AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The Referring Officer (land Acquisition Officer) and the beneficiary in the L.A.O.P. No. 30/2002, 31/2002 and 33/2002 in respect of the acquisition of lands concerned are the Appellants in these appeals.
A total extent of 11.37.5 hectares of land classified as dry land comprised in S. Nos. 859/2A, 860/1B, 861, 862, 863, 864/2 and 876/2A was acquired for Nambiar Reservoir Scheme. Admittedly, the said property was enjoyed by four persons jointly as co-owners and each one of them had got an un-divided 1/4th share. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquisition of the said land by passing his award 1/96-97 dated 25.08.1996 fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 18/- per cent. Since the land owners expressed dissatisfaction with the amount awarded as compensation and requested for making a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court, references were made, based on which L.A.O.P. Nos. 30/2002, 31/2002, 32/2002 and 33/2002 were taken on file. All the above said four L.A.O. Ps. were jointly heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Tirunelveli and were disposed of by a common order dated 20.08.2003. By the said common order, the learned Fast Track Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 400/- percent, which is equivalent to Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, awards were passed in all the said L.A.O. Ps. allowing other statutory benefits like solatium at the rate of 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, additional market value calculated on the market value at the rate of 12% from the date of 4(1) notification till date of award or the date of taking possession, which ever was earlier and allowing interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession at 9% p.a. for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment. The claimants'' costs of litigations were also directed to be paid by the Government.
As against the awards passed by the Court below, the State chose to prefer all these three appeals viz., A.S.(MD) No. 26/2007, A.S.(MD) No. 27/2007 and A.S.(MD) No. 29/2007 and also another appeal A.S.(MD) No. 28 of 2007. The other appeal, namely A.S.(MD) No. 28/2007 was dismissed on 14.07.2009 for non-prosecution. Even though a petition was filed for restoring the same with a delay excuse petition, they were found to be defective and returned by the office and they are yet to be represented. As such the present appeals, 3 in number, alone have been listed for disposal.
The arguments advanced by Mr. B.K. Rajendran, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, learned Counsel for the Respondents were heard. The materials available on record were also perused.
Point that commonly arises for consideration in all these appeals is:
whether the compensation awarded by the Court below in respect of the shares of the Respondents in these appeals (claimant in the corresponding L.A.O. Ps.) in the land acquired by the Government is excessive requiring downward revision?
It is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Court below awarded enhanced compensation by fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 400/- per cent as against Rs. 18/- per cent fixed by the land acquisition officer; that the said amount was fixed on the basis of a sale deed pertaining to a property, which is situated in a neighbouring village and that therefore, the award of the Court below should be held infirm and defective and liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate power.
Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that, taking into account all the aspects the Court below fixed a reasonable amount as compensation and correctly arrived at the market value of the land at Rs. 400/- per cent; that the fact that market value fixed by the Court below is more than twenty times of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer will not make the assessment of market value by the Court below unreasonable; that on the other hand, the same will show how stingy and unreasonable the Land Acquisition Officer happened to be by searching and selecting a document which reflects the least market value and that therefore, the compensation awarded by the lower Court does not require any modification or reduction.
It is the further contention, perhaps the main contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, that the acquired property being a common property, in which the claimants in all the L.A.O. Ps. got undivided shares, different rates cannot be fixed for different sharers and uniform rate should be fixed in respect of the entire extent of property, which the land acquisition officer and the Court below have correctly done; that so far as the share of one of the four co-sharers is concerned, the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 2002 has attained finality and that therefore, the present appeals cannot be maintained by the Appellants.
If it is true that the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 2002 in respect of an undivided 1/4th share of the land attained finality, the above said contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot be discountenanced. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the said proposition put forth by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is untenable since, in fact an appeal had been preferred against the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 2002, which was latter dismissed for no prosecution and steps are being taken to get it restored.
Admittedly, A.S.(MD) No. 28 of 2007 was filed against the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 2002 and the same was dismissed for default on 14.07.2009. But, till date, the said appeal which was dismissed for default has not been restored. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that a petition for restoration of the same along with a petition to condone the delay in filing such a petition was filed, it is admitted that the said petitions were returned and they are yet to be represented. Admittedly, for several months, such papers were not represented. In addition to that, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has also brought it to the notice of this Court that the said appeal which was dismissed for default was not properly filed as the same was filed against a dead person.
Admittedly, the original claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 2002 was Durairaj Nadar. The said Durairaj Nadar died even during the pendency of the L.A.O.P. and his legal representatives were impleaded as claimants 2 to 7 in the said L.A.O.P. by order dated 28.11.2002 and only thereafter, the L.A.O.P. came to be disposed of by a common order and awards dated 20.08.2003. Even then, it is admitted on both sides that the appeal A.S. No. 28 of 2007 was preferred against the said Durairaj Nadar as if he was alive on the date of presentation of the appeal. Notice issued in the said appeal was returned with the endorsement that the addressee was not alive. Even thereafter, the referring officer has not taken steps to substitute the names of the legal representatives of Durairaj Nadar, who had already come on record as claimants 2 to 7 in the said L.A.O.P. before the lower Court itself on the premise that by mistake due to the ignorance of the death of the said Durairaj Nadar the appeal came to be filed against him. That was not done. The same happened to be the reason why the said appeal was dismissed long back on 14.07.2009 itself. Till date the referring officer has not taken proper steps to get it restored and the name of the claimants 2 to 7 in the said L.A.O.P. substituted for the name of the deceased original claimant Durairaj Nadar. Under such circumstances, this Court is not in a position to reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the award passed in respect of 1/4th share of deceased Durairaj Nadar having become final, these appeals seeking reduction of the amount below the said amount cannot be maintained.
Making a reference to Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act shall be of much help to understand the position of law in this record. When lands comprised in different survey numbers are acquired under one and the same notification, then though some of the claimants in respect of some of such lands might not have preferred any claim seeking enhancement of compensation, they will get a right under the said Section, when a higher amount is fixed in respect of one such land by the Court to which a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is made at the instance of another claimant. A right is given therein to seek refixation of compensation on the basis of the compensation fixed by the Court in respect of the other land acquired under the same notification. In such an event, the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) is bound to pass an award based on the subsequent claim made by the claimant on the basis of the Court award. In case, the claimant is not satisfied with such an award passed u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, again the claimant shall get a right to seek a reference, whereupon Sections 18 to 28 of the Land Acquisition Act will be attracted to such reference. When such a right is given to the owner of another land, which is acquired along with the neighbouring land in one and the same notification, fixation of different market value in respect of the share of different sharers in an undivided property cannot be even dreamt of. In view of the same, it is hereby held that the market value fixed for the acquired land has attained finality and the compensation fixed by the Court below, directing payment of enhanced compensation with statutory benefits cannot be held unreasonable. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents deserves to be countenanced and on that score alone all these appeals are bound to be dismissed.
Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M. Ps. are also dismissed.