Madras High Court
M/S.Oil And Natural Gas ... vs Ms.O.Shameen @ Umahanima on 22 September, 2021
A.S.No.342 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
A.S.No.342 of 2011
M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation,
Rep. by its Deputy General Manager,
Neravy Complex,
Karaikkal,
Pondicherry State. ...Appellant/Third Party
Vs
1. Ms.O.Shameen @ Umahanima
Rep. by Power Agent
Mr.M.S.Kadar Hassan ...Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant
2. The Union of India,
Rep. by Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue,
Pondicherry.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-
Deputy Collector (Revenue),
Karaikal.
...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/16
A.S.No.342 of 2011
PRAYER Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act to set aside the Award passed by the learned
District Judge, Karaikkal made in LAOP No.41 of 2000 dated
26.11.2010.
For appellant : Mr.Abdul Saleem
for M/s.Anand Abdul & Vinoth
For respondents : Ms.Amirtha Sarayoo
for M/s.TVJ Associates for R1.
R3 – Served – No appearance
JUDGMENT
The requisitioning body has filed the appeal before this
Court, challenging the award passed by the learned District Judge,
Karaikal in LAOP No.41 of 2000.
2.The facts in brief which have propelled the requisitioning
body to file this appeal are herein below narrated:-
The appellant herein had requested the Government to
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
acquire an extent of 4.86.63 hectares of land at Akkaratavattam
Revenue Village of Karaikal Taluk for the purpose of setting up a
Store Yard for the drilling and other operational groups at
Akkaravattam. Pursuant to this request, a Notification under
Section 4(1) was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.60,
dated 14.11.1997 of the Revenue Department, Pondicherry and the
same was published in the Official State Gazette on 16.12.1997.
An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was
scheduled on 24.02.1998, wherein all the land owners appeared and
gave their consent for this acquisition except one Rajeswary, wife
of Krishnasamy and Kader Hasan Maricar son of Mohamed Salih
Maricar. The appeal relates to the lands of Kader Hasan Maricar
who had objected to the said acquisition, as ONGC had proposed to
acquire only a portion of the Survey numbers. He had contended
that if a portion of the Lands are acquired he would not have any
access to the remaining unacquired portion and the same would be
of no use to him thereafter. He therefore sought to have a
acquisition proceedings dropped, in case ONGC is not ready to take
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
the entire extent of lands. However, overruling this objection, the
lands were acquired and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act was published in the Official State Gazette on
15.09.1998 and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed
his Award fixing Rs.2,245 /-per are together with 30% Solatium
and an additional Market value 12% Per annum from the last date
of the Section 4(1) notification till the date of passing of award i.e.,
on 31.12.1999.
3.Not satisfied with the amount awarded, the wife of the said
Kader Hasan Maricar requested that the matter be referred under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was
accordingly referred to Additional District Judge, Karaikal and
taken on file as LAOP.No.41 of 2000 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Karaikal. In the claim Statement, she
would submit that the lands that were acquired abutted the inner
main road and the remaining unacquired extent of 79 Acres 50 Ca
had no access to the main road as a result of which the agricultural
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
activities had come to stop. Further, the appellant herein had
blocked the inner distributing water channels. As a result her lands
had no value. She would further contend that even prior to the
acquisition, ONGC was a lessee under them and had been using the
lands as a Store Yard, the very same purpose for which the lands
were acquired. She would further contend that the land in
question if not acquired, was fit for being used as housing plots, as
no agricultural activities were being carried out in these lands. The
Claimant had set out the locational advantages of the lands that had
been acquired and had also stated how the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer was not commensurate to the Market
value of the land in question. She therefore sought for an
enhancement to the compensation to a sum of Rs.37,500/- per are In
support of her claim, she had submitted the Sale Deed of the
adjoining areas between the periods August '1997 to December
'1998.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer who was arrayed as the 2nd
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
respondent had filed a counter statement which was adopted by the
1st respondent. The claim statement was objected on the following
grounds:-
(1)The compensation arrived by the Land Acquisition Officer
was in tune with the market value of the land acquired and reflected
the real market value.
(2)The property acquired was neither immediately abutting
the main the road nor was it aligned to the road. Therefore the
market value arrived at, was a fair market value.
(3)The lands were not fit for conversion into the housing plots
and therefore, seeking compensation on the ground that the
property was suited for housing plots, is totally uncalled for.
(4)The documents filed by the respondents/claimants relates
to land which were in no way similar to the land acquired and
therefore should be discarded.
(5)The Land Acquisition Officer had used the method of just
assessment while arriving at a compensation amount.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
5.The learned District Judge on considering the pleadings on
either side, had framed a single point for consideration:-
“What is the just and reasonable compensation which could
be awarded to the claimants/respondents herein.”
On analysing the documents produced on the side of the
appellant and respondent, particularly, the Sale Deeds and the copy
of the Award, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that
the compensation has to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
are as against compensation of Rs.2,245/-. Challenging the said
Award, the appellant herein who is the third party and the
requisitioning authority has filed the above appeal.
6.Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant would primarily base his arguments on the contention
that the learned District Judge has without any basis/evidence
arrived at a market value of Rs.10,000/- which was totally
unsustainable. He would contend that a reading of the Award would
demonstrate the above. He would further argue that the property in
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
question is way beyond the main road and had no direct access to
the main road and further the appellant had to incur expenditure for
developing the said land. Considering these factors, the learned
District Judge has totally erred in awarding an enhanced
compensation. He would therefore seek to set aside the Award
passed by the learned District Judge, Pondicherry.
7.Per contra Ms.Amirtha Sarayoo, learned Counsel appearing
for the 1st respondent would submit that these lands were already in
the possession of the appellant for over two decades prior to the
acquisition proceedings and the claimants had been occupying the
same as a lessee and using it as a Store Yard. She would further
submit that the lands which are acquired is situated abutting the
Main road whereas the lands belonging to the 1st respondent which
were not acquired is on the rear of the lands acquired having no
access. Despite the objections made by the respondents/claimants,
the appellant had not acquired the entire lands. As a result 79 Acres
50Ca of land remain unutilized and has depreciated in value. She
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
would submit that the appellant did not require to develop the
acquired land, as the land has already been developed and given to
them on lease for the very same purpose for which the lands have
been acquired. She would further argue that in fact, the enhanced
amount of Rs.10,000/- itself was very low and did not reflect the
market value as on the date of the acquisition. She would submit
that the learned District Judge has followed the dicta laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 (4) SCC 789 [Viluben
Jhalejar contractor Vs. State of gujarat] while determining the
market value. As held by the Learned Judges, the lands in question
conforms to the principles set out under Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act for determining the market value.
8.The learned counsel would further argue that the learned
District Judge has also taken note of the potentiality of the land in
question and therefore, the Award passed cannot be called in
question though the value awarded is much below the actual value
of the land.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
9.The learned counsel had also relied on the following
judgements:-
(i)1996(11) SCC 159 [Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation Vs. Narottambhai
Morarbhai and Another]
(ii)2001(1) LW 1001 [Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs.
K.S.Gangadharappa & Another]
(iii)2011 (8) SCC 91 [Valliyammal &
another Vs. Special Tahsildar ( Land Acquisition)
& Another]
10.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on either side and
perused the papers.
11.The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,245 per are for the lands acquired . Admittedly, only a portion
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
of the land had been acquired and the remaining extent of land
which was to the rear of the land acquired is now cut off without
access to the road and has become worthless. While acquiring the
lands, the appellant had not considered providing an access to the
rear portion. No amounts have been given under the head of
“Severance Compensation” to the respondents/claimants for the
unacquired extent. Further, the argument of the appellant that the
learned District Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- without
any basis is perforce erroneous since a very reading of the Award
clearly indicates the application of mind of the learned District
Judge to all the documents filed before her before arriving at the
market value. The learned Judge has analysed each of the values set
out in the Sales Statistics marked as Exhibit R3 to arrive at the
compensation.
12.Admittedly the lands to the rear of the lands acquired has
been rendered unworthy as the access to the Main Road has been
totally cut off. The lands that have been acquired has been in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
possession of the appellant as the 1st respondent's lessee and they
have been using the lands as a Store Yard which is the purpose for
which it is now acquired. Therefore the appellant does not have to
infuse any funds for its development as it is already put to the very
same use as for which it is acquired.
13.In the judgement reported in 2011 (8) SCC
91[Valliyammal & another Vs. Special Tahsildar ( Land
Acquisition) & Another], the Learned Judges had considered the
ratio for deducting amounts towards development charge after
referring to the earlier judgement reported in 2010 (12) SCC 707
[A.P.Housing Board Vs. K.Manohar Reddy] held as follows:-
“The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will
be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But
where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed
(say for example, having good road access or having the amenity
of electricity, water etc.) then the development cost (that is,
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the
extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of
acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or
purpose acquisition play role in determining the percentage of
deduction towards development cost”
14.In the instant case no development charges need to be
deducted as the lands that have been acquired are already being
used for the very same purpose for which it is being acquired.
Therefore the fact that no development charges have been deducted
is immaterial and has rightly not been granted. Further, in the
instant case no amounts towards “Severance Compensation” has
been awarded despite the respondent proving that the unacquired
lands has become worthless by reason of the acquisition of the
lands subject matter of this appeal.
15.I do not therefore find any reason to disagree with the
finding and judgement of the Court below.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
In fine, the appeal is dismissed however there shall be no
Order as to costs.
22.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
gd/mps
To
1.The District Judge,
Karaikal.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
Department of Revenue,
Pondicherry.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-
Deputy Collector (Revenue),
Karaikal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.342 of 2011
P.T.ASHA, J,
gd/mps
A.S.No.342 of 2011
22.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
