J JAYALAKSHMI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEMES ASHOK NAGAR MADRAS 600 083

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the common order passed by the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu, on references made to it under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as' ; the Act' ; ) in C. R. O. P. Nos. 182, 183 and 184 of 1979, 1,2,4,8,9,12,13,23,24 and 25 of 1980 and in C. R. O. P. No. 25 of 1980. Originally, an extent of 221. 85 acres situate in different survey numbers in Kodungaiyur village was notified under section 4 (1) of the Act dated 5. 2. 1975 for the purpose of development of North Madras Neighbourhood Scheme. Later, it was found that excepting an extent of 71. 16 acres, the rest had already been declared as house sites and plans had also been approved by the directorate of Town and Country Planning, even prior to the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were confined to the extent of 71. 16 acres only. As the lands surrounding and adjoining the acquired lands had already been approved for lay-out purposes, the Land acquisition Officer proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis that they were house sites. Considering as many as 1,044 instances of sales and classifying such instances of sales into five categories, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected all the sales in categories 1 to 4, but accepted one out of three instances of sales in category 5 to compute the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 222. 62 per cent and rounded it of rs. 223 per cent at the time of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. The instance of sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer has been marked as Exhibit A-60 dated 14. 9. 1972 and that sale related to an extent of 5,870 sq. ft. in Survey No. 167/1 A. There were also some palmyra trees, wells and other superstructures in some of the acquired lands and the Land Acquisition officer also determined the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the wells and other superstructures, as the trees had been cut and removed by the claimants themselves. Aggrieved by this, the claimants sought references before Court under section 18 of the Act. On behalf of the claimants, quite a large number of documents were filed to establish the market value of the acquired lands, while, on behalf of the Government no documents as such were produced. On a consideration of the instances of sales made available in evidence, the Court below found that Exhibit A-60 relied upon by the Land acquisition Officer had been executed as a distress sale and cannot be relied upon to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands and that another instance of sale marked as Exhibit A-43 would afford a just and a fair basis for the fixation of the compensation awardable to the claimants in respect of the acquired lands. The market value reflected by Exhibit A-43 was Rs. 691-60 per cent and deducting 36% of that value towards development and other charges, the Court below arrived at the market value of the acquired lands on the date of section 4 (1) notification at Rs. 315 per cent. Taking into account what the court below called a steady increase in the land value around the acquired area, a sum of Rs. 10 was added on to the amount of Rs. 315 to cover the interval of time between the instance of sale under Exhibit A-43 and the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act and finally, the market value of the acquired lands was determined as compensation for the wells and the pumpset sheds was in order. In the reference out of which A. S. No. 382 of 1982 has arisen, the common order in C. R. O. L. P. Nos. 182 of 1979 etc. batch whereby the market value was fixed at Rs. 323 per cent alone was marked and adopting the same value, the compensation in respect of the acquired lands was also fixed at rs. 325 per cent therein. It is against this that the claimants have preferred these appeals.

(2.) MR. M. Raghavan, the learned Counsel for the appellants in these appeals, first contended that the Court below ought to have proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands for the purpose of payment of compensation to the claimants on the basis of Exhibits A-44 to A-46 and that from out of those instances of sales, the maximum rate as reflected by Exhibit a-46 should have been awarded. On the other hand, the learned Government advocate submitted that the instances of sales under Exhibits A-44 to A-46 were not in the vicinity of the acquired lands and would not, therefore, be comparable instances of sales and that the Court below was quite justified in relying upon Exhibit A-43 relating to Survey No. 180/1, which is adjacent east to some of the acquired lands and to the north of the other lands acquired.

(3.) HOWEVER, the market rate reflected in Exhibit A-43 is with reference to a developed housesite and not land like the acquired lands, which had to be developed in future. Therefore, from the market value so arrived at on the basis of Exhibit A-43 with reference to a developed house-site, deductions will have to be made towards improvement charges, provision of roads, water supply, drainage, etc. The Court below was inclined to deduct 30% of the value of the developed house-site towards the charges for the aforesaid improvements and had arrived at Rs. 315 per cent as the market value of the undeveloped site. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that a deduction of 36% towards the improvement charges was on the high side. It is seen from the evidence of Janardhanam examined as C. W. I that improvement charges will be about 20%. On the other hand, the evidence of R. W. 1 is to the effect that there is a difference of 2 to 3 feet on all sides between the level of the road and the acquired lands. He is also positive that the acquired lands have to be levelled up before building; as otherwise, the buildings; if any built, would get submerged. It is also further seen from the cross-examination of R. W. 1 that metalled roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, etc. , have also to be provided for. It is thus seen from the evidence of R. W. 1 that though the acquired lands are on a level, yet, when compared to the level of the road and considering the proposed use of the acquired lands as house-sites, it would be necessary to undertake the process of filling up to bring the acquired lands on level with the road so that buildings, if built, can remain without being affected by water. The cost of levelling up, provision of metalled roads, drinking water, drainage channel and other incidental facilities would undoubtedly account for one-third of the cost of the developed site. The Court below had fixed it at 36% based upon the decision cited before it. HOWEVER, on the evidence available in this case, in my view, it would be sufficient to deduct 33. 3 per cent from the market value as is fixed earlier, namely Rs. 516. 60; the market value of the acquired lands per cent could be justly and reasonably fixed at Rs. 344 as rounded of.