Madras High Court
R.Natesan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 February, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8476 of 2019
R.Natesan ..Appellant/Claimant
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti. ..Respondent / Referring Officer
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
against the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018, made in L.A.O.P.
No.45 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti.
For Appellant : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
For Respondent : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
Additional Government Pleader
----
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the trial Court, fixing the
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent for the lands acquired for
the purpose of construction of BSNL Staff quarters and buildings for the
Administrative Office of the Telegraphs Department in
Pandavarmangalam Village, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
2. Originally, the Land in question comprised in Survey
No.595/1A2 in Pandavarmangalam Village, was acquired by the Land
Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of constructing BSNL Staff quarters
and buildings for the Administrative Office of the Telegraphs
Department and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.450.78/-, per
cent. 4(1) notification was issued on 24.10.1985. It is to be noted that
total extent of 2 acres and 13 cents were acquired. As against which, the
matters were referred to the Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
The Tribunal has decided the same in L.A.O.P.No.45 of 1999 and finally,
awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per cent, as compensation. The above
findings were challenged before this Court in A.S.(MD)No.726 of 2003
along with C.R.P(MD) No.377 of 2004 and C.M.P(MD) No.2227 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
2004, and the same was disposed of on 24.11.2010 and the Division
Bench of this Court, remanding the matter to the Trial Court to consider
the Exs.C5 to C10. While remanding the matter, the Division Bench of
this Court, vide order, dated 24.11.2010, in paragraph No.9, has held that
though Exs.C.5 to C.10 have come into existence even after 4(1)
notification, it is not bar nor an embargo to rely upon Exs.C.5 to C.10
suitably. Accordingly, the matter has been remanded back to the Land
Acquisition Tribunal.
3. After such remand, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, once
again considered the entire materials and considered the additional
evidence pointed out by this Court, particularly, the Land Acquisition
Tribunal, took note of Ex.C.16 as model sale deed for Survey
No.596/2A, dated 08.04.1987 and enhanced the compensation at the rate
of Rs.3,000/- per cent. Not satisfied with the above enhancement, the
present appeal suit came to be filed by the claimant.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submitted that even in the year 1982 much prior to the 4(1)
notification, the respondent themselves offered a sum of Rs.3,000/- per
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
cent in a private negotiation. Therefore, fixing the same amount as
compensation for the lands, which were acquired after two years of such
Land Acquisition, is not according to law.
5. It is the further contention that the acquired land was
situated within the vicinity of the well developed area. The market value
of the property is more than the guideline value. Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.17
registered on the same day, though much after notification, the same
indicated the fact that the value of the lands were increasing day-by-day.
The same has not been taken note of by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the amount of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is to be enhanced to a
sum of Rs.4,400/- as per Ex.C.5, dated 17.07.1987. Hence, prayed for
allowing the appeal.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent would submit that Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.16 came into
existence only after 4(1) notification and the trial Court also considered
Ex.C.16 as a model sale deed. Hence, it is the contention of the learned
Additional Government Pleader that the compensation fixed by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
Tribunal is well-balanced and the order of the Tribunal does not require
any interference and hence, prays for dismissal of this Appeal Suit.
7. In the light of the above submissions, now, the following
points come up for consideration and they are as follows:
i) Whether the compensation fixed by the Land
Acquisition Tribunal is reasonable, based on the
evidence?
ii) Whether the compensation fixed by the Land
Acquisition Tribunal is liable to be enhanced ? and
iii) To what other reliefs, the appellant is entitled ?
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record carefully.
9.As narrated above, this appeal is a second round of
litigation. It is not in dispute that the entire area has been acquired for
the purpose of construction of BSNL Staff quarters and buildings for the
Administrative Office of the Telegraphs Department in
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
Pandavarmangalam Village. At the time of acquisition, the Land
Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation, at the rate of Rs.450.78/-
per cent. The same was opposed and the matters were referred to the
Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
Tribunal, in an earlier occasion, fixed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per cent, which was set aside by this Court and remanded the
matter to the Tribunal to consider all the documents, particularly,
Exs.C.5 to C.10 on the ground that there is no bar nor an embargo to
consider those documents.
10. Again the Tribunal, taking note of the above judgment
has considered Ex.C.16 model sale deed, which relates to Survey
No.596/2A and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent.
It is to be noted that Ex.C.16, dated 17.07.1987 similarly Ex.C.5-sale
deed on the same day in respect of the same survey number namely,
S.No.596/2A, measuring an extent of 5.65 cents has been sold for a sum
of Rs.32,799/-. Therefore, makes it clear that the concerned person had
sold it for more than Rs.5,000/-. It is also to noted that Ex.C.5 and
Ex.C.16 came into existence after 4(1) notification. Even de-horse
Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.16 when the other materials were perused, makes it
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
clear that in the year 1983, i.e. 20.08.1983 itself, beneficiary, the
respondent / BSNL has offered to purchase the land at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per cent in a private negotiation. Ex.C.2 filed in this regard,
which is also admitted by the other side. Therefore, when the market
value of the land was Rs.3,000/- in the year 1983, two years prior to the
notification, the land value would have certainly increased before the
date of notification. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by
the Tribunal.
11. In such view of the matter, this Court, taking note of the
common course of natural events and in relation to the facts and
circumstances of the case, hold that the value of the land would keep on
increasing everyday and every time, particularly, the land within the
vicinity of well-developed area. Therefore, even in the year 1983, as per
Ex.C.2, the BSNL authorities have found that the value of the land is
more than Rs.3000/- and offered the same at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. This
Court is of the view that the land value would have been increased by
manifold thereafter. Though Ex.C.5 is after the notification, the same is
evident only for the purpose to show that the land value has been
increased. It is not the case of the respondent that Ex.C.5 and other
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
documents are created only for the purpose of claiming compensation.
Though the market value set out in Ex.C.5 cannot be given much
importance, since it was registered after notification. The above
documents can be taken into consideration for the proof of increase of
value.
12. In view of the above, as already discussed, earlier, the
land value per cent was Rs.3,000/- and it would have fetched more than
Rs.3,000/- after three years. This Court is of the view that though there
is no direct evidence as to the market value by way of documentary
evidence, taking note of the value, agreed by the respondent in the year
1983, the value of the property would have increased to not less than a
sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Therefore, keeping view of the fact that
when the lands are acquired and the persons divested the title of the
properties, reasonable compensation should be given to the land owners.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent
would be the proper and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the
point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
13.Accordingly, this Court enhanced the compensation from
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per cent. Accordingly, the compensation fixed
by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,000/-per cent. In all other aspects,
the order of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
14.Accordingly, this Court has fixed the compensation at the
rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to
pay that amount with interest at the rate, as ordered by the Land
Acquisition Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, this appeal suit is partly allowed with the
above modification. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
RM
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Subordinate Court,
Kovilpatti.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2019
19.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
