MUNUSAMY versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER on 29 September 2021

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature atMadras in AS No.1222 of 2001 by which the High Court has partlyallowed the said appeal and has enhanced the amount of compensationto Rs.232.45 per cent for the land acquired, original land owner – claimanthas preferred the present appeal.

1.1 The land admeasuring 0.73.0 hectare (1.80 acres) of landsituated in village Anniyalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, District Dharamapuri,Tamil Nadu came to be acquired for the public purpose. Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as‘the Act’) was published on 27.09.1990/11.01.1991. Declaration underSection 6 of the Act was published on 12.12.1991. The Collector, LandAcquisition vide his award dated 16.03.1993 assessed the compensationof the land acquired at Rs.39,506/- per hectare i.e. Rs.16000/- per acre.At the instance of the land owner a reference was made under Section18 of the Act to the District Court - Reference Court. The Learned SubJudge, Hosur by its judgment and order dated 10.11.1997 assessed themarket value at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the Learned Reference Court assessing the compensation ofthe land acquired at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre – the Land Acquisition Officerpreferred the appeal before the High Court and by impugned judgmentand order the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and assessed/determined the compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court assessing/determining thecompensation for the land acquired at Rs.232.45 per cent, the originalowner/claimant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the casethe High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the amount ofcompensation awarded by the Learned Reference Court.

4.1 It is submitted that as such the Learned Reference Court hasrightly awarded the enhanced compensation for the land acquired at B

C

D

EF

G

H

ARs.2183.33 per cent relying upon document/sale deed dated 11.01.1990executed by the land owner himself by which the land suitable forconstruction of the houses and situated very close to the VillageAnniyalam came to be sold at Rs.2977 per cent.

4.2 It is further submitted that as such the High Court has wronglyBdiscarded the document/sale deed Ex.C1 which otherwise was reflectingthe correct market value and it was a genuine and bona fide transaction.It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for the appellantthat as such no cogent reasons have been given by the High Court whilereducing the compensation to Rs.232.45 per cent.

C5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Statehas vehemently submitted that as such in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the High Court has rightly discarded the sale deed Ex.C1executed by the land owner himself very near to the land acquired andthe same was executed in favour of his own relative.

D5.1 It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as theHigh Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance produced as Ex.R2– Item No.9 which as such was for the land admeasuring 1 acre inSurvey No.359 which was also executed in the month of January, 1990.

5.2 It is submitted that even otherwise the document/sale deedEproduced as Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 upon which the reliance has beenplaced by the land owner cannot be relied upon, firstly on the groundthat the same was for a small parcel of land i.e.5 ½ cent only. It issubmitted that against which the document relied upon by the LandAcquisition Officer and the High Court at Ex.R2 Item No.9 is the bestsale deed available to assess/determine the market value of the landFacquired.

6. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties atlength. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present casethe Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.09.1990/11.01.1991totaling an extent of 0.73 hectares i.e. 1.80 acre. The LandGAcquisition Officer determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.160per cent relying upon and considering the sale instances – sale deeddated 11.01.1990 wherein extent of 1 acre out of survey no.359 wassold for Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.160 per cent. However, the LearnedReference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2183.33 per centrelying upon and considering the sale instance Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990H

executed by the land owners himself by which land to the extent of 5 ½cent was sold at 16,375/- i.e. Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 1/3[rd.]The Learned Reference Court awarded the compensation at Rs.2183.33per cent. However, in the appeal preferred by the State the High Courthas reduced the amount of compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.

7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective partiesthe question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whetherthe land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensationrelying upon the document at Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 executed by theland owner himself by which the land admeasuring 5 ½ cent was soldfor Rs.2977 per cent or the amount as determined by the High Court i.e.Rs.232.45 per cent?

7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that having gone throughthe judgment and order passed by the Reference Court as well as theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are not atall satisfied with the manner in which both, the Reference Court as wellas the High Court have dealt with and decided the matters. However,instead of remanding the matter to the Reference Court/High Court forfresh consideration, we have considered the appeals on merits on thebasis of material/evidence on record.

7.2 Now so far as the reliance placed on the document Ex.C1sale deed dated 11.01.1990 – executed by the land owner himself infavour of his relative by which 5 ½ cent was sold at Rs.2977 per cent isconcerned the same cannot be said to be a comparable sale instance forthe reason that it was with respect to the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½cent only. It is true that Ex.C1 cannot be discarded solely on the groundthat it was executed by the land owner in favour of his relative as nothingis on record that at the time when the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1was executed the parties were aware that the land in question is goingto be acquired in the nearby future. As observed hereinabove in thepresent case Section 4 Notification issued and published for the firsttime on 27.09.1990. It is also required to be noted that in the presentcase both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court relied uponEx.C1 sale deed dated 11.01.1990, relied upon by the appellant. However,there are no justification for the High Court to determine/arrive at themarket value at Rs.232.45 per cent. As observed hereinabove as suchin absence of any comparable sale instances one has to consider thesale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1. Even otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Adated 11.01.1990 can be said to be comparable instance having regardto the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situationangle. It is also required to be noted that even the land in question acquiredfor the housing project. However, at the same time one cannot lose sightof the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the smallparcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. In given case even a sale deed ofBcomparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitabledeductions while fixing market value. Therefore, having regard to thepeculiar features, facts and circumstances of the case and interest ofjustice, we are of the opinion that date of compensation can be fixedconsidering the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitableCdeductions i.e. 60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the factthat the sale deed dated 11.01.1990Ex.C1 was executed for a saleconsideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to Rs.2977per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case) the market value can be determined/assessedat Rs.1191 per cent.D

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the presentappeal is partly allowed, it is held that the appellant - original claimant -land owner shall be entitled compensation for the land acquired at Rs.1191per cent with all other statutory benefits which may be available underthe provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Impugned Judgment and OrderEdated 30.07.2008 in AS No.1222 of 2001 passed by the High Court ismodified to the aforesaid extent. Hence, present appeal is partly allowedto the aforesaid extent.

However, no order as to costs.

F

Devika Gujral

Appeal partly allowed.

G

H