Madras High Court
Mohameed Ali Jinna vs The Special ... on 8 February, 2021
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
Mohameed Ali Jinna Petitioner
Vs.
The Special Tahsildar-Adi-Dravidar
Welfare Cum Land Acquisition Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate
Judge, Ambasamudram dated 21.12.2001 in C.M.A.No.5 of 1997 and to
fix compensation for the lands of the petitioner acquired at Rs.4000/- per
cent with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the land
looser, due to the acquisition proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1978,
for provision of house sites to the landless Adidravidars.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was published on 10.07.1996 and 15.11.1996. Notification
issued on 10.07.1996 covered an extent of about 70 ares equivalent to
172 cents belonging to the petitioner herein. The second Notification
dated 15.11.1996 covered an extent of 0.48.5 hectare, equivalent to 120
cents. The land acquisition Officer, by two awards dated 27.11.1996 and
31.03.1997 awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said
fixation, the petitioner preferrerd an appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 1997, on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.
3.Before the learned Subordinate Judge, various documents
have been produced to show the value of the property. The learned
Subordinate Judge has relied upon Ex.A.2 dated 22.11.1996, under
which, an extent of about 1752 Sq.ft of land was sold for Rs.57,000/- and
arrived at the value of Rs.1,425/- per cent. The learned Subordinate
Judge adopted a deduction of 65% towards development charges and
fixed a value of the land Rs.499/- per cent. The statutory solatium and
interest were also granted. It is this fixation, which is challenged by the
land owner. The primary challenge is to the quantum of deduction
applied by the learned Subordinate Judge.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court
have almost with reasonable certainty indicated that deduction can be at
best 1/3rd or little more than that. It cannot be 65% of the land value. He
would also point out that the land in question is already a developed land
and it is separated from the area covered under the master plan only by
the railway line. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, deduction at 65% towards development charges is left on the
higher side and the same has to be reduced. The other ground of
challenge is arithmetical. The two awards were subject matter of
challenge in the CMA. Since grounds of appeal did not include the
details of both awards, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.47 of 2001,
seeking to amend the grounds of appeal by including the details of other
award also. The said application came to be allowed on 03.09.2001.
However, certain clerical errors crept in, while the amendment was
carried out, whereby instead of adding details of the second award, the
details of the second award were substituted, thereby giving an
impression that only one award is under challenge. The learend
Subordinate Judge has granted an enhancement only in respect of one
award dated 20.03.1997. The land covered by the first award dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
27.11.1996 was omitted to be included, though in the preamble of the
order in CMA No.5 of 1997, the learned Subordinate Judge has indicated
that both the awards are under challenge.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent would concede the mistake that had occurred on the second
question, namely, the extent of land and the challenge to the awards. He
would submit that both the awards were under challenge and the Court
must have awarded compensation for the entire extent of land covered by
both the awards. He would justify the deduction at 65%, contending that
the sale deed, which was taken as a guideline for fixing the value of the
land acquired is in respect of very smaller extent of about 1752 sq.ft,
whereas, the land acquired measures about 2 acres 91 cents. Therefore,
according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the Appellate
Court was justified in deducting 65% towards development charges,
challenging the largerness of the area.
6.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
on either side.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
7.The quantum of deduction has been subject matter of the
debate in a long line of decisions of this Court and the Honourable
Supreme Court. The quantum of deduction must depend necessarily on
the purpose of acquisition as well as the nature of the land acquired. If
the nature of land is such that, it does not require wholesome
development, percentage of deduction can be lesser. The largerness and
the smallerness area would also be a determining factor. The extent of
land acquired in the present case is 2 acres 91 cents. It is not in dispute
that the acquired land and the land in survey No.57/2 covered by the
Ex.A2 Sale Deed were proximate to each other and are similarly placed.
It is also seen from the evidence that the land acquired was separated
from the master plan area, only by railway line.
8.Considering these factors, I am of the considered opinion
that the deduction of 65% is on the higher side. At the same time,
applying the standard deduction at 30% would also not meet the ends of
justice in the case of appeal, considering the extent of land covered by
Ex.A2 Sale Deed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
9. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances, I
am of the opinon that a deduction of 40% towards development charges
would meet the ends of justice. Of Course, this involves the element of
guess work, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that guess work is
permissible in fixing the value of the land acquired.
10.Therefore, the value of the land acquired is determined at
Rs.855/- per sq.ft, after deducting 40% from Rs.1,425/- per cent. The
extent of land acquired is not in dispute. The extent of land acquired in
both the cases is 2 acres 91 cents. Therefore, the petitioner would be
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,48,805/- as a compensation for the value of the
land acquired, along with solatium at 15% and interest at 6% from the
date of taking possession, till the date of payment. The amount already
paid under the award is liable to the deducted from the value of the land
fixed.
11. The Civil Revision Petitioon is allowed to the extent
indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
vrn 08.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
To
1.The Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
vrn
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2663 of 2010(NPD)
08.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
