THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. MANI BHARATHI ALIAS K. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai on a reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition is of an extent of one acre and 90 cents of dry land in S.No. 140 Kodikulam village of Madurai Taluk for constructing quarters for the police staff at Othakadai. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 30 percent. and the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced it to Rs. 8 percent. While the State has preferred Appeal Suit No/604 of 1961 against the award of additional compensation, the claimant has preferred Appeal Suit No. 74 of 1962 claiming compensation in the appeal at Rs. 150 percent.

(2.) THE land under acquisition is situated at the junction point of Kodikulam, Narasingam and Arumbanur Village limits and adjacent to Anamalai Hills abuts on the road from Othakadai to Narasingam and other villages. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 15th April, 1959. For the claimant reliance was principally placed upon the sale deeds Exhibits B -3 to B -9, dated 24th February, 1947 in respect of the portions of R.S. No. 147 adjoining R.S. No. 140, but separated by a channel. R.S. No. 147 was nanja land and under the sale deeds small extents of seven cents each were sold for house sites and the price ranges from Rs. 142 to Rs. 214 percent. Reliance was placed also on two sale deeds Exhibits B -10 and B -11 bearing date 16th February, 1947 of sales of land in R. S. No. 144 of the extent of 20 cents under each deed at Rs. 150 percent. R.S. No. 144 is further removed from R.S. No. 147 and nearer the Madurai Metur Main Road. Two other sale deeds, and these are of very small extents, relied upon by the claimant are of the year 1948. On behalf of the State two sale deeds Exhibits A -2 and A -3 have been placed on the record as evidence. Under Exhibit A -2 an extent of 18 cents is conveyed in R.S. No. 203 in June, 1956. The rate works out to Rs. 19 percent. Exhibit A -3, is a sale in September, 1958 of an extent of 16 1/2 cents in R.S. No. 207 for Rs. 400. R.S. No. 203 is far removed from the locality with which we are concerned and beyond the Anamalai Hills and even so R. S.No. 207. These sale deeds can in no sense be considered as comparable sales or of lands similarly situated, and there can be no doubt that guidance if any has to be sought only from the sales evidenced by Exhibits B -3 to B -9 subject to due allowance, but these sale deeds are not recent and this aspect is stressed strenuously for the State.' The learned Subordinate Judge took into consideration the value of the land in the neighbourhood furnished by Exhibits B -2 to B -15 even in 1947 and rejected the value's furnished by Exhibits A -2 and A -3. He took note of the fact that S. No. 147 -2 the southern portion of which was the subject of the sales evidenced by Exhibits B -3 to B -9 was about two feet lower in level than the road, while the acquired site was about two feet higher in level than the road. ' He arrived at Rs. 80 per cent as proper compensation. S. No. 147 has been the subject of land acquisition and the award in the case given by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in Original Petition No. 34 of 1949 has been exhibited as Exhibit B -2. Under that award for the southern portion of S. No. 147 -2, which is covered by the sale deeds Exhibits B -3 to B -9, the compensation was awarded on the basis of the price paid by the vendees. ' For the northern portion the trial Court awarded compensation at Rs. 100 and it is brought out in evidence that this Court on appeal therefrom by the State reduced the value of the northern portion to Rs. 50 percent. For the State without filing the judgment of this Court it was contended that the reduction in the compensation amount was in respect of the whole of the property. The trial Court felt constrained in the absence of the judgment of this Court to hold that it could not safely rely on the award Exhibit B -2. Now before us learned Government Pleader for the State and the Counsel for the appellant have both referred to the judgment of this Court in Appeal Suit No. 366 of 1952 where the award came up for Consideration and it has not been disputed before us that this Court on appeal reduced the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge only in respect of the northern portion of S. No. 147 -2. It is not now disputed that there was no appeal even by the State in regard to the southern portion of S. No. 147 -2 which related to lands abutting the road leading from Othakadai to Narasingapuram and which were the subject of the sale deeds Exhibits B -3 to B -9. We may here point out that in the trial Court, the claimant had specifically stated that there was no appeal by the State in respect of the southern portion of S. No. 147 -2 measuring 52 cents.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader referred us to the decision of the (Supreme Court in S. L. A. Officer T.A. Setty v. : AIR1959SC429 , where the Supreme Court has affirmed the principle that the function of the Court in awarding the compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be (i) opinion of expert or experts; (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Learned Government Pleader contends that the sale deeds of 1947 are Wholly irrelevant and ought not to be taken into consideration. But he sought to rely on two sale deeds one of the year 1952 and another of the year 1953 where portions in S. No. 139 had been sold, the market rate working to Rs. 8 per cent in one and Rs. 3 per, cent in another case. This S. No. 139 does not abut the road, S, No. 140 which comprises the acquired site intervening between S. No. 139 does not abut the road, S. No. 140 which comprises the acquired site intervening between S. No. 139 and the road. The sale deeds themselves have not been brought into the record as evidence in the case and we are unable to appreciate how any reliance" can be placed upon those transactions. The Land Acquisition Officer himself has not relied upon the sale deeds. He has awarded compensation at Rs. 30 percent. If the sale deeds have any bearing on the matter under enquiry, the State ought to have exhibited these sale deeds so that the claimant may meet any inference that may be deduced from them. The proceedings before the Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are not a mere continuation of the proceeding before the Collector. The enquiry before the Court on the reference are wholly judicial and the decision of the Court has to rest on evidence duly placed before the Court or on admissions that could be properly relied upon. The facts that have been the subject of consideration by the Collector for fixing the market value of the land do not automatically become evidence before the Court unless parties consent to such procedure. The Collector's award when it is not accepted by the claimant and when a reference is sought, is only an offer by the Collector. Of course on a reference under Section 18, the award of the Collector will be prima facie evidence and the claimant will have to displace it. The burden of proof will be on the claimant to show that the compensation determined upon by the Collector is inadequate as his position is like that of a plaintiff, the Government being the opposite party.