AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bellie, J.—These appeals are by the land owners/claimants in Land Acquisition matters. They are respectively against the orders passed in
L.A.O.P. Nos. 11 of 1984, 43 of 1984, 29 of 1985, 14 of 1984, 13 of 1984 and 31 of 1985, by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, upon
reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''. Excepting the extents of the lands acquired, alt other
factors are similar in the six Land Acquisition Original Petitions. The lands in all these Land Acquisition Original Petitions are in Koyambedu Village
and they have been acquired under one award of the Land Acquisition Officer. L.A.O.P. No. 11 of 1984 relates to 5 cents in S. No. 170/2 and
28 cents in S. No. 170/3; L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1984 relates to 2.39 acres in S. No. 71/1A; L.A.O.P. No. 14 of 1984 relates to 2.42 acres in S.
No. 164/3, 2.34 acres in S. No. 177/1, 1.22 acres in S. No. 177/3 and 3.50 acres in S. No. 181/1; L.A.O.P. No. 43 of 1984 relates to 1.28
acres in S. No. 195 and 1.29 acres in S. No. 183/4 relates to L.A.O.P. No. 29 of 1984. L.A.O.P. No. 31 of 1985 relates to 26 cents in S. No.
180/2, 8 cents in S. No. 181/3, 1.79 acres in S. No. 178, 1.31 acres in S. No. 179, 5.67 acres in S. No. 180/1, 86 cents in S. No. 180/3, 22
cents in S. No. 181/2 and 60 cents in S. No. 181/4. All lands are classified as dry lands. It appears they are clay bearing lands and there has been
excavation of clay for brick manufacturing in vast portions some of the lands and in respect of those lands the Land Acquisition Officer had to
consider the reclamation expenses. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 99/- per cent and he also fixed the
reclamation charges in respect of those lands that require reclamation and he deducted the reclamation charges from the value of the land, and thus
arriving at the market value of the land, he passed the award. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the said award of the Land Acquisition
Officer, the matter was referred to the Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the claimants, the lands are situate abutting the
Madras City and they are on the side of the Madras Poonnamallee High Road. The lands are clay bearing and with the clay mud high class bricks
can be manufactured and brick manufacturing is highly lucrative. Besides, the lands are in the midst of highly developed residential area, and they
are potential house-sites. There are well developed housing colonies at two sides of the lands and there are industries nearby and as such the lands
should have been valued as house-sites. According to the claimants, the value of the lands could have been filed at Rs. 2 lakhs per acre if the lands
are considered as clay bearing lands and Rs. 10,000/- per ground if they are considered as house-sites.
The Reference Court on consideration of the evidence adduced before it fixed the value of the land at Rs. 500/- per cent as on the date of
Section 4(1) notification, namely, 1-10-1975. Then it accepted the charges arrived at for the reclamation of the excavated lands, by R.W.2 -
Assistant Engineer, Highways and R.W.3 - Surveyor in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and deducted those charges in respect of those lands.
In respect of the lands where reclamation charges is higher than the market value or the land fixed at Rs. 500/- (sic) per cent the Reference Court
has awarded Re. 1/- as notional market value. On this basis the Reference Court fixed the market value for the different lands in the six Land
Acquisition Original Petitions. The trial Court has ordered payment of solatium, interest and other amounts to which the claimants are entitled as
per the law. Still aggrieved, the claimants have come up with these appeals.
In the Reference Court the claimants have filed a number of sale deeds and other documents regarding the market value of the lands. These
documents were not accepted by that Court on one ground or other. Ex. B.20 is the Xerox copy of a common case, dated 21-9-1984 passed in
L.A.O.P. Nos. 55/83, 56/83 and 60 to 62 of 1983 and 84 of 1983. The lands acquired in those Land Acquisition Original Petitions are also in
Koyambedu village, and the Section 4(1) notification in respect of those lands are also of the same date, i.e., 1-10-1975, as that of the lands we
are now concerned. The Court fixed the market value of the lands acquired in those Land Acquisition Original Petitions at Rs. 500/- per cent.
Mainly relying on this documents Ex. B 20, the Reference Court in the present matters also fixed the market value of lands at Rs. 500/-. It is now
contended by the appellants/claimants that the Reference Court has not given satisfactory reasons for rejecting the evidence let in by the claimants
and none of the claimants were parties in Ex. B.20 proceedings and therefore, the Reference Court is wrong in fixing the market value in the
present proceedings on the basis of the market value fixed in Ex. B 20 proceedings. Particularly it is submitted that Ex. A 21 is an award order for
the purpose of Urban Land Tax in respect of Senjari II-Bit, which is in the midst of the acquired lands and this order shows that the market value
had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per ground as on 1-7-1971. According to the Reference Court it could not rely on this document for the
reason that the land in that document was within Senjeri, whereas the land acquired in the present matter is in Koyambedu village. But according to
the claimants this land is in the midst of the present acquired land and this contention of the claimants is not disputed. What is relevant is the vicinity
of the land and not the name of the village where it is situated. If the land in Ex. A 21 is in the midst of the land acquired, certainly the market value
of that land is very relevant for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. Besides Ex. A 21, the claimants have filed a number of
sale deeds, Ex. A 7 to A 20 which relate to the lands around the acquired lands. These sale deeds were rejected by the court below for the reason
that the lands sold under these documents are lay-out sites of less than one ground and therefore, the pus chasers would have paid more
considerations that the actual market rate. This reasoning of the learned Judge is not acceptable. There is no meaning in saying that if the lands are
house-sites the purchaser should have paid more money than the actual market rate. Under Ex. A7 dated 19-6-1971, 81 cents has been sold at
the rate of Rs. 909/- per cent; under Ex. A.8 dated 22-9-1971, 25 cents and 3 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 907-50 per cent; under Ex.
A 9 dated 21-3-1972, 17.70 acres has been sold at the rate of Rs. 907-50 per cent under Ex. A 10 dated 26-8-1972 one ground has been sold
for Rs. 727/- per cent; under Ex. A 11 dated 25-11-1972, 2205 sq.ft. has been sold for Rs. 909/- per cent; under Ex. A 12 dated 26-8-1972,
6.33 acres has been sold for Rs. 907-50 per cent; under Ex. A 13 dated 5-2-1973, 18 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 454/- per cent;
under Ex. A 14 dated 24-4-1973 two grounds has been sold at the rate of Rs. 490/- per cent; under Ex. A 15 dated 7-1-1974, one ground has
been sold at the rate of Rs. 490/- per cent; under Ex. A 16 dated 27-1-1975, one ground and 750 sq.ft. has been sold at the rate of Rs. 416/- per
cent; under Ex. A 17 dated 7-7-1975 86 5/8 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 545/- per cent; under Ex. A 18dated 14-7-1975, two grounds
has been sold at the rate of Rs. 371/- per cent; under Ex. A 19 dated 14-7-1975, 17 1/2 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 547/- per cent;
and under Ex. A.20 dated 29-9-1975, 585 sq.ft. has been sold at the rate of Rs. 1209/- per cent. A study of the prices paid under the above
documents, shows that the land value fixed at Rs. 500/- per cent by the Reference Court is low as contended by the claimants. It is a well
established proposition of law that when there are several sale deeds relating to neighboring fields the claimants will be entitled to the compensation
equivalent to the highest price fetched by any of those lands in the absence of any justifiable reasons to the contrary. It has been so held in a
Division Bench decision in State of Madras v. Seetharamammal (1972 1 M.L.J. 58). It quite appears that it will be safe to accept the price paid
under Ex. A 21 assessment order. When the Government itself fixed the price for the purpose of Urban Land Tax why should it not be the same
price for the lands acquired. (See M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. State of Madras, . As seen above under Ex. A 21, the market value of one
ground (equivalent to about 5 cents) has been fixed at Rs. 4000/-. At this rate it means the market value of one cent will be Rs. 800/-. But
whereas the said market value was fixed on 1-7-1971 Section 4(1) Notification is dated 1-10-1975. Considering the fact that the value of the land
is on the increase, the value of one cent of land on the date of 4(1) Notification can be fixed at Rs. 850/-. But the same value cannot be fixed in the
case of large areas acquired. Though the acquired lands had been classified as dry lands, there is evidence to show that those lands have been
surrounded by housing colonies and industrial establishments and certainly, these lands have potential value of being used as house-sites.
Considering these, in our opinion while calculating the market value on the basis of Rs. 850/- per cent arrived at, in respect of the large areas,
taking into account that to plot the lands as house-sites considerable extent of land has to be set apart for roads and other amenities, 25 of the
value can be deducted. On these basis, for 2.35 acres in S.No-171/1A in L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1984 (A.S. No. 594 of 1987); for 2.42 acres in S.
No. 164/3, for 2.34 acres in S. No. 177/1, for 1.22 acres in S. No. 177/3 and 3.50 acres in S. No. 181/1 in L.A.O.P. No. 14 of 1984 (A.S.
No. 388 of 1987); for 1.28 acres in S. No. 194 in L.A.O.P. No. 43 of 1984 (A.S. No. 1180 of (sic) 986); for 1.25 acres in S. No. 183/4 in
A.O.P. No. 29 of 1985 (A.S. No. 378 of 1987); for 1.70 acres in S. No. 178 in L.A.O.P. No. 31 of 1985 (A.S. No. 1855 of 1987), for 1.31
acres in S. No. 179 for 5.67 acres in S. No. 180/1; for 86 cents in S. No. 180/3 and for 60 cents in S. No. 186/4 in L.A.O.P. No. 3 1 of 1985
(A.S. No. 1055 of 1987), we fix the market value of the land at Rs. 850/- Rs. 212-50 = Rs. 837-50 rounded off to Rs. 640/- per cent. In respect
of all other lands we fix the market value at Rs. 850/- per cent.
It was next argued on behalf of the appellants-claimants that the excavated land can be easily reclaimed, and the charges fixed by the Reference
Court for reclamation is exorbitant and excessive. In this regard, the Court below has relied on Exs. B 5 to B 15, B 18 and B 19 estimates of
reclamation charges prepared by R.W.2-the Assistant Engineer, Highways and R.W.3-Surveyor in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. We do not
think that anything has been elicited during the examination of these witnesses that would discredit the said estimates given by, them. It is pointed
out that every one of the original figures in Exs. B 5 to B 15 has been corrected and therefore they cannot be relied on. But it is explained by the
said witnesses that these corrections were carried out on their superiors pointing out mistakes committed by them and they (witnesses) also say
that the said corrections were rightly done and they accept them as correct. Further on a careful scrutiny, we find that the so called corrections are
very small and insignificant and by the said corrections the claimants are not in any way affected. Therefore, we find no reason whatsoever to
discredit the evidence of R.Ws. 2 and 3 and reject their estimates Exs.B5 to B15, B18 and B19 as regards the reclamation charges. The trial court
has rightly pointed out that the claimants have not produced any evidence as against the above evidence let in by the Land Acquisition Officer in
respect of the reclamation charges. Therefore, we find absolutely no reason whatsoever to disagree with the finding of the trial court as regards the
reclamation charges. The court below has also stated as to how reclamation charges has to be deducted on the price fixed and we are not inclined
to disagree with that. Accordingly, the said reclamation charges will be deducted from the market value of the land fixed above. It appears that
even on the basis of the price fixed by us in respect of the land in S. No. 180/1 the reclamation charges will be more than the value of the land.
Therefore in respect of that land the notional value fixed by the Reference Court will stand. In the above terms the appeals are disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs. On behalf of the claimants it is submitted that as per the Proviso to Section 28 the claimants will be entitled to interest
at 15% per annum if the excess amount is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession. The lower court has granted interest at the
rate of 9% per annum but declined to grant interest as per the proviso to Section 28. We order that the claimant will be entitled to interest as per
the said proviso the Section 28 also.