SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/827633 |
Subject | Property |
Court | Chennai High Court |
Decided On | Mar-20-1997 |
Reported in | (1997)2MLJ184 |
Appellant | Deccan Pipes and Tubes Ltd. |
Respondent | The Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Officer |
AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. A.S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1987 have been filed by the respective claimants for enhanced compensation while A.S. Nos. 722 and 723 of 1988 have been filed by the State questioning the award of compensation by the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, in excess of the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through the Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Hosur, in Award No. 4 of 1980. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,28,685. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 claimed enhanced compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. Likewise, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1982 made a reference under Section 18 of the Act through the Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Hosur, in Award No. 4 of 1980. An extent of 10.18 acres of land was acquired and a compensation of Rs. 29,888.50 was awarded to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has claimed enhanced compensation by making a reference to the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, under Section 18 of the Act through the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 22.6.1977 and after enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No. 4 of 1980 on 30.6.1980 fixing the value of the land at Rs. 2,500 per acre; bricks, rough stones, chips, etc., in Survey No. 205 at Rs. 3,300; bricks, rough stones, chips, etc., in Survey Nos. 206/1, 206/2 and 206/3 at Rs. 3,700; house and structures at Rs. 14,001 in Survey No. 207/2 and bricks, etc., therein at Rs. 1,399; bricks, rough stones, chips, etc., in Survey No. 208 at Rs. 900; bricks etc., in Survey No. 209 at Rs. 750; house and structures in Survey No. 210 at Rs. 300, wells at Rs. 6,275 and bricks, etc., therein at Rs. 525; and house and structures in Survey No. 211 at Rs. 28,705 and bricks, etc., therein at Rs. 295. In all, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted a compensation of Rs. 29,888.50 to the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1982 and Rs. 1,28,685 to the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 on the basis of the sale deed relating to sale of one acre of land in Survey No. 169, which had been sold at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per acre.
4. The claimants in L.A.O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1982 are sister concerns. According to them, the lands in question were purchased by them for industrial purposes. The claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1982 had purchased the land for the purpose of starting Oxygen Plant whereas the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 had purchased the lands for the purpose of manufacturing steel pipes and tubes. It is their further case that the said lands are not agricultural lands but are potential industrial sites and that the acquisition itself is for the purpose of installation of an industry. According to them, the compensations fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and that the lands acquired would easily be worth Rs. 50,000 per acre. The claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 has further contended that there is an asbestos building and a zinc sheet building in Survey No. 207/2 and that there is an asbestos sheet building in Survey No. 211 and a well in Survey No. 210. Further, the claimant had put up barbed wire and fencing with stone pillars around the site. According to them, the buildings are easily worth Rs. 90,000. Further, the claimant had spent Rs. 90,000 for levelling the land and put up the barbed wire fencing, etc. They had also spent Rs. 60,000 for erection of plants and machineries and therefore, they should be granted a compensation of Rs. 2,40,000 for the buildings, improvement, etc.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer, Hosur, passed the award in question on 30.6.1980. The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Madras, has applied for the acquisition of 31.16 acres of land in Mookandapalli village, Hosur Taluk, for the development growth centres, industrial Complex at Hosur by SIPCOT. Out of the said extent, an extent of Order 28 acre in Survey No. 207/1 had been acquired and transferred as National Highways Road Poramboke and therefore it had been deleted. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has proposed an extent of 30.88 acres for acquisition works. To acquire the same, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in R.G.O. Rt. No. 359, Industries, dated 24.5.1977 and published in the gazette dated 22.6.1977. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. The objections were overruled by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1731, dated 7.12.1979 and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the draft direction under Section 7 of the Act were approved. They were published in the Government Gazette dated 2.1.1980 and errata was published on 30.4.1980. Notices under Section 9(i), 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued, published and served on all the interested persons in the manner prescribed by the rules. The award enquiry was posted to 5.6.1980, and the award was passed on 28.6.1980.
6. For the purpose of valuation of the lands under acquisition sales statistics for a period of three years from 22.6.1974 to 21.6.1977 have been gathered from the Sub Registrar office, Hosur, in respect of the village in question. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded 33 cases out of 161 sales since they are only small plots for house sites. He also discarded 74 cases since those lands were purchased by three individuals for Rs. 6,502 and Rs. 7,400 per acre with a view to dispose of the same as house sites to gain more monetary benefit and that therefore, they do not reflect the real market value. Another 21 cases were discarded since the lands involved therein are situated far away from the lands to be acquired. Another nine cases were discarded since those transactions relate to the sale of wet lands.
7. An extent of 5.15 acres of dry land in Survey Nos. 189 and 190 was purchased by one Chenna Reddy at Rs. 4,775 per acre on speculative price after the lands have been acquired for S1PCOT. Therefore, these items of lands were also discarded. Since the lands covered by Serial Nos. 104, 105 and 158 were registered for lower amount to evade stamp duty, they are also discarded. Serial Nos. 113, 124, 125 and 126 were discarded since these lands are nearer to SIPCOT complex and sold on competitive price. Serial Nos. 115 and 116 were also discarded since the lands were sold for Rs. 8,602 and Rs. 7,145 per acre viz., for a competitive price. Under Serial No. 118, one acre was sold at Rs. 5,013. Since the sale is between relatives and adjoining the village site, it was discarded. Serial Nos. 135 and 159 were also rejected since, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the price mentioned therein does not reflect the real market value.
8. There remained only two sales in Serial Nos. 136 and 147. Serial No. 136 is an extent of one acre in Survey No. 169, which was sold for Rs. 2,500 in Document No. 2935, dated 8.12.1976. The same land was sold again for the same amount in Document No. 801 dated 29.3.1977. The lands under acquisition and the land sold under Serial No. 136 bear the same soil classification, i.e., 8.2.6 with an assessment of Rs. 1.37. The data land is situated at a distance of one and a half furlong from the lands under acquisition, which were previously purchased by M/s. Deccan Pipes and Tubes Limited, Bangalore, at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per acre from the Pattadars in Document No. 908 dated 19.3.1974 for non-agriculture purpose. The sale amount in Serial Nos. 136 and 147 is a reasonable one. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, it reflects the true market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per acre. Likewise, the lands in Survey Nos. 203 and 204 of an extent of 10.18 acres are registered in the names of M/s. Southern Steelment and Alloys Limited, Bangalore, who objected to the acquisition of the lands. Their objections were overruled and the award was passed. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
9. Before the Sub Court, Exs. A-1 to A-31 were marked on the side of the claimants and Exs. B-1 to B-12 on the side of the respondent/State. One S. Chandrakumar was examined as P.W. 1 on the side of the claimants and no oral evidence was let in on the side of the State. The learned Subordinate Judge on a perusal of Serial No. 118 of the sales statistics, adopted the said sale as a data sale with certain modifications. The said sale relates to large bit of land and not small pieces as referred to in Serial Nos. 132, 139, 140, 153 and 156 of the sale statistics. Therefore, considering the recent trend of prices and also taking all the factors into consideration, the Sub Court fixed the value of the land at Rs. 10,000 per acre. The Sub Court has not awarded any further compensation since, according to the learned Subordinate Judge, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the fence, building, etc., has not been proved to be inadequate. So far as the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 is concerned, the Sub Court fixed the value of the land at Rs. 10,000 per acre and the value of the building at Rs. 56,830 and awarded interest at 12% per annum from 22.6.1977 to 30.6.1980. In all, the Sub Court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,61,622.95 and 30% solatium on this amount, which comes to Rs. 1,08,486-90. In all, in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982, he awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,70,109.85 with interest at 4% per annum on the total enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,41,424-85 from the date of taking possession viz., 24.7.1980 till date of payment. Likewise, in L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1982, the Sub Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,01,800 for the land and Rs. 540 for bricks, rough stones, chips, etc., with interest at 12% per annum which comes to Rs. 37,934. The total compensation is Rs. 1,40,274 and 30% solatium on this amount is Rs. 42,082.20. The total compensation payable is Rs. 1,82,356.20 with interest at 4% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,52,467-70 from the date of taking possession viz., 24.7.1980 till date of payment.
10. Mr. C.R. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for the claimants, contended that the learned Subordinate Judge having rejected the sale deed Ex. B-9, which was relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, ought to have accepted the value mentioned in the sale deeds produced by the claimants in Exs. A-4 and A-5, especially in the absence of any other document on the side of the State. He also contended that the court below is not correct in rejecting Exs. A-4 and A-5 in toto merely on the ground that those documents are related to small pieces of lands. Our attention was also drawn to paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge wherein the learned Subordinate Judge having found that the prices of lands are fluctuating between Rs. 37,500 and Rs. 40,000 per acre, has erred in fixing the market value at Rs. 10,000 per acre without any basis whatsoever. The Court below has also failed to see that though the lands have been originally used for agricultural purposes after the purchase by the claimants for putting up an industry, they have done the work partially. As such, the Court below ought to have valued the land only as a house site or land for industrial development. It is not in dispute that the purpose of acquisition is for allotment of the same to SIPCOT. Once the acquisition is for industrial purpose, the lands cannot be valued as agricultural lands. It is also contended that the learned Subordinate Judge has not given clue consideration and credit to Exs. A-29 and A-30 to arrive at the proper value of the lands under acquisition.
11. Arguing contra, Mr. V. Ravi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in A.S. Nos. 722 and 723 of 1988 contended that the judgment of the Court below is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the records and the Court below has failed to see that the Land Acquisition Officer has correctly fixed the compensation after taking into consideration the relevant materials and therefore, there is no valid reason for enhancing the compensation. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer after careful consideration of the nature and the situation of the land has fixed the compensation correctly. Therefore, there is no scope for enhancing the compensation amount as has been done by the Court below. It is also contended that the lands under acquisition were agricultural lands, which do not have any potential value prior to the acquisition for SIPCOT in the year 1975 and therefore, the present market value on the award should not be taken into account for enhancing the compensation.
12. We have carefully considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side. We are of the view that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in fixing the compensation at Rs. 10,000 per acre is not correct. It is settled law that the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said market rate must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The best evidence would be of sales of similar land with similar advantages at about the time of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer has selected a sale relating to one acre of land in Survey No. 169 on 6.12.1976 for Rs. 2300 as data sale. Ex. B-9 is that sale deed. We have perused Ex. B-11 sketch, which would go to show that the acquired lands are abutting the Hosur Bangalore main road. The data land is not abutting the main road, and it is far away from the road and lies in the interior portion.
13. Our attention was also drawn to Exs. A-4 and A-5, which are sale deeds dated 7.4.1977 and 27.4.1977 respectively. Under Ex. A-4, one Sitha Reddy had sold 6 1/2 cents in Survey No. 200 to one Anniah Chetty for a consideration of Rs. 3,000. Ex. A-5 is the sale deed whereunder one Narayana Reddiar had sold 10 cents in Survey No. 196 to one Venkatarama Reddy for a consideration of Rs. 4,000. So far as Exs. A-4 and A-5 are concerned, they have been detailed as Serial Nos. 153 and 155 in the sale statistics. A careful perusal of the sale statistics would reveal that from 1976 onwards there is steep rise in the prices of lands in and around Mookondapalli village because of the offing of SIPCOT industrial complex.
14. Serial No. 118 of the sale statistics can also be looked into in this context. The total extent of land viz., 2.46 acres had been sold on 15.6.1976 at the rate of Rs. 5,013 per acre. Again, in the same Survey Number, ten cents had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 4,000, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per acre, as per Serial No. 131 of the sale statistics. Then again, in the same Survey Number, four cents had been sold on 10.1.1977 at the rate of Rs. 35,500 and on the same date, another 5 cents had been sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per acre, as noted in Serial No. 140 of the sale statistics. Again, 6 cents in Serial No. 196 had been sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per acre on 29.4.1977, as mentioned in Serial Nos. 155 and 156 of the sale statistics. We may also point out that during 1977, larger extent of lands have not been sold but only small bits of lands have been sold mostly for house sites. The evidence of P.W. 1 is very clear on this aspect. He says that the purpose of their purchase is also for setting up industries. Exs. A-1 to A-28 produced by the claimants would show that the purpose is for setting up industries. The Land Acquisition Officer, in our opinion, has miserably failed to take this aspect into consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge considering the fluctuation of the prices and the recent trend of prices, ought to have fixed the value of the land at least at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre. We have already seen that under Exs. A-4 and A-5, lands have been sold at the rate of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 per acre respectively.
15. It is stated by C.W. 1 that the claimants have started construction and installation of machineries and they have placed orders for machineries and paid monies as advance as evidenced by Exs. A-12 to A-17. The learned Subordinate Judge has miserably failed to notice that the data land is situated in the interior and at a distance of more than one kilometre away from the acquired lands and the data sale has taken place when the industrial activity in that area was yet to gain momentum. Learned Counsel for the claimants is right in saying that the data sale land was disimilar to the acquired land in every respect and the data sale does not reflect the real value of the land at the time of acquisition.
16. It is not in dispute that the entire lands with buildings structures, etc., were acquired. The acquired lands are situate at the heart of the industrial complex at Hosur and the claimants have purchased those lands for starting a Steel Tube Plant even before the SIPCOT Industrial complex was started. It is also in evidence that the claimants were also sanctioned with financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs by the SIPCOT, Rs. 30 lakhs by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation and Rs. 30 lakhs by the Andhra Bank. They have also made arrangements to purchase the required machinery and orders had already been placed with the suppliers and manufacturers of the machinery and huge amounts were also paid as advance. We may also point out that the Land Acquisition Officer had treated the acquired lands as mere agricultural lands and valued them accordingly. In our opinion, the acquired lands had the potential value as industrial lands and also as building site lands at the time of acquisition. The Madras to Bangalore National Highway runs on the northern side of the acquired lands and on the northern side of this national highway, the factory buildings of M/s. Asia Tobacco Company Limited, M/s. Lakshmi Automatic Loom Factory Limited, M/s. English Electric Company of India Limited, M/s. Carborandum Universal Limited, M/s. Orient Television Limited and other concerns are situated. The SIPCOT project office building is also situated on the north of this road. Immediately to the east of the acquired lands, the factory building of M/s. Thirumalai Electronics Limited is situated. Further east of this, the SIPCOT housing colony is situated, which extends to the south of the acquired lands also. On the west of the acquired lands, many residential houses have been built and to the west of these, new residential houses are situated.
17. It is also not in dispute that the claimants had already put up two buildings in the acquired lands and the acquired lands command electricity and good water supply facilities. Further, lot of industrial and construction activities had been going on from the beginning of 1975 and it reached the peak level by the beginning of 1977 and all the lands in the village in question had obtained the potential value of building sites and their values had increased many fold. In our opinion, the acquired lands have the high potential value of industrial and building site lands and the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have valued the acquired lands as house sites and industrial site lands. As a matter of fact, after acquisition, the acquired lands were allotted to various industrialists including M/s. Kothari Electronics Limited for putting up their industrial factories and in fact, M/s. Kothari Electronics Limited are putting up their factory, which is almost finished. A three star hotel is also being constructed in the acquired lands besides other buildings. Therefore, the claimants have claimed a market value of Rs. 50,000 per acre for the acquired lands. There are also very many private sale of house sites in the vicinity of the acquired lands more or less at the same rate.
18. We have already noticed that the data land is situated anterior and at a distance of one kilometre away from the acquired land. We have also noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded very many sale deeds of higher value without assigning any valid reason and in order to award a very low Compensation. This Court can take judicial notice that the claimants have levelled the acquired lands at a very great cost and had put up barbed wire fencing with stone pillars all around the acquired lands. They have also incurred heavy expenditure for obtaining industrial licence towards project preliminary work, for arranging for loans and for placing orders for machinery. As a result of the acquisition, the claimants have to face many legal proceedings by their financiers and others. Though the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 per acre, they have restricted their claim in the appeals at Rs. 25,000 per acre. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge has found in para 13 of his judgment that the price of the land is fluctuating between Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 40,000 per acre. Having so found, he has erred in fixing the market value at Rs. 10,000 per acre, which, in our opinion, is without any basis whatsoever. The learned Subordinate Judge should have considered Exs. A-4 and A-5.
19. For the foregoing reasons and taking into consideration of the advantages available to the acquired lands, we are of the view, that a compensation of Rs. 20,000 per acre for the acquired lands would be fair just and reasonable. The market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 2,500 per acre and by the learned Subordinate Judge at Rs. 10,000 per acre, is not correct and against the documentary evidence and oral evidence on record. Therefore, both the claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre for the entire extent of the acquired land. Besides, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 shall be entitled to Rs. 56,830 towards the value of the building. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum is awarded on the award amount from 22.6.1977 till date of realisation. Besides, the claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium on the amount awarded.
20. In the result, A.S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1987 filed by the claimants are allowed in part as indicated above with proportionate costs. A.S. Nos. 722 and 723 of 1988 filed by the State are dismissed without costs as no case is made out for reducing the compensation amount.