AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Sundresh, J.—Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court wherein, the valuation has been fixed by the
Court below at sum of Rs. 2,500/- per cent, thereby enhancing the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 17,784/- per hectare the
above appeals have been filed. Similarly the cross appeals have been filed by the respondents/claimants seeking enhancement for a sum of Rs.
3,500/- per cent.
The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
Lands in Survey Nos. 89 to 93 of Pandanthal village, Sattur Taluk were acquired for the purpose of construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu
Housing board under the Sivakasi Neighbourhood Scheme. The Notification u/s 4(1) was published on 23.04.1986. Thereafter, an award has
been passed in Award No. 5 of 1984 dated 23.12.1987 fixing a sum of Rs. 17,784/- per hectare. The Reference Court has enhanced the sum to
Rs. 2,500/- per cent. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood
Scheme, Sivakasi. The respondents/claimants in the appeals have also filed cross appeals.
In view of the fact that in all the cases, the 4(1) Notification is the same and also in view of the fact that the same award has been passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- by the Reference Court in different judgments and decrees, the appeals are taken up
together for disposal.
The Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no basis for fixing the amount at Rs. 2,500/- per cent by the
Reference Court. Further the sale deed relied upon by the claimants are all for smaller extent of land and the lands acquired are agricultural lands.
It is further submitted that the Court below has committed an error in not making suitable deductions towards the developmental charges and also
for relying upon the sale deeds which are for lesser extent. The learned Government Pleader has also contended that Ex.B1 ought to have been
taken into consideration for fixing the value.
On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants and the cross objectors, that the lands acquired are having
huge potentiality. The lands are surrounded by 100 Match Factories, 150 other factories, 100 Match Trading Companies, 15 Commission
Sandies, Co-operative Match Societies, 2 Candle Manufacturing Industries and 7 Ginning Factories. It is further submitted that the lands are
adjoining Sattur Municipality. It was further submitted that the lands are adjoining Chennai-Kanyakumari National Highways. According to the
learned Counsel that Sattur Municipality is the Taluk Headquarters of Ramanathapuram District. Apart from that there are residential colonies,
petrol bunks, power station, rice mills and schools surrounding the area. The learned Counsel has also submitted that in view of the potentiality of
the land, the amount fixed is very low and therefore there must be an enhancement of Rs. 1,000/- per cent. According to the learned Counsel for
the respondents that no doubt the valuation for the previous years acquisition for the same scheme have been covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench in As. Nos. 948, 949 and 978 of 1990 wherein the Hon''ble Division Bench has fixed a sum of Rs. 1,630/- per cent, however the
Division Bench has taken into consideration Ex.A2 and Ex.A6 sale deeds alone for consideration and the valuation mentioned in Ex.A9 was not
taken into consideration, for the only reason that the vendor of the said document was not examined. According to the learned Counsel that the
said finding has been given based upon the law prevailing at that point of time and in view of the subsequent change in law by which it has been
held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the vendor of the document need not be examined while considering the valuation fixed therein Ex.A9 will
have to taken into consideration.
Heard the counsels for the appellant as well as the respondents. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the fact that the earlier acquisition
of lands which was the subject matter of AS. Nos. 948, 949 and 978 of 1990 dated 02.02.2001 are from the same village and for the same
purpose they have been acquired. The 4(1) Notification was published in the earlier Division Bench''s case on 10.07.1985 and the document relied
upon by the claimants in the earlier case were also the same. The Hon''ble Division Bench has taken into consideration of document No. 2 and 6
and on that basis fixed the valuation. The Hon''ble High Court has declined to consider Ex.A9 on the ground that the vendor of the document has
not been examined. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court, that the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench has become final.
The Hon''ble Division Bench has made a deduction of 1/3rd of the valuation fixed towards the developmental charges. The further difference
between the earlier case and the present case is that the difference in the period of Notification. Therefore, the only question for consideration
before this Hon''ble Court is as to whether what is the amount that could be fixed over and above the amount fixed by the Hon''ble Court earlier.
It is well settled principle of law that the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble High Court in an earlier occasion can be taken into consideration for
fixing the value for subsequent Notification. Therefore this Court will have to proceed keeping the valuation fixed by the Hon''ble High Court earlier
in mind while fixing the valuation in the present cases. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ex.A9 was not looked into by the
Hon''ble High Court earlier only on the ground that the vendor has not been examined. Therefore according to the learned Counsel that a sum of
Rs. 3,500/- will have to be fixed per cent. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that Ex.A9 is dated 24.06.1985 and the
publication of 4(1) Notification having been made on 23.04.1986, an increase of 12% should be made on that basis from the valuation fixed under
Ex.A9.
In the judgment reported in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and Others, , it has been held by the Supreme Court that the non-
examination of the vendor or vendee of a sale deed is not required while considering the said sale deed for fixing the valuation. The said judgment
is also followed by the subsequent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme court reported in Pattammal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Another, . Therefore this Court is of the opinion that on a consideration of the relevant material Ex.A9 can be taken into consideration while fixing
the valuation.
It is also to be seen that it is not the case of the appellant that Ex.A9 land is far away from the acquired lands. While fixing the valuation, the
Court has to sit in the armchair of the willing seller and purchaser and decide the valuation. While fixing the valuation on the basis of comparable
sale transaction, the transaction fetching the maximum price and most advantageous to the claimants have to be taken into consideration. It has
been held by Hon''ble Division Bench in The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3 Vs. Rathinareddi, , that while fixing the
valuation, the value beneficial to the claimants should be taken into consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above said facts,
Ex.A9 will have to be taken into consideration. In fact in the judgment reported in State of Haryana Vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs and Another
Etc., , it has been held that the earlier judgment will be a relevant and important factor for fixing the valuation for subsequent acquisition of lands.
In so far as the development charges are concerned, the Court below has taken into consideration of the said charges and made deductions by
deducting 1/3rd of the valuation. However, in so far as the reliance made by the Reference Court in Ex.A2, Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 are concerned being
sale deeds containing smaller extent of land, the Reference Court has not made any deductions towards the same. Admittedly in the cases on hand,
the lands acquired are undeveloped agricultural lands. Therefore suitable deductions ought to have been made. In this connection, it is useful to
refer the judgment of the Division Bench in the judgment, The Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode v. Ramayiammal and Ors. reported in
2009 (1) CTC 467, where it has been held that there shall be a deduction of 20% while relying upon smaller extent of land. Therefore following
the same in the present case on hand a deduction of 20% will have to be made.
As contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents, Ex.A9 is of the year 1985, whereas the Notification u/s 4(1) has been published on
23.04.1986. Therefore, an enhanced amount should be fixed from Ex.A9, considering the future development and potentiality of the land. In these
cases, it is admitted by the RW1 about the huge potentiality of the lands and the developments made surrounding the lands acquired. The learned
Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Haryana Vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs and
Another Etc., wherein an enhancement of 12% p.a every has been made. However, the Hon''ble Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2009
(1) CTC 467 (The Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode v. Ramayiammal and Ors.), has observed that while following the judgment
reported in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, , has held that there shall
be an increase of 10% from the previous year in so far as the market value is concerned. In the cases on hand, Ex.A9 is dated 24.06.1985 and the
publication of the 4(1) Notification was on 23.04.1986. Therefore, taking into consideration of the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that an
enhancement of 10% can be made out of the valuation fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per year. Therefore, considering the above said facts, the valuation is
fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per cent and after taking into consideration of 1/3rd deduction towards the development charges as deducted by the Hon''ble
Division Bench earlier and deducting 20% for relying upon the sale deeds containing smaller extent of land and adding 10% towards increase in the
land value after Ex.A9 this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 2,053.07/- can be fixed and the same can be rounded of to Rs. 2,055/- per
cent. It is also made clear that the claimants are entitled to get the solatium, interest and other statutory benefits provided under the Act. Hence the
judgment and decree of the Reference Court is hereby modified by fixing the valuation at a sum of Rs. 2,055/- per cent with solatium, interest and
other statutory benefits. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the cross appeals are dismissed. The appellants are
given time to deposit the amount ordered by this Court before the Court below within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps are closed.