Civil Appeal Nos. 5616 and 5628 of 2004. Case: 1. Radha Mudaliyar, 2. Dhanapooshanam Vs 1. Spl. Tahsildar (Land ACQ.), T.N.H. Board, 2. Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Chennai and Anr., [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. 5732 of 2004 and Civil Appeal No. of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9736 of 2004)]. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 5616 and 5628 of 2004 |
| Judges | Mukundakam Sharma and Swatanter Kumar, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 5A, 6, 15, 18, 23, 23(1), 23(1)A, 23(2), 24, 34 and 34B |
| Citation | AIR 2011 SC 54, JT 2010 (12) SC 185, 2011 (1) MLJ 587 (SC), 2010 (11) SCALE 195, 2010 (13)SCC 384 |
| Judgement Date | October 08, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Swatanter Kumar, J.
-
Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 9736 of 2004.
-
Application for impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 5616 of 2004 is allowed.
-
By this judgment, we will dispose of the three Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 5616, 5628 and 5732 of 2004 and a Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9736 of 2004 as they arise from a common judgment with somewhat similar facts.
FACTS
-
For the purposes of brevity and to avoid repetition, we would be referring to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5616 of 2004. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was issued by the Industries Department of the State of Tamil Nadu on 23.01.1985 to acquire land in the Revenue Estate of village Kadaperi, Hamlet of Tambaram, Tambaram Taluk within the municipal limits of the city including the land admeasuring 7.06 acres belonging to the appellant. This notification came to be issued in furtherance of the scheme, which was sanctioned by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) on 03.04.1984 and a total of 261.42 acres of land was acquired for setting up the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ). The entire land, including dry and wet lands, was sought to be acquired as a compact block for the project in question. In response to the publication of the notification, the interested persons filed objections in terms of Section 5A of the Act which were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the `LAO') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.04.1986. After notice to the interested persons/owners, Award No. 3/86 was made and published by the LAO on 28.11.1986. The LAO awarded compensation at the rate of ` 145/- per cent for an extent of 64 cents and ` 110 for 6.42 acres of another kind of land and also awarded compensation at different rates for the superstructures raised by the appellants on their respective lands. The possession of the land was taken on 03.02.1987. The compensation was received by the appellants under protest on 04.07.1987 and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. According to the appellants, the market price of the land in question was between ` 7,000/- and ` 8,000/- per cent in the years 1983-84. In 1985-86 the land was sold at the rate of ` 45,000/- to ` 50,000/- per ground. In this appeal, the appellants had claimed compensation at that rate. They also stated that they had raised nearly 160 coconut trees and dug a big well fitted with electric motor by incurring a cost of ` 1.5 lakh on the land in question. We may notice that various appellants had raised different claims on these grounds. The Collector, as already noticed, had awarded compensation uniformly at the rates mentioned supra while awarding compensation separately for the well, trees, etc.
-
The parties led evidence before the Reference Court and the Reference Court, vide its judgment dated 09.12.1988, enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to `3,600/- per cent as agricultural land by relying upon Exhibits A1, A4 and A5. The Reference Court granted the following relief to the claimants:
1) The valuation fixed by the lands acquired at Rs. 110/- and Rs. 145/- per cent, by the Land Acquisition Officer has been raised and a fresh valuation at Rs. 3,600/- per cent is fixed for the entire area of the acquired lands;
2) The valuation at Rs. 2,675/- per coconut tree, fixed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar is held to be correct and confirmed;
3) The valuation for the well and the pump-set made by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar at Rs. 44,487/- has been enhanced to Rs. 1,76,862/- and fixed accordingly;
4) Further it is ordered that the claimant should be paid 30% solatium for the above amounts and interest at the rate of 12% from 23.1.1985 to 28.11.1986 and further 9% interest from 3.2.1987 to 2.2.1988. It is ordered that the sum of Rs. 1,88,887.85 fixed as compensation by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar for the land, trees, well and pump-set should be deducted from the above amount. It is further ordered that the claimant is entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the difference amount of compensation from 3.2.1988 till date of deposit of the compensation into Court.
-
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Reference Court, the Government, through the LAO, filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the correctness of the same. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 05.02.2001, declined to accept the reasoning recorded by the Reference Court in its different judgments under appeal and reduced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of ` 2018/- per cent. Thus, the High Court, while partially accepting the appeal of the State, granted the following relief:
Therefore, considering the fact the lands under acquisition are not developed at all, whereas, under adjoining lands are developed, deduction at the rate of 40% for prescribing the correct value by the learned Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the market value of the acquired lands can be determined by adopting the value as per Ex.A4, i.e. Rs. 3,363/-, and after a deduction of 40% towards development charges, the market value will be Rs. 2,018/- per cent. The claimant is entitled to compensation for the 7. acres of acquired lands at this rate, i.e., 14,24,708/-.
-
Before discussing the merits in these appeals, it needs to be noticed that different sale instances were produced as exhibits in different references. As far as the question of enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants on account of trees, well and other improvements on the land in question is concerned, we may notice that it is apparent from the record of the case as well as the arguments addressed before this Court that the correctness of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was hardly questioned before the High Court and even before this Court. As there is no serious challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded on this account, we do not propose to discuss this issue any further. Thus, only two issues have been raised before us, namely: (a) that the High Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The High Court has applied deduction of 40% which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not called for. This has resulted in serious prejudice to the interest of the claimants and they have not been awarded the fair market value of their acquired lands; and (b) they have not been awarded solatium and interest in accordance with law.
DISCUSSION ON MERITS
-
In Civil Appeal No. 5616 of 2004, the claimant is the owner of land admeasuring 7.06 acres in a compact square shape falling in Survey Nos. 16 and 24/1 in the Revenue Estate of Kadaperi village. Exhibits A1, A4 and A5 are the sale instances from the same village which had been produced by the claimant in support of her claim. Exhibits A2 and A3 are the valuation reports in relation to the well and the pump on the acquired land. Exhibit A6 is the photo copy of Kadaperi village map. Exhibits A1, A4 and A5 are dated 7th November 1984...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Appeal Nos. 2663, 2662, 2664, 2665 and 2666 of 2013. Case: The Manager Vs The Government of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
...the aforesaid circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant, acquiring body, has placed reliance on some reported cases like- AIR 2011 SC 54 (Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board) and (2013) 11 SCC 426 (Salah Begum v. Land Acquisition On the other han......
-
First Appeal Nos. 2663, 2662, 2664, 2665 and 2666 of 2013. Case: The Manager Vs The Government of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
...the aforesaid circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant, acquiring body, has placed reliance on some reported cases like- AIR 2011 SC 54 (Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board) and (2013) 11 SCC 426 (Salah Begum v. Land Acquisition On the other han......