The Project Director, Vs. 1.R.Karuppaiah, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167733
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-30-2013
JudgeN.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AppellantThe Project Director,
Respondent1.R.Karuppaiah,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:30. 08/2013 coram the honourable mr.justice n.paul vasanthakumar and the honourable mr.justice p.devadass civil miscellaneous appeal (md)no.650 of 2013 civil miscellaneous appeal (md)nos.651 to 680 of 2013 and m.p.(md) nos.1 to 1 of 2013 c.m.a.(md) no.650/2013: the project director, national highways authority of india, no.83/1, sbi1t colony extension, bye-pass road, madurai - 625 016. ... appellant/2nd respondent/ beneficiary vs 1.r.karuppaiah, s/o. ramasami servai, door no.3-3-2/1a, naicker street, 3rd ward, thathampatti, vadipatti post, madurai district. ... 1st respondent/petitioner/ claimant 2.the district revenue officer, (land acquisition - national highways) collectorate building, madurai - 625 020. ... respondent/1st respondent/ competent authority civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 37 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 30.08.2012, in ar.o.p.no.8 of 2009 of the principal district judge, madurai. !for appellant ... mr.k.k.senthilvelan assistant solicitor general of india ^for respondent no.1 ... mr.r.govindaraj & [in all the c.m.as.]. mr.k.chandrasekaran for respondent no.2 ... mr.ak.baskarapandian special government pleader :common judgment (judgment of the court was delivered by p.devadass , j.) since common issues are involved, common arguments were advanced in all the c.m.as., thus common judgment is being rendered.2. these appeals were filed as against the awards passed by the learned principal district judge, madurai, on 30.8.2012, in the connected ar.o.ps. filed under section 34(2) of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 [hereinafter after referred to as 'a & c act, 1996']. to set aside the awards of the sole arbitrator/district collector, madurai, confirming the award of the competent authority/district revenue officer, madurai, passed under section 3-g(1) of national highways act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'nh act']..3. the central government proposed a four-way highway from kashmir to kanyakumari, to connect major cities through out india. national highways no.7 is concerned with that. the national highways authority of india is executing the scheme. in prosecution of the scheme, in southern india, in madurai district, in laying the highway between dindigul and samayanallur lands situate in thathampatti village, in t.vadipatti taluk, comprised in certain survey numbers, measuring 2,02,440 sq.mts.=4,998.51 cents, is required to be acquired.4. as per section 3-a(1) of nh act, the intention to acquire the lands for the public purpose of laying down or to manage national highway, a notification has to be made by the central government in the official gazette. as per section 3-a(3), the competent authority authorised by the central government shall publish the said notification widely at least in two local newspapers. after hearing objections, if any, from the land owners or other interested persons [see section 3-c, nh act]., within one year of section 3-a(1) notification, however, excluding any period of stay of the scheme, if any ordered by a court, the declaration as to the acquisition of the land has to be made by the central government in the official gazette [see section 3-d(1) and (3) nh act].. on the publication of section 3-d(1) declaration, the lands absolutely vest with the central government free of all encumbrances [see section 3-d(2)]..5. the competent authority shall determine the compensation payable to the acquired land [see section 3-g(1)].. as per section 3-g(7)(a), the competent authority shall take into account the market value of the lands as on the date of section 3-a(1) notification. as per section 3-g(2), an additional amount of 10% shall be added to the compensation determined under section 3-g(1). as per section 3-h(5), 9% interest p.a. has to be added to the said amount from the date of possession till actual deposit.6. either the land owner or the government or the requisition authority, if aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, can apply under section 3-g(5) of the act to the arbitrator, appointed by the central government for re-determination of the amount determined by the competent authority. as per section 3-g(6), the arbitrator have to adhere to the provisions of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. thus, under section 34 of a&c act, 1996 in the districts, application can be filed before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, namely, the principal district judge or when there is no such court, the district court, to set aside the arbitral award. thereafter, statutory appeal lies to this court. the district revenue officer (d.r.o.), madurai, has been appointed as competent authority and the district collector, madurai, has been appointed as arbitrator.7. section 3-j of nh act excludes application of the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ".l.a. act".]., for the lands acquired under nh act.8. in this connection, the learned assistant solicitor general of india for the appellants submitted that in view of section 3-j of nh act, the determination of compensation under the nh act and under the l.a. act differ. in any respect, the provisions of l.a. act cannot be made applicable for determining compensation under nh act.9. however, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the discrimination and disparity in determining compensation for the lands acquired for public purpose under both the acts has been held to be unconstitutional by the karnataka high court in lalitha vs. union of india [air2003(kar.) 165].. further, as per the decision of a learned single judge of this court reported in 2011 (7) mlj858 such disparity under both the enactments has been held to be unconstitutional under article 14 of constitution of india, as there was no reasonable classification.10. however, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent conceded that the said karnataka decision has been challenged before the hon'ble supreme court and the operation of the judgment also has been stayed by the hon'ble supreme court and the judgment of this court reported in 2011 (7) mlj858has also been stayed by a division bench of this court in c.m.a.(md) nos.977, 981 to 989 of 2011, dated 23.11.2012.11. thus, in this situation, we are not to enter in to controversy as to the applicability of the provisions of l.a. act for fixing compensation under nh act.12. it is to be noted that l.a. act has prescribed separate tribunal, 30% solatium, additional amount etc. thus, the scheme provided under l.a. act cannot be made applicable to the scheme devised under nh act. this position flows from section 3-j of nh act.13. but, the applicability of principles laid down by the courts in several decisions, although arose in compensation determined under l.a. act cannot be ruled out. for instance, as per section 3-g(7)(a) of nh act, in determining compensation, the competent authority has to consider the ".market value". of the acquired land on the date of section 3-a(1) notification. but, there is no definition for the term 'market value' either in n.h. act or in the rules framed thereunder. therefore, the terminology ".market value". of the land has to be understood in its common parlance, more particularly, as understood by the courts, although arose in cases filed under l.a. act. even for certain proposition of law both side counsels have referred to certain decisions, which have all been rendered under l.a. act.14. now, we shall revert back to our case. the acquired lands are situate in thathampatti village, in t.vadipatti taluk, in madurai district. section 3- a(1) notification has been made on 28.7.2006. section 3-d(1) declaration was published in the gazette on 19.1.2007.15. based on the report of special tahsildar, land acquisition, vadipatti taluk, the competent authority/d.r.o., madurai, determined rs.25.58 per sq.mt.=rs.1036 per cent for the wet land and rs.10.88 per sq.mt.=rs.435 per cent for the nanja land, also added the statutory 10% solatium amount.16. aggrieved by the extent of compensation awarded, the ex-land owners have filed applications before the arbitrator/district collector, madurai. on 31.7.2009, the arbitrator confirmed the said rate of compensation determined by the competent authority.17. thereafter, the claimants have filed applications under section 34 of a & c act, 1996 before the principal district judge, madurai, to set aside the arbitrator's award and sought for enhancement of compensation. on 30.11.2010, the learned principal district judge, set aside the awards of the arbitrator and passed fresh awards fixing the rate of compensation at rs.10,480/- per cent also adding 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and 9% interest and thereafter, 15% future interest.18. as already pointed out, the said 30% solatium, 12% additional amount, 9% interest and 15% future interest will not arise under nh act except 10% additional amount and 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession till deposit.19. the appellants have appealed against the said awards of the learned principal district judge, madurai. on 07.09.2011, in the batch of c.m.a.(md) nos.977 and 981 to 989 of 2011, the said orders of the learned principal district judge, were set aside, the cases were remanded to the learned principal district judge, for fresh enquiry. after fresh consideration, on 30.08.2012, the learned principal district judge, madurai, passed the impugned awards in ar.o.ps., determining the compensation at rs.12,576/- per cent.20. the claimants have claimed rs.40,000/- per cent for the acquired land. the competent authority/d.r.o., madurai, rejected their two sale deeds, dated 21.12.2001 and 3.2.2003, whereunder lands in the area were sold at rs.12,200/- per cent and rs.30,000/- per cent respectively. as they were more than one year prior to section 3-a(1) notification they were rejected and the competent authority considered the sales taken place between 28.07.2005 and 27.07.2006. the competent authority mainly relied on the guideline value and the value given by the special tahsildar, land acquisition, national highways, vadipatti taluk and thus, determined rs.25.58 per sq.mt. for the wet land and rs.10.88 per sq.mt. for the dry land and allowed 10% solatium amount.21. the arbitrator/district collector, madurai, confirmed the said rate determined by the competent authority.22. in the ar.o.ps. filed by the claimants, the learned principal district judge, madurai, referred to the evidence of the claimants consisting of their proof affidavits and documentary evidence and also the evidence of r.w.1, the special tahsildar, land acquisition, highways and r.w.2, an official of the second respondent, the learned judge also brush aside ex.p.5, sale deed, dated 3.2.2003. however, the learned judge pointed out that the lands comprised in the sales statistics taken by the competent authority are at a distance, however, the land sold under ex.p.4, sale deed, dated 21.12.2001, is not so and the learned judge had also taken into account the several advantages pertains to the acquired land and their potential value. in the circumstances, the learned judge also taken into account the value of the land covered in ex.p.4, sale deed, dated 21.12.2001. to arrive at the market value, the learned judge considered the principles laid down in land acquisition officer & special tahsildar (la) vs. palaniappan [2007 (3) mlj266, added 10% of it, namely, rs.12,200/- for each year from 2002 to 2006. thus, arrived at rs.19,650/- per cent. the learned judge considering the decisions reported in special tahsildar (la) vs. vadivel [2010 (4) mlj813 and 2010 (4) mlj461 deducted 20% towards development charges and since the data land selected is of smaller extent, further deducted 20% and ultimately, arrived at rs.12,576/- per cent. as allowed under the nh act, the learned judge added 10% on the amount of compensation determined at the said rate and also awarded 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession, namely, 19.1.2007 till deposit.23. aggrieved, the project director, national highways authority of india, madurai, directed these batch of appeals to this court.24. the details of the appellants, appeals, extent of the land acquired and the details of compensation awarded are tabulated as under:- sl appellant ar. surv exte awarde award of amount amoun enhanced c.m. . o.p.n ey nt d by arbitrator/ awarded t compensa a. no o. no.sq.m the district bythe alrea tion (md) . t. compet collector principa dy no.& ent l recei cent author district ved ity court (rs.) per per cen sq. t mt. 1 r.karuppi 8/09 202/ 278 25.58 confirmed 125 310 31818 1842622 650/ ah 5a975per ca's. award 76 . 6 13 201/ 950 sq.mt. 51 1 3625 = 238/ 500 1023 4b ---- per 199/ - cent 5 6328 for 202/ sq.m wet 3 t. land. or 10.88 156. per 2 sq.mt. cent = s 435 per cent for dry land 2 s.alagars 9/09 127/ 1272 -do- -do- -do- do- 45640 388734 651/ amy 3 sq.m 13 t. or 31.4 cent s 3 r.navaman 10/ 96/4 970 -do- -do- -do- do- 11609 319706 652/ i 09 b sq.m 13 t. or 24.2 5 cent s 4 m.gopala 11/ 197/ 2894 -do- -do- -do- do- 52404 1555417 653/ krishnan 09 1 197/ 2457 9 13 2 116 64/4 621 64/2 ------ b - 6088 sq.mt. or 150.32 cents 5 g.ravi 12/ 216/ 110 09 1 1233 217/ ---- 1 - 1343 sq.m t. -do- -do- -do- do- 16737 420932 654/ or 4 13 33.1 6 cent s 6 m.subbula 13/ 195/ 1375 kshmi 09 2b sq.m t. or 33.9 -do- -do- -do- do- 11215 357494 655/ 5 6 13 cent s 7 palaniapp 14/ 128/ 1622 an (died) 09 5d sq.m angammal t. & others or 45640 40.0 -do- -do- -do- do- 508381 656/ 49 13 cent s 8 g.venkila 15/ 62/1 2028 -do- -do- -do- do- 24907 667797 657/ samy 09 sq.m 13 (died) t. poongotha or i and 50.0 others 74 cent s 9 k.selvam 16/ 32/1 3043 -do- -do- -do- do- 11609 1180847 658/ 09 33/6 448 13 ---- - 3491 sq.m t. or 86.2 0 cent s 10 r.radhakr 17/ 119/ 891 ishnan 09 2 sq.m t. or -do- -do- -do- do- 45640 258699 659/ 22 13 cent s 11 v.seethar 20/ 127/ 1774 aman 09 1a sq.m t. -do- -do- -do- do- 49917 555994 660/ or 13 4380 cent s 12 k.dharmar 21/ 117/ 228 aj 09 2b33117/ ---- 3 - 261 sq.m t. 16324 or -do- -do- -do- do- 72763 661/ 6.44 13 cent s 13 m.andiapp 22/ 60/4 1682 an 09 sq.m t. or 41.5 -do- -do- -do- do- 20130 554379 662/ 3 13 cent s 14 g.elangov 23/ 60/3 1997 an 09 b sq.m t. or 49.3 -do- -do- -do- do- 23900 658096 663/ 0 13 cent s 15 athi 24/ 69/1 7851 lakshmi 09 b sq.m t. or 193. -do- -do- -do- do- 93961 2587682 664/ 85 13 cent s 16 r.malaich 25/ 19/2 545 amy 09 c3426/3 ---- 43 - 629 sq.m t. or -do- -do- -do- do- 7528 207307 665/ 15.5 13 3 cent s 17 v.duraira 26/ 198/ 4443 j 09 5 sq.m t. or 109. -do- -do- -do- do- 11420 1403343 666/ 70 2 13 cent s 18 v.ramacha 27/ 198/ 842 ndran 09 2 sq.m t. or 667/ 20.7 -do- -do- -do- do- 85977 201623 13 9 cent s 19 k.govinda 28/ 32/2 3800 raj 09 sq.m t. or 668/ 93.8 -do- -do- -do- do- 45478 1252390 13 2 cent s 20 g.narayan 29/ 117/ 3318 asamy 09 4 36 119/ ---- 1 - 3354 sq.m .t 669/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 37487 770685 13 82.8 5 1 cent s 21 v.thirupp 30/ 128/ 747 athi 09 2b sq.m t. or 670/ 18.4 -do- -do- -do- do- 21019 234072 13 4 cent s 22 v.ramacha 31/ 127/ 331 ndran 09 1b sq.m t. or 671/ 8.17 -do- -do- -do- do- 9314 103706 13 cent s 23 s.kannan 32/ 19/1 4830 09 b sq.m t. or 672/ 119. -do- -do- -do- do- 57805 1591851 13 25 cent s 24 c.gandhi 33/ 116/ 12 09 2 2288 119/ 2692 8 ---- 122 - 4992 sq.m t. 673/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 14046 1564526 13 123. 5 25 cent s 25 thirumala 34/ 96/2 125 ivasan 09 sq.m t. or 674/ 3.08 -do- -do- -do- do- 1496 41195 13 6 cent s 26 s.gopinat 35/ 96/4 2124 h 09 a sq.m t. or 675/ 52.4 -do- -do- -do- do- 25420 700013 13 4 cent s 27 r.pappian 36/ 119/ 968 09 3 1474 119/ 1599 6 ---- 64/2 - a4041sq.m t. 676/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 97827 1282351 13 99.7 7 cent s 28 p.rengasa 37/ 53/2 1116 my 09 b4253/3 ---- - 677/ 1158 -do- -do- -do- do- 13898 381604 13 sq.m t. or 28.5 9 cent s 29 k.jeyaram 38/ 68/1 1339 an 09 a sq.m .t or 678/ 33.0 -do- -do- -do- do- 16025 441314 13 6 cent s 30 v.pappu 39/ 198/ 6063 reddi 09 4 sq.m t. or 679/ 149. -do- -do- -do- do- 72562 1998327 13 70 cent s 31 rajammal 40/ 60/1 502 09 b19860/2 273 a1560/3 3209 a ---- 60/1 - a419761 sq.m t. 680/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 67916 1365521 13 103. 62 cent s 25. the learned assistant solicitor general of india would submit that the method adopted by the learned principal district judge, in determining the compensation is not in accordance with the provisions of nh act. the increase effected is manifold. it is also more than the amount previously determined by the learned principal district judge, madurai, before the remand order passed by this court in the c.m.as. the sale in ex.p.4 was much prior to section 3-a(1) notification made under nh act. so, it cannot be taken into account. the acquired lands are dry lands. further, the land situate at a distance from the acquired lands cannot be considered. in this respect, the learned assistant solicitor general of india cited p.rajan and another vs. kerela state electricity board and another [1997 (9) scc330 and special land acquisition officer and another vs. m.k.rafiq saheb [2011 (7) scc714.26. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that for the acquired lands, proper compensation has to be given. that could be achieved by determining its market value. the value of the lands are not static. in the prevailing circumstances, they are on the increase and not on the wane. merely because ex.p.4 sale deed is prior to section 3-a(1) notification or it being for sale of a smaller extent of land ex.p.4 cannot be rejected when especially its genuineness was not doubted. the learned counsel further contended that they offer a solid guide, because of its closeness to the acquired land.27. the learned counsel for the claimants would further submit that there are many advantages pertaining to the acquired land, they are in and around the vicinity of the acquired land. lands around the acquired land are being converted as house sites. the land conveyed under ex.p.4 is a vacant site. the acquired lands are vacant lands. the potential value of the acquired land, its future use cannot also be lost sight of. further, after giving 10% increase per year due to escalation in land value, the learned principal district judge, has deducted 20% due to development charges and further deducted 20% since smaller extent of land has been conveyed under ex.p.4 sale deed.28. we have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned assistant solicitor general of india and the learned counsel for the claimants, perused the materials on record, the impugned awards and the various decisions cited.29. proper compensation is to be awarded for the lands acquired under nh act. guidance for determination of compensation is provided in section 3- g(7)(a). as per that, the market value of the land on the date of publication of 3-a(1) notification have to be taken into account by the competent authority. the market value of the land has not been defined either in the nh act or in the rules framed thereunder. thus, it must be considered in the sense of reality of the situation pertaining to the lands acquired under the act.30. in hasanali khanbhai & sons v. state of gujarat [1995 (5) scc422, the hon'ble apex court observed as under: (scc page 425, para 3) ".3. . but it is settled law by series of judgments of this court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. it is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. the court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. after due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value.".31. the said principles have also been reiterated in v.r.venkatesalu and others vs. special tahsildar, land acquisition housing scheme ii, coimbatore - 18 [2010 (2) mlj153and special land acquisition officer and another vs. m.k.rafiq saheb [2011 (7) scc714.32. in our case, the section 3-a(1) notification was made on 28.7.2006. it was published in the dailies on 20.9.2006. in laying down nh-7 from kashmir to kanyakumari, with regard to forming the highway between dindigul and samayanallur, lands situate in thathampatti village, in vadipatti taluk, comprised in certain survey numbers have been acquired under nh act, which included the lands of the claimants.33. in determining the compensation, the competent authority mainly relied on the guideline value produced by r.w.1-usha, special tahsildar (la), highways, vadipatti taluk. guideline value is prescribed by the government. it will not reflect the market value. market value will be more than the guideline value. market value will be based on the prevailing price, the price of a willing purchaser would offer to the seller. thus, ascertainment of market value is very important.34. in this regard, the competent authority referred to the rate at which certain lands are sold from 28.07.2005 to 27.07.2006 and determined the market value, namely, rs.25.58 per sq.mt. for the wet land and rs.10.88 per sq.mt. for the punja land.35. the competent authority completely brush aside exs.p.4 and p.5, sale deeds, dated 21.12.2001 and 03.02.2003 produced by the claimants. under ex.p.5, 5 cents of house site were sold for rs.1,50,000/-. however, the acquired lands are dry lands. thus, the learned principal district judge, has also excluded ex.p.5 from his zone of consideration.36. under ex.p.4 sale deed, 10 cents in s.no.91/3c has been sold for rs.1,22,000/-. it works out to rs.301/- per sq.mt. and rs.12,200/- per cent. there is admission before the competent authority that as regards distant factors as between the acquired land and the sale deeds taken for comparison, the distant is less with regard to the land sold under ex.p.4 sale deed, whereas it is more as between the acquired land and the sale of land considered by the competent authority. the nature of the lands covered under ex.p.4 is a vacant land. the acquired land is also of similar type. it is not in dispute that they are dry lands, non-agricultural land. it is pertinent to note that the genuineness of execution of ex.p.4 was not doubted.37. in the vicinity of acquired land on the northern side, government higher secondary school, veterinary hospital, ayyappan temple, neelamegaperumal temple and vadipatti-palamedu road, on the east, andipatti bungalow, government travellers bungalow, forest office, textile mill, cinema theatre and kachakatti- palamedu road and on the north, neerathan national highways-7, vadipatti town, government hospital, police station, parvarthini cotton mill, velmurugan paper mill, iron manufacturing factory and a coir factory are situate. they are all not far away from the acquired land. thus, in the close vicinity of the acquired lands, there are many advantageous enuring to the benefit of, value of the acquired lands. they are also responsible for escalation in land value. there is high potential value also for the acquired land.38. now, price of the lands are almost like gold price. the value of the lands are on the increase. this is a general trend in the market. merely on account of ex.p.4, sale deed having been taken place prior to section 3-a(1) notification nor under it small extent of land has been sold ex.p.4 sale deed cannot be rejected [see special land acquisition officer and another vs. m.k. rafiq saheb [2011 (7) scc714]..39. in the circumstances, so as to arrive at the market value, the learned principal district judge, referring to the decision reported in 2007 (3) mlj266[land acquisiton officer & special tahsildar (la) vs. palaniappan]., every year added 10% to the price of the land sold under ex.p.4 from 2002 to 2006. further, the learned principal district judge, also deducted 20% towards development charges and further deducted 20% in view of small extent of land having been conveyed under ex.p.4 and thus, arrived at rs.12,576/- per cent as the market value of the land.40. to arrive at the market value, considering the increase in the land value, the method adopted by the learned principal judge, cannot be faulted as it had fetches a fair and a reasonable market rate. but, considering the small extent covered under ex.p.4, the price mentioned therein having been taken for comparison, 20% deduction is not sufficient. some further deduction has to be made. considering the various aspects, after making further deduction, fixing rs.12,000/- per cent as market value for the acquired land would be fair and reasonable.41. further, on the compensation so determined at rs.12,000/- per cent, statutory addition in the nature of solatium at 10% has to be added and on the amount so arrived at as per section 3-h(5) of nh act, 9% interest p.a. has to be added from the date of possession till actual deposit of the amount.42. in view of the clear cut provisions in section 3-j of nh act excluding applicability of l.a. act, the learned counsel for the claimants conceded that the claimants are now not entitle to 30% solatium and other items of compensation and interest awarded for the lands acquired under l.a. act.43. as already stated that the decision of the karnataka high court reported in air2003(kar.) 165 holding that the discrimination in determining the compensation for the lands acquired under nh act and under l.a. act, as arbitrary and unconstitutional has been stayed by the hon'ble supreme court and a similar line of decision of a learned single judge of this court made on 04.03.2011 also has been stayed by a division bench of this court in c.m.a.(md) nos.977, 981 to 989 of 2011, on 23.02.2012. in this connection, the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that according to the out come of the said decisions, the claimants may be permitted to make claim for revised calculation, at para no.20 of his judgment, the learned principal district judge, permitted them to await the verdict in the said pending proceedings. it is needless to say that it must also be in accordance with the hon'ble apex court's decision. in the circumstances, we are not to disturb such a reservation being made for the claimants in the judgment of the learned principal district judge.44. in view of the foregoings, c.m.a.(md) nos.650 to 680 of 2013 are partly allowed. the claimant/first respondent in each appeal is entitled to compensation at the rate of rs.12,000/- per cent and on the amount so determined statutory solatium of 10% shall be added and on the amount so calculated 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession, namely, 19.1.2007 till date of deposit shall be added. time for depositing the amount, less amount already deposited, is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. smn2 to 1.the principal district judge, madurai. 2.the district collector, madurai. 3.the district revenue officer, (land acquisition - national highways) collectorate building, madurai - 625 020. 4.the section officer, v.r. section, madurai bench of madras high court, madurai. 
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

30. 08/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)No.650 of 2013 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)Nos.651 to 680 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 1 of 2013 C.M.A.(MD) No.650/2013: The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, No.83/1, SBI1t Colony Extension, Bye-pass Road, Madurai - 625 016. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent/ Beneficiary vs 1.R.Karuppaiah, S/o. Ramasami Servai, Door No.3-3-2/1A, Naicker Street, 3rd Ward, Thathampatti, Vadipatti Post, Madurai District. ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Claimant 2.The District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition - National Highways) Collectorate Building, Madurai - 625 020. ... Respondent/1st Respondent/ Competent Authority Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 30.08.2012, in Ar.O.P.No.8 of 2009 of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. !For Appellant ... Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan Assistant Solicitor General of India ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.R.Govindaraj & [in all the C.M.As.]. Mr.K.Chandrasekaran For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.AK.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader :COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DEVADASS , J.) Since common issues are involved, common arguments were advanced in all the C.M.As., thus common Judgment is being rendered.

2. These appeals were filed as against the awards passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, on 30.8.2012, in the connected Ar.O.Ps. filed under Section 34(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter after referred to as 'A & C Act, 1996']. to set aside the awards of the Sole Arbitrator/District Collector, Madurai, confirming the award of the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Madurai, passed under Section 3-G(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'NH Act']..

3. The Central Government proposed a four-way Highway from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, to connect major Cities through out India. National Highways No.7 is concerned with that. The National Highways Authority of India is executing the scheme. In prosecution of the scheme, in Southern India, in Madurai District, in laying the Highway between Dindigul and Samayanallur lands situate in Thathampatti Village, in T.Vadipatti Taluk, comprised in certain survey numbers, measuring 2,02,440 sq.mts.=4,998.51 cents, is required to be acquired.

4. As per Section 3-A(1) of NH Act, the intention to acquire the lands for the public purpose of laying down or to manage National Highway, a notification has to be made by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. As per Section 3-A(3), the Competent Authority authorised by the Central Government shall publish the said notification widely at least in two local newspapers. After hearing objections, if any, from the land owners or other interested persons [See Section 3-C, NH Act]., within one year of Section 3-A(1) notification, however, excluding any period of stay of the scheme, if any ordered by a Court, the declaration as to the acquisition of the land has to be made by the Central Government in the Official Gazette [See Section 3-D(1) and (3) NH Act].. On the publication of Section 3-D(1) declaration, the lands absolutely vest with the Central Government free of all encumbrances [See Section 3-D(2)]..

5. The Competent Authority shall determine the compensation payable to the acquired land [See Section 3-G(1)].. As per Section 3-G(7)(a), the Competent Authority shall take into account the market value of the lands as on the date of Section 3-A(1) notification. As per Section 3-G(2), an additional amount of 10% shall be added to the compensation determined under Section 3-G(1). As per Section 3-H(5), 9% interest p.a. has to be added to the said amount from the date of possession till actual deposit.

6. Either the land owner or the Government or the Requisition Authority, if aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority, can apply under Section 3-G(5) of the Act to the Arbitrator, appointed by the Central Government for re-determination of the amount determined by the Competent Authority. As per Section 3-G(6), the Arbitrator have to adhere to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, under Section 34 of A&C Act, 1996 in the Districts, application can be filed before the Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction, namely, the Principal District Judge or when there is no such Court, the District Court, to set aside the arbitral award. Thereafter, statutory appeal lies to this Court. The District Revenue Officer (D.R.O.), Madurai, has been appointed as Competent Authority and the District Collector, Madurai, has been appointed as Arbitrator.

7. Section 3-J of NH Act excludes application of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ".L.A. Act".]., for the lands acquired under NH Act.

8. In this connection, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellants submitted that in view of Section 3-J of NH Act, the determination of compensation under the NH Act and under the L.A. Act differ. In any respect, the provisions of L.A. Act cannot be made applicable for determining compensation under NH Act.

9. However, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the discrimination and disparity in determining compensation for the lands acquired for public purpose under both the Acts has been held to be unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court in LALITHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR2003(KAR.) 165].. Further, as per the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2011 (7) MLJ858 such disparity under both the enactments has been held to be unconstitutional under Article 14 of Constitution of India, as there was no reasonable classification.

10. However, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent conceded that the said Karnataka decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the operation of the Judgment also has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (7) MLJ858has also been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.(MD) Nos.977, 981 to 989 of 2011, dated 23.11.2012.

11. Thus, in this situation, we are not to enter in to controversy as to the applicability of the provisions of L.A. Act for fixing compensation under NH Act.

12. It is to be noted that L.A. Act has prescribed separate Tribunal, 30% solatium, additional amount etc. Thus, the scheme provided under L.A. Act cannot be made applicable to the scheme devised under NH Act. This position flows from Section 3-J of NH Act.

13. But, the applicability of principles laid down by the Courts in several decisions, although arose in compensation determined under L.A. Act cannot be ruled out. For instance, as per Section 3-G(7)(a) of NH Act, in determining compensation, the Competent Authority has to consider the ".market value". of the acquired land on the date of Section 3-A(1) notification. But, there is no definition for the term 'market value' either in N.H. Act or in the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the terminology ".market value". of the land has to be understood in its common parlance, more particularly, as understood by the Courts, although arose in cases filed under L.A. Act. Even for certain proposition of law both side counsels have referred to certain decisions, which have all been rendered under L.A. Act.

14. Now, we shall revert back to our case. The acquired lands are situate in Thathampatti Village, in T.Vadipatti Taluk, in Madurai District. Section 3- A(1) notification has been made on 28.7.2006. Section 3-D(1) declaration was published in the Gazette on 19.1.2007.

15. Based on the report of Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Vadipatti Taluk, the Competent Authority/D.R.O., Madurai, determined Rs.25.58 per sq.mt.=Rs.1036 per cent for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt.=Rs.435 per cent for the nanja land, also added the statutory 10% solatium amount.

16. Aggrieved by the extent of compensation awarded, the ex-land owners have filed applications before the Arbitrator/District Collector, Madurai. On 31.7.2009, the Arbitrator confirmed the said rate of compensation determined by the Competent Authority.

17. Thereafter, the claimants have filed applications under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 before the Principal District Judge, Madurai, to set aside the Arbitrator's award and sought for enhancement of compensation. On 30.11.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, set aside the awards of the Arbitrator and passed fresh awards fixing the rate of compensation at Rs.10,480/- per cent also adding 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and 9% interest and thereafter, 15% future interest.

18. As already pointed out, the said 30% solatium, 12% additional amount, 9% interest and 15% future interest will not arise under NH Act except 10% additional amount and 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession till deposit.

19. The appellants have appealed against the said awards of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai. On 07.09.2011, in the batch of C.M.A.(MD) Nos.977 and 981 to 989 of 2011, the said orders of the learned Principal District Judge, were set aside, the cases were remanded to the learned Principal District Judge, for fresh enquiry. After fresh consideration, on 30.08.2012, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, passed the impugned awards in Ar.O.Ps., determining the compensation at Rs.12,576/- per cent.

20. The claimants have claimed Rs.40,000/- per cent for the acquired land. The Competent Authority/D.R.O., Madurai, rejected their two sale deeds, dated 21.12.2001 and 3.2.2003, whereunder lands in the area were sold at Rs.12,200/- per cent and Rs.30,000/- per cent respectively. As they were more than one year prior to Section 3-A(1) notification they were rejected and the Competent Authority considered the sales taken place between 28.07.2005 and 27.07.2006. The Competent Authority mainly relied on the guideline value and the value given by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, National Highways, Vadipatti Taluk and thus, determined Rs.25.58 per sq.mt. for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt. for the dry land and allowed 10% solatium amount.

21. The Arbitrator/District Collector, Madurai, confirmed the said rate determined by the Competent Authority.

22. In the Ar.O.Ps. filed by the claimants, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, referred to the evidence of the claimants consisting of their proof affidavits and documentary evidence and also the evidence of R.W.1, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Highways and R.W.2, an Official of the second respondent, the learned Judge also brush aside Ex.P.5, sale deed, dated 3.2.2003. However, the learned Judge pointed out that the lands comprised in the sales statistics taken by the Competent Authority are at a distance, however, the land sold under Ex.P.4, sale deed, dated 21.12.2001, is not so and the learned Judge had also taken into account the several advantages pertains to the acquired land and their potential value. In the circumstances, the learned Judge also taken into account the value of the land covered in Ex.P.4, sale deed, dated 21.12.2001. To arrive at the market value, the learned Judge considered the principles laid down in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) Vs. PALANIAPPAN [2007 (3) MLJ266, added 10% of it, namely, Rs.12,200/- for each year from 2002 to 2006. Thus, arrived at Rs.19,650/- per cent. The learned Judge considering the decisions reported in SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) Vs. VADIVEL [2010 (4) MLJ813 and 2010 (4) MLJ461 deducted 20% towards development charges and since the data land selected is of smaller extent, further deducted 20% and ultimately, arrived at Rs.12,576/- per cent. As allowed under the NH Act, the learned Judge added 10% on the amount of compensation determined at the said rate and also awarded 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession, namely, 19.1.2007 till deposit.

23. Aggrieved, the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai, directed these batch of appeals to this Court.

24. The details of the appellants, appeals, extent of the land acquired and the details of compensation awarded are tabulated as under:- Sl Appellant Ar. Surv Exte Awarde Award of Amount Amoun enhanced C.M. . O.P.N ey nt d by Arbitrator/ awarded t compensa A. No o. No.sq.m the District bythe alrea tion (MD) . t. Compet Collector Principa dy No.& ent l recei Cent Author District ved ity Court (Rs.) per per cen sq. t mt. 1 R.Karuppi 8/09 202/ 278 25.58 confirmed 125 310 31818 1842622 650/ ah 5A975per CA's. award 76 . 6 13 201/ 950 sq.mt. 51 1 3625 = 238/ 500 1023 4B ---- per 199/ - cent 5 6328 for 202/ sq.m wet 3 t. land. or 10.88 156. per 2 sq.mt. cent = s 435 per cent for dry land 2 S.Alagars 9/09 127/ 1272 -do- -do- -do- do- 45640 388734 651/ amy 3 sq.m 13 t. or 31.4 cent s 3 R.Navaman 10/ 96/4 970 -do- -do- -do- do- 11609 319706 652/ i 09 B sq.m 13 t. or 24.2 5 cent s 4 M.Gopala 11/ 197/ 2894 -do- -do- -do- do- 52404 1555417 653/ Krishnan 09 1 197/ 2457 9 13 2 116 64/4 621 64/2 ------ B - 6088 sq.mt. or 150.32 cents 5 G.Ravi 12/ 216/ 110 09 1 1233 217/ ---- 1 - 1343 sq.m t. -do- -do- -do- do- 16737 420932 654/ or 4 13 33.1 6 cent s 6 M.Subbula 13/ 195/ 1375 kshmi 09 2B sq.m t. or 33.9 -do- -do- -do- do- 11215 357494 655/ 5 6 13 cent s 7 Palaniapp 14/ 128/ 1622 an (died) 09 5D sq.m Angammal t. & Others or 45640 40.0 -do- -do- -do- do- 508381 656/ 49 13 cent s 8 G.Venkila 15/ 62/1 2028 -do- -do- -do- do- 24907 667797 657/ samy 09 sq.m 13 (died) t. Poongotha or i and 50.0 Others 74 cent s 9 K.Selvam 16/ 32/1 3043 -do- -do- -do- do- 11609 1180847 658/ 09 33/6 448 13 ---- - 3491 sq.m t. or 86.2 0 cent s 10 R.Radhakr 17/ 119/ 891 ishnan 09 2 sq.m t. or -do- -do- -do- do- 45640 258699 659/ 22 13 cent s 11 V.Seethar 20/ 127/ 1774 aman 09 1A sq.m t. -do- -do- -do- do- 49917 555994 660/ or 13 4380 cent s 12 K.Dharmar 21/ 117/ 228 aj 09 2B33117/ ---- 3 - 261 sq.m t. 16324 or -do- -do- -do- do- 72763 661/ 6.44 13 cent s 13 M.Andiapp 22/ 60/4 1682 an 09 sq.m t. or 41.5 -do- -do- -do- do- 20130 554379 662/ 3 13 cent s 14 G.Elangov 23/ 60/3 1997 an 09 B sq.m t. or 49.3 -do- -do- -do- do- 23900 658096 663/ 0 13 cent s 15 Athi 24/ 69/1 7851 Lakshmi 09 B sq.m t. or 193. -do- -do- -do- do- 93961 2587682 664/ 85 13 cent s 16 R.Malaich 25/ 19/2 545 amy 09 C3426/3 ---- 43 - 629 sq.m t. or -do- -do- -do- do- 7528 207307 665/ 15.5 13 3 cent s 17 V.Duraira 26/ 198/ 4443 j 09 5 sq.m t. or 109. -do- -do- -do- do- 11420 1403343 666/ 70 2 13 cent s 18 V.Ramacha 27/ 198/ 842 ndran 09 2 sq.m t. or 667/ 20.7 -do- -do- -do- do- 85977 201623 13 9 cent s 19 K.Govinda 28/ 32/2 3800 raj 09 sq.m t. or 668/ 93.8 -do- -do- -do- do- 45478 1252390 13 2 cent s 20 G.Narayan 29/ 117/ 3318 asamy 09 4 36 119/ ---- 1 - 3354 sq.m .t 669/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 37487 770685 13 82.8 5 1 cent s 21 V.Thirupp 30/ 128/ 747 athi 09 2B sq.m t. or 670/ 18.4 -do- -do- -do- do- 21019 234072 13 4 cent s 22 V.Ramacha 31/ 127/ 331 ndran 09 1B sq.m t. or 671/ 8.17 -do- -do- -do- do- 9314 103706 13 cent s 23 S.Kannan 32/ 19/1 4830 09 B sq.m t. or 672/ 119. -do- -do- -do- do- 57805 1591851 13 25 cent s 24 C.Gandhi 33/ 116/ 12 09 2 2288 119/ 2692 8 ---- 122 - 4992 sq.m t. 673/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 14046 1564526 13 123. 5 25 cent s 25 Thirumala 34/ 96/2 125 ivasan 09 sq.m t. or 674/ 3.08 -do- -do- -do- do- 1496 41195 13 6 cent s 26 S.Gopinat 35/ 96/4 2124 h 09 A sq.m t. or 675/ 52.4 -do- -do- -do- do- 25420 700013 13 4 cent s 27 R.Pappian 36/ 119/ 968 09 3 1474 119/ 1599 6 ---- 64/2 - A4041sq.m t. 676/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 97827 1282351 13 99.7 7 cent s 28 P.Rengasa 37/ 53/2 1116 my 09 B4253/3 ---- - 677/ 1158 -do- -do- -do- do- 13898 381604 13 sq.m t. or 28.5 9 cent s 29 K.Jeyaram 38/ 68/1 1339 an 09 A sq.m .t or 678/ 33.0 -do- -do- -do- do- 16025 441314 13 6 cent s 30 V.Pappu 39/ 198/ 6063 Reddi 09 4 sq.m t. or 679/ 149. -do- -do- -do- do- 72562 1998327 13 70 cent s 31 Rajammal 40/ 60/1 502 09 B19860/2 273 A1560/3 3209 A ---- 60/1 - A419761 sq.m t. 680/ or -do- -do- -do- do- 67916 1365521 13 103. 62 cent s 25. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would submit that the method adopted by the learned Principal District Judge, in determining the compensation is not in accordance with the provisions of NH Act. The increase effected is manifold. It is also more than the amount previously determined by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, before the remand order passed by this Court in the C.M.As. The sale in Ex.P.4 was much prior to Section 3-A(1) notification made under NH Act. So, it cannot be taken into account. The acquired lands are dry lands. Further, the land situate at a distance from the acquired lands cannot be considered. In this respect, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India cited P.RAJAN AND ANOTHER Vs. KERELA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER [1997 (9) SCC330 and SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER Vs. M.K.RAFIQ SAHEB [2011 (7) SCC714.

26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that for the acquired lands, proper compensation has to be given. That could be achieved by determining its market value. The value of the lands are not static. In the prevailing circumstances, they are on the increase and not on the wane. Merely because Ex.P.4 sale deed is prior to Section 3-A(1) notification or it being for sale of a smaller extent of land Ex.P.4 cannot be rejected when especially its genuineness was not doubted. The learned counsel further contended that they offer a solid guide, because of its closeness to the acquired land.

27. The learned counsel for the claimants would further submit that there are many advantages pertaining to the acquired land, they are in and around the vicinity of the acquired land. Lands around the acquired land are being converted as house sites. The land conveyed under Ex.P.4 is a vacant site. The acquired lands are vacant lands. The potential value of the acquired land, its future use cannot also be lost sight of. Further, after giving 10% increase per year due to escalation in land value, the learned Principal District Judge, has deducted 20% due to development charges and further deducted 20% since smaller extent of land has been conveyed under Ex.P.4 sale deed.

28. We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned counsel for the claimants, perused the materials on record, the impugned awards and the various decisions cited.

29. Proper compensation is to be awarded for the lands acquired under NH Act. Guidance for determination of compensation is provided in Section 3- G(7)(a). As per that, the market value of the land on the date of publication of 3-A(1) notification have to be taken into account by the Competent Authority. The market value of the land has not been defined either in the NH Act or in the Rules framed thereunder. Thus, it must be considered in the sense of reality of the situation pertaining to the lands acquired under the Act.

30. In HASANALI KHANBHAI & SONS V. STATE OF GUJARAT [1995 (5) SCC422, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: (SCC page 425, para 3) ".3. . But it is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. The court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value.".

31. The said principles have also been reiterated in V.R.VENKATESALU AND OTHERS Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION HOUSING SCHEME II, COIMBATORE - 18 [2010 (2) MLJ153and SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER Vs. M.K.RAFIQ SAHEB [2011 (7) SCC714.

32. In our case, the Section 3-A(1) notification was made on 28.7.2006. It was published in the dailies on 20.9.2006. In laying down NH-7 from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, with regard to forming the Highway between Dindigul and Samayanallur, lands situate in Thathampatti Village, in Vadipatti Taluk, comprised in certain survey numbers have been acquired under NH Act, which included the lands of the claimants.

33. In determining the compensation, the Competent Authority mainly relied on the guideline value produced by R.W.1-Usha, Special Tahsildar (LA), Highways, Vadipatti Taluk. Guideline value is prescribed by the Government. It will not reflect the market value. Market value will be more than the guideline value. Market value will be based on the prevailing price, the price of a willing purchaser would offer to the seller. Thus, ascertainment of market value is very important.

34. In this regard, the Competent Authority referred to the rate at which certain lands are sold from 28.07.2005 to 27.07.2006 and determined the market value, namely, Rs.25.58 per sq.mt. for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt. for the punja land.

35. The Competent Authority completely brush aside Exs.P.4 and P.5, sale deeds, dated 21.12.2001 and 03.02.2003 produced by the claimants. Under Ex.P.5, 5 cents of house site were sold for Rs.1,50,000/-. However, the acquired lands are dry lands. Thus, the learned Principal District Judge, has also excluded Ex.P.5 from his zone of consideration.

36. Under Ex.P.4 sale deed, 10 cents in S.No.91/3C has been sold for Rs.1,22,000/-. It works out to Rs.301/- per sq.mt. and Rs.12,200/- per cent. There is admission before the Competent Authority that as regards distant factors as between the acquired land and the sale deeds taken for comparison, the distant is less with regard to the land sold under Ex.P.4 sale deed, whereas it is more as between the acquired land and the sale of land considered by the Competent Authority. The nature of the lands covered under Ex.P.4 is a vacant land. The acquired land is also of similar type. It is not in dispute that they are dry lands, non-agricultural land. It is pertinent to note that the genuineness of execution of Ex.P.4 was not doubted.

37. In the vicinity of acquired land on the northern side, Government Higher Secondary School, Veterinary Hospital, Ayyappan Temple, Neelamegaperumal Temple and Vadipatti-Palamedu Road, on the east, Andipatti Bungalow, Government Travellers Bungalow, Forest Office, Textile Mill, Cinema Theatre and Kachakatti- Palamedu Road and on the north, Neerathan National Highways-7, Vadipatti Town, Government Hospital, Police Station, Parvarthini Cotton Mill, Velmurugan Paper Mill, Iron Manufacturing Factory and a Coir Factory are situate. They are all not far away from the acquired land. Thus, in the close vicinity of the acquired lands, there are many advantageous enuring to the benefit of, value of the acquired lands. They are also responsible for escalation in land value. There is high potential value also for the acquired land.

38. Now, price of the lands are almost like gold price. The value of the lands are on the increase. This is a general trend in the market. Merely on account of Ex.P.4, sale deed having been taken place prior to Section 3-A(1) notification nor under it small extent of land has been sold Ex.P.4 sale deed cannot be rejected [See SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER Vs. M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB [2011 (7) SCC714]..

39. In the circumstances, so as to arrive at the market value, the learned Principal District Judge, referring to the decision reported in 2007 (3) MLJ266[LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) Vs. PALANIAPPAN]., every year added 10% to the price of the land sold under Ex.P.4 from 2002 to 2006. Further, the learned Principal District Judge, also deducted 20% towards development charges and further deducted 20% in view of small extent of land having been conveyed under Ex.P.4 and thus, arrived at Rs.12,576/- per cent as the market value of the land.

40. To arrive at the market value, considering the increase in the land value, the method adopted by the learned Principal Judge, cannot be faulted as it had fetches a fair and a reasonable market rate. But, considering the small extent covered under Ex.P.4, the price mentioned therein having been taken for comparison, 20% deduction is not sufficient. Some further deduction has to be made. Considering the various aspects, after making further deduction, fixing Rs.12,000/- per cent as market value for the acquired land would be fair and reasonable.

41. Further, on the compensation so determined at Rs.12,000/- per cent, statutory addition in the nature of solatium at 10% has to be added and on the amount so arrived at as per Section 3-H(5) of NH Act, 9% interest p.a. has to be added from the date of possession till actual deposit of the amount.

42. In view of the clear cut provisions in Section 3-J of NH Act excluding applicability of L.A. Act, the learned counsel for the claimants conceded that the claimants are now not entitle to 30% solatium and other items of compensation and interest awarded for the lands acquired under L.A. Act.

43. As already stated that the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in AIR2003(KAR.) 165 holding that the discrimination in determining the compensation for the lands acquired under NH Act and under L.A. Act, as arbitrary and unconstitutional has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a similar line of decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court made on 04.03.2011 also has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.(MD) Nos.977, 981 to 989 of 2011, on 23.02.2012. In this connection, the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that according to the out come of the said decisions, the claimants may be permitted to make claim for revised calculation, at para No.20 of his Judgment, the learned Principal District Judge, permitted them to await the verdict in the said pending proceedings. It is needless to say that it must also be in accordance with the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. In the circumstances, we are not to disturb such a reservation being made for the claimants in the Judgment of the learned Principal District Judge.

44. In view of the foregoings, C.M.A.(MD) Nos.650 to 680 of 2013 are partly allowed. The claimant/first respondent in each appeal is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent and on the amount so determined statutory solatium of 10% shall be added and on the amount so calculated 9% interest p.a. from the date of possession, namely, 19.1.2007 till date of deposit shall be added. Time for depositing the amount, less amount already deposited, is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. smn2 To 1.The Principal District Judge, Madurai. 2.The District Collector, Madurai. 3.The District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition - National Highways) Collectorate Building, Madurai - 625 020. 4.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.