UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are the appellants. THE matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act. An extent of 9.11.00 hectares in Survey No. 309/1B of Varichikudi Village, Karaikal Taluk, among other lands, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Navodaya Vidayalaya School at Karaikal as per notification dated 30.01.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). THE Land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 22.02.1988, determined the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 519/- per Acre and a total compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,17,609.30 P. was paid to the six land owners which included a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for the standing trees. In the same award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards the value of the trees representing 50% share to the tenant, the respondent herein. Aggrieved by this award, the tenant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and on reference, th e learned Additional District Judge in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1988 awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,53,000/- in the following manner: " Item No. 1 Standing Trees Rs. 3,00,000/ Item No. 2 Ponds Rs. 48,000/- Item No. 3 compensation for loss of tenancy right Rs. 3,00,000/ Item No. 4 Compensation on account of utility Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 6,53,000/ THE present appeal is against the judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to determine the compensation for the second time, after the lands having been valued and compensation awarded. ACCORDING to him, the Court ought to have accepted either the capitalized method of valuation or market value of the land and cannot adopt both. He submits that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to support the case of the respondent as to the value of the trees and the value of the ponds and that there cannot be a separate valuation for the land and the ponds. He submitted that the whole approach of the lower Court to determine the compensation for the loss of tenancy right and utility of the land, is erroneous and illegal.

(3.) IT is well settled that market value means the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for the sale of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer exercises his statutory duty under Section 11 to hold an enquiry and determines the market value on the basis of well recognised principles. He has to enquire about the transactions of sale of similar lands and if such evidence is not available, then only he has to follow the alternative method of computation of market value by adoption of capitalization of the net income method, namely " (i) what is the average gross yield from the agricultural land" (ii) what is the cost of cultivation" and (iii) what is the average price of the agricultural commodity grown on the land" The best method of determination of market price of land under acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of similar land. In State of Kerala v. P.P. Hasan Koya (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1201), the Supreme Court held that in the case of land, its value, in general, can also be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in the past for land of similar quantity and similar condition and this is what must be meant in general by the market value in Section 23 of the Act. However, when the property sold is land with building and if it is found difficult to secure reliable evidence of the instances of sale of similar lands with buildings, the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with building is the method of capitalization of return. Therefore, once the market value has been determined on the basis of comparable sales, there is no scope for once again determining the compensation by capitalization method for the benefit of the tenant. As seen in this case, by an award dated 22.2.1988, the market value of the land has been determined, including the tenant's share, by the Land Acquisition Officer. If at all there is any amount to be shared on the market value, like for instance, apportionment of the tenant's share, he has to seek the same under Section 30 of the Act and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment, the Collector shall then refer such a dispute.