence
that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that area adjoining his land is developed area, is not
enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed
area, does not give the land character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the
remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic
amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, no help in reducing the
percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which
may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases
it is more than 1/3 and in some cases less than 1/3. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having
potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every
land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot. Particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for
development purpose.
In the present case the situation is entirely different. The area acquired is not a small area; it was not developed may be it had some
advantages; a small portion of the large tract was abutting the main road; it was also not the case that any smaller area within the large tract of land
acquired was fully developed having all facilities as in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna(supra). The appellants herein did not establish that the
entire area of 84 acres of land acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic
amenities. In order to convert the land into plots for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to be
earmarked for the above mentioned purposes in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of
expenditure for the development area. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount
determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial
buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3 normal deduction.
(emphasis supplied).
The perusal of the above said decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court would clearly show that while assessing the compensation, the potentiality
of the land becoming house sides, should be considered. The Hon''ble Apex Court differentiated between the two sets of land. Developed land
from that of the land having the potentiality of becoming house sides because of the environmental development in that vicinity. Here, the sale deed
dated 05.11.19900 relied on by the land owner takes into account the potentialities of that area becoming house sites, whereas the documents
relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer even though relates to the adjacent land acquired did not take into account the potentiality of the area
becoming house sites. There is nothing to show that the sale deed dated 05.11.19900 is a cooked up document because the 4(1) Notification is
dated 23.12.1991, whereas the said sale deed relied on by the Sub Court is dated 05.11.1990. It is therefore clear that the sale deed dated
05.11.1990 ex facie and prima facie contemplated such a higher value of Rs. 1200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent in
view of the developing nature of that area and the potentiality of the lands in that area getting converted into house sites. Hence, I do not find any
fault with the Sub Court for having chosen the rate as Rs. 1200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent.
Furthermore, such value of Rs. 1200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) was assessed for a considerable larger extent of 20 cent
and not to a meagre extent as contemplated in one other sale deed dated 12.04.1989 relied on by the very land owner, which would refer to a
high value of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand and five hundred only) for 3 1/2 cents of land. As such, the Sub Court struck a balance between
the two sale deeds and took the value based on the sale deed dated 05.11.1990, as the basis for assessing the compensation. Hence, I am of the
considered view that the learned Sub Court''s stand cannot be interfered with.
However, I could see that there is a glaring defect in the Judgment of the Sub Court that 1/3(one third) was not deducted towards
development charges. The development charges as set out in the Hon''ble Apex Court Judgment was got infused in the very sale value of the land
referred to in the sale deed dated 05.11.1990. In such a case, this Court cannot accept the request of the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.3 to 9 that taking into account that the environmental potentialities, 1/3 (one third) towards development charges need not be deducted and
only 20% has to be deducted. If agricultural value is taken, then the deduction could be 20%. But here plot value was taken by the Sub Court
without deducting towards development charges. But herein the value arrived at by the Sub Court took into account the potential value of land in
that area only and not the development charges and hence in such a case I am of the opinion that in this case 1/3 (one third) has to be deducted
towards development charges. In all other aspects, the Judgment and Decree of the Sub Court requires no interference. Accordingly, after
deducting 1/3 value of the land towards developmental charges the value of land for one cent come to Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred only and
the award amount is modified as under:
(i) Value of 4 acre 60 cents
at the rage of Rs. 800/- per cent .. Rs. 3,68,000.00
(ii) 30% Solatium .. Rs. 1,10,400.00
----------------
Total .. Rs. 4,78,400.00
----------------
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is reduced from Rs. 7,17,600/-
(Rupees seven lakh seventeen thousand and six hundred only) to Rs. 4,78,400/- (Rupees four lakh seventy eight thousand and four hundred only).
In other aspects the award shall hold good. However, in the circumstance of the case, there is no order