A.S. (MD) Nos. 609 to 617 and 634 to 636 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2011 (In all cases). Case: The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Air Force Station, Thanjavur Vs Ganesa Udayar and The Defence Estate Officer, Madras Circle, 306, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 18. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | A.S. (MD) Nos. 609 to 617 and 634 to 636 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2011 (In all cases) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S. Kumar, Govt. Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. M. Palanisamy and Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, Adv. |
| Judges | Mr. G. Raja Suria, J. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 18, 23(1), 24, 53; Building Rules ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 |
| Judgement Date | December 16, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
Mr. G. Raja Suria, J., (Madurai Bench)
-
A.S. (MD) Nos. 609 to 612 and 617 of 2011 have been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2005 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 616, 617, 619, 620 and 618 of 1997 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur. A.S.(MD) Nos. 613 to 616 of 2011 have been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2006 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 139, 148, 149 and 152 of 1997 by the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Thanjavur. A.S. (MD) Nos. 634 to 636 of 2011 have been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 174, 181 and 184 of 1996 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thanjavur. The facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run thus:
The action taken under the Land Acquisition Act was for acquiring a vast tract of a land for setting up Air Force Station at Thanjavur. Consequently, necessary steps were taken as per law for acquiring the lands and ultimately, the relevant awards emerged. The details relating to the publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and other details are as under:
Sl. No.
A.S. Nos.
R.C. No.
Date of 4(1) Notification
Award No. & Date
Land Value Fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer
Land Value Fixed by the lower Courts (Per Cent)
1.
609 to 612/11
181/91
28.04.1992
16/94 -18.11. 1994
Rs.141.14/-
Rs.1,000/-
2.
613 to 616/11
76/91
20.02.1992
8/94 - 16.09. 1994
Rs.107.14/-
Rs.1,080/-
3.
617/11
181/91
28.04.1992
16/94 -18.11. 1994
Rs.141.14/-
Rs.1,000/-
4.
634 to 636/11
84/91
03.04.1992
18/94 -30.11. 1994
Rs.57.14/-
Rs.1,000/-
-
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such passing of awards quantifying the compensation, various references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, were made to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur; to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Thanjavur and to the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thanjavur respectively. Consequently, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur, assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per cent in L.A.O.P. Nos. 616, 617, 619, 620 and 618 of 1997 from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
-
Like wise, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Thanjavur, assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,080/- (Rupees One Thousand and Eighty only) per cent in L.A.O.P. Nos. 139, 148, 149 and 152 of 1997 from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
-
Similarly, the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thanjavur, assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per cent in L.A.O.P. Nos. 174, 181 and 184 of 1996 from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Whereupon the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals as set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this judgment.
-
At this juncture, it is just and necessary to recollect and recount as to what happened earlier in some of the similar matters. It so happened that on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lower Courts assessed the value of the land. Whereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgments dated 23.03.2001, in A.S. Nos. 519 and 520 of 1999 and in A.S. Nos. 416 to 418 of 1999, confirmed the judgment of the learned Sub Judge in assessing the value of the land at Rs. 1,176/- per cent ultimately. The Government preferred Special Leave Petitions vide Nos. 24578-24579 of 2004 before the Honourable Apex Court and in that the Honourable Apex Court passed order as under:
... Mr. N.N. Goswamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge the statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make it apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by consent, there are large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum awarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court. Those matters are still pending before the High court and if the same principle of valuation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. His contention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before the High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which sale deed had been produced as Annexure A-9, as an exemplar as well as the lands subject matter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the Court must value the land acquired having regard to its value applying the statutory guidelines. Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed is produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value. The value of such lands may be more or less depending upon their potentiality and location and having regard to other relevant considerations which the court has to keep in mind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
We appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the Award of the Reference Court of such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned judgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent.
-
At the time of disposal of the matters by the Honourable Apex Court, several appeals were pending before this Court. The Government by way of precaution made representation before the Honourable Apex Court and got direction as aforesaid that what the High Court decided on the earlier cited judgments need not be followed as precedents for deciding the present appeals.
-
The learned Counsel for the respondents/land owners, subsequently in those pending matters would submit that the present appeals cannot be treated as a separate group from that of the appeals decided as per the aforesaid cited judgments of the High Court and that there should not be any discrimination among the equals.
-
The perusal of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would demonstrate that it is not a mere decision of the Honourable Apex Court on facts concerning a different type of case, but specifically in relation to existing appeals then under consideration before this Court, such directions were issued to the effect that those pending appeals shall be dealt with independently de hors the judgments passed by this Court earlier as cited supra. Accordingly, this Court decided those batch of appeals in different sets and assessed the compensation, modifying the award of the lower Courts.
-
The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the lower Courts is not in accordance with the mandates of the Honourable Apex Court in various precedents but purely on rough and ready method without adhering to the norms for taking exemplar document and deductions under various sub-heads?
-
Accordingly, heard both sides.
-
Both sides in unison would submit that the present appeals are relating to one and the same type of cases and the lands acquired also are in the same vicinity as that of the lands involved in the earlier batch of appeals, which were disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated 24.04.2008 in A.S.(MD) Nos. 119 of 2008 and batch, and they agree for awarding the same amount of compensation.
-
Therefore, I would like to recollect what actually was set out in the earlier judgments of this Court dated 24.04.2008 in A.S.(MD) Nos. 119 of 2008 and batch, in similar appeals and follow the same pattern in assessing the compensation and the discussions in the earlier matters would be on the following line, which are mostly applicable to these appeals also.
-
The Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals on the following main grounds:
The lower Court committed an error in fixing the market value on Sq. ft basis, even though, the lands acquired are situated in Panchayat limit. The land value should not be assessed on cent basis also. The lower Court relied on sample sale deeds relating to smaller extent of lands sold for exorbitant price. There is nothing to show that the house plots were actually sold under the sale deeds relied on by the claimants. Those sale deeds were not proved by examining the vendor and the vendee concerning those sale deeds. The Reference Court has not properly made deductions towards development charges. The charge has not followed the belt system also. A mere reading of grounds of appeal would clearly demonstrate that the Land Acquisition Officer never adverted to the fact that the property is situated in a developing area.
-
At this juncture, I would like to highlight that the grounds of appeal are one sided as they are oblivious to the existing facts and situations which prevailed at the time of the Land Acquisition in these cases and the fact that a large mass of land was acquired en bloc for setting up an Air Force Station.
-
The gist and kernel of the earlier approach by this Court in its judgment dated 23.03.2001, in A.S. Nos. 519 and 520 of 1999 and in A.S. Nos. 416 to 418 of 1999, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial