Madras High Court
A.Manjini vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2023
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
A.Manjini ... Appellant
in A.S.No.597 of 2016
A.Chandirasegaran (died)
2.Ramadevi
3.Premi
4.Praveen Kumar
5.Kaliyammal ... Appellants
in A.S.No.598 of 2016
[A2 to A5 are brought on record as LRs of
deceased 1st appellant, viz., A.Chandirasegaran,
vide order of Court dated 17.11.2022 made in
C.M.P.No.19427, 19537 & 19538 of 2022 in
A.S.No.598 of 2016]
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government (Revenue),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
2.The Deputy Collector (Rev.) South-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer,
Puducherry. ... Respondents
in both appeals
Prayer : Appeal Suits in A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016 filed under Section
54 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure
against the award dated 28.04.2015 in L.A.O.P.Nos.130 and 131 of 2007
respectively on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry.
For Appellants : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
Senior Counsel
in both appeals
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman
Government Advocate
(Puducherry)
in both appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)
These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the
Reference Court dated 28.04.2015 in LAOP.Nos.130 and 131 of 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
2.The appellants are the claimants. The Government of Puducherry
acquired large extent of lands namely 23.13.00 Hectares for the purpose of
raising India Reserve Battalion invoking urgency clause under section 17 of
Land Acquisition Act as an extent of 1.60.50 Hectares of land in
Pillaiyarkuppam Village belonged to each of the respective appellants is also
acquired for the said purpose. It is admitted that the Notification issued
under section 4[1] is dated 22.03.2005. Relying upon a Sale Deed dated
09.06.2004 certified copy of which is marked as Ex.R4 before the Reference
Court, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land. Even
while fixing the market value on the basis of Ex.R4, the Land Acquisition
Officer allowed deduction of 20% towards cost of development. Aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer,
a reference was sought for by the claimants under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act and thereafter, matter was referred to the Reference Court,
namely, the Principal District Court, Puducherry, and the learned Judge has
entertained the references in LAOP.Nos.130 & 131/2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
3.The Reference Court found that the Award passed on the basis of
the document Ex.R4 is justified. Though the claimants, namely the
appellants herein have marked Ex.P1 – certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
16.05.2003, the Reference Court discarded the said document on the ground
that the subject property of the Sale Deed is far away from the land which
are acquired from the appellants. Since it is admitted by the appellants that
lands which are conveyed under Ex.P1 is situated 50 meters away from the
acquired land, the Reference Court held that the claimants/appellants cannot
rely upon the sale exempler. Further, taking into account, the sales statistics
showing particulars of the sale transaction one year prior to the notification
issued under section 4[1], came to the conclusion that the market value fixed
by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper. The Reference Court has gone to
the extent of concluding that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is Rs.100/- more than guideline value per Are and therefore, the
conclusion of the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the compensation at the
rate of Rs.3,000/- per Are is just and proper. Aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of Reference Court confirming Award of Land Acquisition Officer
fixing market value at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per Are, the above appeals are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
preferred by the appellants.
4.It is not in dispute that the appellants are the land owners of the
lands each measuring about 1.60.50 Hectares which are acquired for the
Indian Reserve Battalion Force. In the course of evidence, it is highlighted
that the lands acquired from the holdings of the appellants are located just
abutting the main road known as Kirumampakkam-Narambai Main Road. It
is admitted that the property acquired from the appellants are in R.S.No.177
in Pillaiyarkuppam Revenue Village. It is admitted that the document Ex.P1
is dated 16.05.2003 and it is the sale deed which is 1 year 8 months prior to
the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The
property sold under Ex.P1 is in R.S.No.130. Even according to the
respondents, the acquired lands are just 50 metres away, as it is observed by
the Reference Court.
5.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that
the sale deed dated 05.04.2004 which is also found in one of the sale
exemplars in Ex.R3 shows value of the land dealt with under the document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
at Rs.181.76 per sq.ft. Since the said document dated 05.04.2004 is also
one year prior to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Reference
Court cannot ignore the document Ex.P1. Learned Senior Counsel then
relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.1, who would say that the lands belongs
to the appellants are located just abutting the Kirumampakkam-Narambai
Main Road and that the sale deed Ex.P1 refers to the land which is away
from the Main Road. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that
market value for the acquired land cannot be less than the value reflected
under Ex.P1. Since the document Ex.P1 is dated 16.05.2003, which is 1
year 8 months prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there
should be allowance for rise in price, as it has been repeatedly held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court permitting 10% to 12% per annum towards rise in
price. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, atleast 30% of value should
be added to the value reflected in the document Ex.P1 sale deed dated
16.05.2003 due to the location of land and the fact that the Sale Deed is 1
year 8 months prior to Notification under section 4[1] of Land Acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
Act.
6.This Court heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent State.
7.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents relied
upon topographical sketch of Pillaiyarkuppam Revenue Village marked as
Ex.R2.
8.The sale particulars for the period from 23.03.2004 to 22.03.2005
marked as Ex.R3 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market
value, as the sale particulars show the market value from Rs.3/- per sq.ft to
Rs.181/- per sq.ft. The law settled and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in several judgments to the effect that the sale exempler representing
the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances for discarding the document. In Sri Rani
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
Madras reported in 1969 [1] MLJ 45 [SC], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
stated the principle in the following lines:-
''.....where sale deeds pertaining to different
transactions are relied on behalf of the Government,
that representing the highest value should be
preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course...''
[emphasis supplied]
8a.Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur's case [cited supra], reported in
1969 [1] MLJ 45 [SC], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust, Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in
AIR 2012 SC 2721 : 2012 [5] SCC 432, has held as follows:-
''17. It is clear that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the
general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is
satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be
considered and accepted. When the land is being
compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled
to the highest value which similar land in the locality
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
is
shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction
entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing
seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our
view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds
pertaining to different transactions are relied on
behalf of the Government, the transaction representing
the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless
there are strong circumstances justifying a different
course. It is not desirable to take an average of
various sale deeds placed before the authority/court
for fixing fair compensation.''
8b.The above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur's case [cited supra] was also
followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chindha Fakira Patil
(dead) through LRs v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,
reported in 2011 (12) SCALE 321.
8c.The judgments in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust [cited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
supra] and Chindha Fakira Patil [cited supra] were quoted with approval
and followed by a Three Member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case ofHimmat Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another reported in 2013 (16) SCC 392.
8d.Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur's case [cited supra] reported in
1969 [1] MLJ 45 [SC], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs.
Hans Raj reported in 1994 [5] SCC 734, has held as follows:-
''4.Having given our anxious consideration to
the respective contentions, we are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
committed a grave error in working out average price
paid under the sale transactions to determine the
market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the
method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of
different lands of different kinds at different times, for
fixing the market value of the acquired land, if
followed, could bring about a figure of price which
may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched
by sale of acquired land. One should not have,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled
that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in
respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence
the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point
of acquisition of the lands situated in the
neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing
similar value or utility taken place between a willing
vendee and the willing vendor which could be
expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between
reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal
market conditions are the real basis to determine the
market value.”
8e.The judgments in M.Vijayalakshmamma's case [cited supra]
reported in 1969 [1] MLJ 45 [SC] and Hans Raj's case [cited supra]
reported in 1994 [5] SCC 734 were followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
again in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Another
reported in 2010 [13] SCC 710 and held that the averaging of prices and
different sale exemplers were not justified and that the Sale Deed reflecting
higher price should be preferred to determine the market value on
comparable sale method.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
9.From the overall evidence, this Court is unable to discard the
document Ex.P1, dated 16.05.2003, indicating the market value at Rs.70/-
per sq.ft. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 that the acquired lands are
abutting Kirumampakkam-Narambai Main Road and having regard to the
fact that the sale deed under Ex.P1 is dated 16.05.2003, which is 1 year 8
months prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, this Court is inclined to add 20% in addition to the market value shown
in Ex.P1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the market value for the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.84/- per sq.ft.
10.Though one of the documents shown in the sales statistics
indicates a higher value of more than Rs.180 per sq.ft., this Court is unable
to fix the market value on that basis, as there is no direct evidence to indicate
that the acquired lands had the same potential. Though the Reference Court
discarded the document under Ex.P1 and preferred to follow the market
value as per Ex.R4, this Court finds that the Reference Court has failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
consider the settled law as well the facts as seen from the various
documents. The learned Judge discarded Ex.P1 only on the ground that the
land that was conveyed under Ex.P1 is situated 50 metres away from the
acquired lands. That cannot be a proper reason to discard a document
especially when the evidence reveal that the lands of claimants are located
just abutting main road. Whereas the lands conveyed under Ex.P1 is in a
survey field behind the neighbouring survey field.
11.We have also considered the document which is referred to as
topographical sketch and marked as Ex.R2. S.No.130, which is the subject
matter of Ex.P1, is just one survey field away from the acquired lands. It
may be true that the land which is the subject matter of Ex.R4 is also very
near the acquired lands, however, in view of the fact that the value shown in
Ex.R4 is too low, this Court is unable to accept the document having regard
to the position of law reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several
precedents above referred to.
12.The Land Acquisition Officer has deducted 20% towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
development charges, whereas, this Court is unable to find any justification
for such deduction. It is admitted that the acquisition is for creation of
Indian Reserve Battalion Force in Puducherry. It is also the case of the
appellants that the lands are located in higher level and therefore, it was
chosen for the public purpose. Since the entire land is going to be used for
the purpose and the acauired land is abutting the main road, there need not
be any deduction towards development. It is to be noted that the lands were
acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, in 2005 by invoking urgency clause. Though it is admitted
that possession was taken, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is less than Rs.3/- per sq.ft. which is far below the market value
which is now fixed by this Court having regard to the evidence available on
record. In view of the fact that there is considerable delay in determining the
market value, serious prejudice had already been caused to the appellants.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow any deduction and this Court
fixes the market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.84/- per sq.ft.
13.As a result, the above appeals are allowed and the judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
decree of the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.130 and 131 of 2007 are set
aside and the appellants are entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs.84/-
per sq.ft. The appellants are entitled to all statutory benefits including
solatium @ 30% and additional compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) of
the Land Acquisition Act, apart from the interest at the rate of 9% p.a for the
first year from the date of taking possession and 15% p.a. thereafter till
payment for the enhanced amount. No costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
17.04.2023
mkn/AP
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Puducherry.
2.The Secretary to Government (Revenue),
Union of India, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3.The Deputy Collector (Rev.) South-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer, Puducherry.
4.The Section Officer, | with a direction to return
VR Section, High Court, | the records to the Court below,
Chennai. | forthwith
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
P.B. BALAJI, J.
mkn/AP
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.597 and 598 of 2016
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
