AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 11.04.2002 passed in L.A.C.M.A. No. 17 of
1998, on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.
Heard both sides.
This civil revision petition is focussed as against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in fixing the quantum of land value in respect of the
land acquired in Survey No. 370/2, Rameswaram Village, Rameswaram Taluk.
The facts in nutshell would run thus:
The Government took steps under the Land Acquisition Act and acquired an extent of 3 acres 89 cents in Survey No. 370/2, Rameshwaram
Village. It is an agricultural land adjacent to the Rameshwaram-Madurai Highway Road. After complying with the formalities the land acquisition
officer fixed the quantum at Rs. 100/- per cent, whereas on the matter on being referred to the Sub Court, the value per cent was fixed at Rs.
3,000/-.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with it, the Government preferred the revision on the main ground that the enhancement awarded by the
Court is exorbitantly higher and disproportionate to the actual land value available in the vicinity.
The point for determination is as to what should be the value to be fixed for the land acquired?
The learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2001 (3) C.T.C. 69 The Special Tahsildar
(L.A.) Adi Dravidar Welfare v. S.M. Seigu Jalaiudeen would develop his arguments to the effect that for the land acquired only 20% deduction
towards development charges was effected from the market value. In that case also, he would submit, a larger extent of agricultural land was
acquired, for which sample sale deed relating to smaller extent was taken as the basic factor for assessment. Whereas the learned Special
Government Pleader placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006(2) C.T.C. 733 The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition) v. Valliammal would submit that 1/3 amount should have been deducted from the market value towards development charges
as the land acquired is an agricultural land. He would also submit that the Sub Court was wrong in relying on the sale deed relating to the smaller
extent as a basic factor for assessing the market value.
The perusal of the Judgment cited by either side would clearly demonstrate that there should be deduction towards development charges when
the acquired land is not a developed land. The core question arises as to what should be the quantum of deduction relating to the agricultural land.
If the agricultural land is a stripe of land abetting the main road then the question of development charge would not arise at all for the reason that
the person who may have the house building there would have ingress and egress by using the available road which is adjacent to the land, but on
the other hand in case of vast extent of land, there is bound to be lot of house sites in the interior portion of it and necessarily there should be
roads. An excerpt from the decision of the said Division Bench cited supra would run thus:
The Apex Court in the judgment Karan Singh v. Union of India 1998 (1) MLJ 35 SC has held that ""it is only the previous judgment of a Court
or an award which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to the party relying on such judgment, to
adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts, it could from the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired
land"". In this case, admittedly the order dated 12.12.1997 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 1995 has not been produced before the Court
and no evidence has been adduced and therefore the Reference Court erred in relying on the same. The Apex Court in the decision Padma Uppal
and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , has held that ""it is the settled proposition that price fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied
to the lands covering a very large extent and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold"".
In the case Gulzara Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , the Apex Court has upheld the deduction of 1/3rd land towards the
developmental charges. In K. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), , the Apex Court reiterated that when genuine and reliable
sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine the market value, the same will not form the sole basis to determine the market value of
large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value for large tracts of land. In Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. V.T. Velu and Others, , the Apex Court has held that at least 1/3rd of the land acquired is to be set apart for
road purpose, developmental purpose and other civil amenities. In U.P. Avas Evam vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. 1998 (2) SCC 467,
the Apex Court upheld the deduction of 1/3rd price towards the cost of development for the housing scheme. It has been held in Ravinder Narain
and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), :
It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For
example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparision of the price paid for
small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.
In the same judgment, it has been laid down that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and
paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. The compensation must
be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering
the market value, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike to be dis-regarded
neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this
does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular
purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to
be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of
publication of the notification u/s 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in
determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall
not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector u/s 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and
without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be
some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a
minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:
(i) The sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification u/s 4(1).
(ii) It should be a bona fide transaction.
(iii) It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(iv) It should possess similar advantages.
It is only when these facts are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case.
The learned counsel for the land owner/claimant would submit that even if 1/3rd has to be deducted as per the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court, the core question arises as to why the Sub Court after taking Ex. C-1 the sale deed dated 05.03.1997 relating to 5 cents of land worth
Rs. 7,500/- as the basis, should get the value slashed down to an extent of Rs. 3,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimants himself would
narrate that the Court after initially slashing down the value from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 3,750/- per cent, further towards development charges,
deducted 20% and arrived at the sum of Rs. 3,000/- per cent. He would also submit that there was no rhyme or reason in reducing the value per
cent from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 3,750/-.
Whereas the learned Special Government Pleader would submit convincingly that the said sale deed emerged relating to smaller extent of land
and in such a case it is better not to take it as a conclusive factor for assessing the value of the land.
It is just and necessary to analyse Ex. C-1 dated 05.03.1997 relating to 5 cents of land. The 4(1) notification was issued on 09.02.1998,
whereas Ex.C1 emerged on 09.03.1997 almost 11 months anterior to it. Hence there is no doubt that it could be taken as a sample for assessing
the value of the acquired land, but the core question is whether the sale deed relating to ercents of land could be taken as the basis for assessing
the larger extent of land acquired. In the map available the land covered under Ex. C1 situates near the national Highway and accordingly that
smaller extent of land has been assessed at that value. The Court therefore constrained to take only half its value to assess the value of the larger
extent of land acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer took sample sale deeds of lands abetting the sea-shore and they have been rightly rejected
by the lower Court. From the map it is clear that Ex .C-1 land is situated adjacent to the acquired land. Part of the acquired land is also adjacent
to the National Highway. In such a case I am of the considered view that when the Government is entitled to deduct 1/3 towards development
charges as per the view expressed supra, the value of the should not be slashed down to half but it should be slightly higher so as to say, it could be
Rs. 4,000/- from that of Rs. 3,750/-. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the entire land has to be valued at the rate of Rs. 4,000/-
per cent and from that 1/3rd has to be deducted towards development charges and accordingly it has to be worked out.
The learned Government Advocate would submit that that the Sub Court wrongly granted 30% solatium but it should be slashed down to 15%
and the interest should be 6% p.a. instead of 9% and 15% p.a. Hence, to that much extent modifications are ordered.
Accordingly, the award amount is modified as under:
(i) Value of 3 acre 89 cents at the
rate of Rs. 2,667/- per cent .. Rs. 10,37,463.00
(ii) 15% Solatium .. Rs. 1,55,619.00
-----------------
Total ..Rs. 11,93,082.00
-----------------
In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the award of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is reduced from Rs. 15,17,100/-(Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs Seventeen Thousand and one hundred only) to Rs. 11,93,082/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety three Thousand and eighty two only).
The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% and 12% p.a. is reduced to 6% p.a. In other aspects the award shall hold good. Consequently,
connected C.M.P. No. 11449 of 2003 is closed. No costs.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 18307 of 2003 is closed. No costs.