COLLECTOR OF MADRAS Vs. E.K. PATTABIRAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these four appeals preferred by the Government, common questions arise. The properties which are the subject -matter of these four appeals are comprised in Survey Numbers 29, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32 and 34. The extents acquired in each of the above survey fields can be catalogued thus: In S. No. 29 Ac. 2 34 cents In S. No. 30/1 Ac. 2 33 cents In S. No. 30/2 Ac. 2 33 cents In S. No. 31 Ac. 0 72 cents In S. No. 32 Ac. 9 91 cents In S. No. 34 Ac. 1 79 cents The above properties were acquired for the purpose of extending the Industrial Estate at Guindy. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on September 29, 1965, the declaration under Section 6, on July 18, 1966 and on 1966 and on April 3, 1967, the properties were taken possession of by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer, who enquired into the market value of the properties, the superstructures, the wells and the interests of other affected parties, gave a compensation of Rs. 1,500/ - per ground and varied amounts in respect of the superstructures and the wells found in the properties. Whilst arriving at the net amount of compensation payable to the persons interested, the Land Acquisition Officer deducted a sum of Rs. 100/ - per ground in certain survey numbers as above which expense, according to the acquisition officer, was necessary to raise the level of the land by one foot. In one case, which is the subject -matter of appeal in A. S. No. 566 of 1970, there was a lessee who was in occupation of Survey No. 30/1 and Survey No. 34, pursuant to a lease entered in to between him and the landlord under Exhibit C -16 dated December 9, 1964, which is admittedly an unregistered lease deed in relation to immovable property which he obtained from the landlord. Under the lease the lessee who is one of the claimants in L. A. C. No. 108/1967 (subject -matter of appeal in A. S. No. 566/1970) claims that he levelled the land and manured it so as to raise jasmine plants, roses, marudhani, Rangoon malli etc., and that after having spent such considerable sums for reclamation of the land for using it for a particular purpose for which the lease of the land was taken, the lessee claimed that he was, on the average, earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - per year as and towards his income and that he has been deprived of such income during the unexpired period of the lease and on that ground, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,42,366/ -. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 500/ - for eight years towards the loss of income for the unexpired period of the lease. The learned City Civil Judge, however, after considering the oral evidence, was satisfied that for the unexpired period of the lease, the lessee was entitled to damages at the rate of Rupees 1,000/ - per year for the eight years of lease to follow after acquisition. The State Government is aggrieved by the grant of Rs. 3,000/ - per ground as such to the various owners of the lands which were the subject -matter of compulsory acquisition and they are equally aggrieved by the quantum of compensation given by the Court below with regard to the superstructures and the wells in the acquired lands and in particular, and they would attack the grant of sum of Rs. 1,000/ - per year as damages to the leasee for the unexpired period of eight years in L. A. C. No. 108/67 (subject -matter of Appeal No. 566/70) and they would also contend that the deduction of Rs. 40/ - per ground by the Court below as the amount required for raising the level of the acquired land by one foot wherever it is necessary, is not fair and just and that the Land Acquisition Officer's estimate of Rs. 100/ - per ground to raise the level of the land would be reasonable. Learned Counsel for the claimants would sustain the judgment of the Court below in all its aspects. With regard to the reduction of the reclamation charges from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 40/ - by the Court below, it is said that the said sum of Rs. 40/ - per ground was the scale adopted by the High Court in similar circumstances in 1958 and that there being no reasonable hypothesis to interfere with such a quantification, the award of the Court below has to be sustained. On the contrary the learned Government Pleader would say that even taking into consideration the normal increase attendant upon such reclamation process such as the cost of labour, cost of material etc., the reduction made by the Court below on such reclamation charges from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 40/ - is not justified. The bone of contention, however, is about the grant of Rs. 8,000/ - to the lessee of the land comprised in Survey Nos. 30/1 and 34. Whilst the Government Pleader would say that the lessee is not entitled to any amount at all, after the Land Acquisition process was undertaken by the State, Mr. Kumaraswami,  learned counsel for the lessee (the affected or interested person) would urge that the grant of Rs. 1,000/ - as the estimated loss of the lessee who took over the land for the specific purpose of raising flower plants in it and for exploiting the same in that direction, is a necessary concomitant which has to be considered by the Courts vested with the jurisdiction to grant compensation to interested persons, and, so viewed, the lower Court was right in granting such compensation to him. The Government Pleader, however, would urge that, once the landlord was given compensation by reason of the compulsory acquisition, then the land is no longer available to the lessee for him to utilise the same and exploit the same for his business purposes, and in the absence of such land, the claim for profits by use and occupation of the non - existent land is a myth and ought not to be, therefore, countenanced. His further case is that if the lessee is also paid damages as awarded by the Court below, it would tantamount to the award of double compensation for a single acquisition under two different heads, which grant cannot be made either under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act or otherwise.

(2.) WE have heard arguments and looked into the relevant papers. We are not inclined, for a moment, to disturb the grant of compensation made by the Court below in relation to the huts or superstructures, samadhis, kavalawari cement tub and the other small structures in the lands acquired. We confirm the valuations made by the Court below as regards the said huts etc.

(3.) THIS leaves us to the two contentions which are practically the bone of contention as between the interested parties before us. We shall now take up the first question. According to the Government Pleader, the reduction of the reclamation charges from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 40/ - made by the Court below in order to raise the level of the land is neither justified nor based on any acceptable data. The lower Court thought that since the High Court fixed such reclamation charges in the vicinity in or about 1958 at Rs. 40/ - per ground per one foot, such a valuation has to be adopted even in the year 1965 when the properties under consideration were the subject -matter of compulsory acquisition. We do not agree. The Land Acquisition Officer has deducted the sum of Rs. 100/ - per ground so as to raise the level of the land by one foot. Equally, there is no basis for this. The Government Pleader, however, would rely upon the value adopted by the State Housing Board which is about Rs. 192/ - per ground for raising one foot in one ground of land. The State has filed Exhibits R -6 to R -10 showing the level of the lands and the extent of the low -lying area in each of the survey numbers acquired. Whilst the reclamation charges, therefore, are based on pure estimate, the case of the claimants is that in the absence of any scientific method by which the actual level of the land could be gauged and measured, it is said that, the evidence of the witnesses examined on the side of the State ought not to be relied upon. That some of the lands under consideration are low -lying cannot be disputed, since the case of the claimants is that the earth has been removed because of the fall of some tress in the land. It is a far -fetched story. On the other hand, the contention of the State through its officers that the earth has been removed for the purpose of brick -making appears to be acceptable and true. We therefore find that the lands are low -lying since mud has been deliberately removed from the lands and the claimants should suffer reclamation charges by reason of the undisputed low level of the lands acquired. Having regard to the fact that the High Court fixed a sum of Rs. 40/ - per ground whilst similar lands were acquired in the neighbourhood, but in the year 1958, we are of the view that, noting the increase in the cost of such earth and in the cost of labour, a sum of Rs. 75/ - per ground to raise the level of the lands set out below by one foot would be the reasonable expense which the claimants should bear. We therefore raise the reclamation charges from Rs. 40/ - to Rs. 75/ - and such reclamation charges have to be borne by the claimants who own the lands described below, to the extent of the low - lying areas mentioned as against each of the survey numbers: