Partly allowed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramadevi

Madras HC13 Aug 2013AS(MD)/169/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging the Land Acquisition Tribunal award, the Madras High Court held that lands acquired under the same general notification must have a common market value based on the highest previously settled rate, nullifying claims that Commissioner reports should drive the valuation.

What did the court decide?

The rate is fixed at Rs.40,000 per cent for both survey numbers with other statutory benefits. Connected appeal cases are closed.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Ramadevi — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2013 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI A.S.(MD)No.169 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2011

¶4

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition) Padmanabhapuram at Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District

¶5

The Divisional Engineer, National Highways (Execution) Tirunelveli ... Appellants/Referring Officer

¶6

¶7

Ramadevi ... Respondent/Claimant

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2006 made in LAOP No.12 of 1997 on the file of Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.M. Alagudevan Special Government Pleader For respondent : Mr.B. Christopher

¶10

Special Government Pleader

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2006 made in LAOP No.12 of 1997 on the file of Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶13

On a requisition by the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of 1.57.01 hectares of land in Nallur and Vilavancode village in Vilavancode Taluk for the construction of a new Bridge in NH47. A Gazette Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to the Act) was issued on 6.5.1992.

¶14

The Land Acquisition Officer issued notices and on verifying various documents, proceeded to fix the land value. Though 1.46.02 hectares of land were acquired, the present appeal relates to two survey numbers A4/20-2, A.4/21-1. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a sum of Rs.2,440/- per cent as market value as on the date of 4 (1) Notification. There were some structures in A4/20-2 and also some trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.12,194/- for the structures and Rs.4,970/- and a sum of Rs.1080/- for the trees in both the survey numbers.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

The land owner objected to such fixation of value and therefore, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal,

¶17

¶18

viz., Sub Court, Kuzhithurai under Sec.18 of the Act. The matter was taken on file in LAOP No.12/97.

¶19

The claimant appeared and filed a claim petition. The Land Acquisition Officer was represented by the learned Government Pleader. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to file a report on the value of the land and also on the structures and he was also examined. The claimant produced four documents, out of which, two documents relate to sale deeds to show the market value.

¶20

The claimant has also produced an Award passed in LAOP No.2/97 which also relates to an acquired land in Nallur village under the same Notification.

¶21

The learned Tribunal found that the value of the land in T.S No.A4/21-1 as Rs.45,000/- and in A4/20-2 as Rs.40,000/- and also granted a sum of Rs.12,000/- for bore well and Rs.30,000/- for compound and valued the trees at Rs.20,000/-. The statutory benefits were also extended. Aggrieved by which, the Land Acquisition Officer viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has filed the present appeal.

¶22

On notice, the claimants have also appeared. Mr.Alagu Devan, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal has fixed the market value based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that such report cannot be the basis for fixing the market value.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that granting of awards for the construction and the trees are also on the higher side and there is no basis for such compensation. He further pointed out that originally value was fixed at Rs.2,440/-per cent which has been enhanced to Rs.45,000/-, more than 18 times.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr.B.Christopher, learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that in Nallur and Vilavancode village 1.46.02 hectares of land were acquired for the National Highways and also for construction of bridges by a same notification dated 6.5.1992. The learned counsel pointed out that in fixing the market value, the Tribunal has only followed its order dated 19.7.2001 in LAOP No.2/97 and thus taken the value for the land acquired in Nallur village covered by the above proceedings and therefore the value as fixed by the Tribunal reflects the correct market value.

¶25

The learned counsel relied on decision reported in 2010 3 MWN Civil 294, (Union of India vs S. Duraisamy Reddiar) wherein, in a batch of cases, this court held that there cannot be differential basis of compensation for lands acquired in the same area.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶27

record.

¶28

It is admitted that 1.46.02 hectares of land was acquired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the National Highways for formation of road and construction of bridges. These lands are situate in Nallur and Vilavancode village. Though they were situated in two villages, 4(1) Notification was issued

¶29

¶30

in a common gazette dated 6.5.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a sum of Rs.2,440/- per cent as land value for all the lands in both the villages. Not accepting the rate, the present claimant was before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, who fixed the value as aforesaid.

¶31

The objection of the Special Government Pleader in the appeal is that the Tribunal has fixed the said value on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the same is wrong.

¶32

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimant relied on an Award passed by the same Tribunal in LAOP No.2/1997, fixing the value of Rs.40,000/-per cent, against which, an appeal in A.S No.20/2002 was preferred before this court and the same was dismissed, confirming the Award.

¶33

The learned counsel pointed out that in almost all the acquired lands references were made before the said Tribunal in more than 25 cases and the Award has been enhanced fixing the market value at Rs.40,000/-per cent. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited more than Rs.2 crores towards compensation in all the awards.

¶34

In 2010 5 SCC 708 Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Karigowda ) the Apex court has held that “ it is the settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this court itself that whenever direct evidence is available then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence”.

¶35

While the Tribunal has granted same amount as compensation for the lands acquired in Nallur village and vilavnkodu village it has awarded different amounts for survey No.A.4/21-1 and Survey No.T.S.No.A4/20-2 which is not acceptable. Therefore a common value has to be fixed for both the lands at Rs.40,000/-per cent.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and rate is fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent for both the survey numbers with other statutory benefits. No costs. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶38

/True Copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶42

¶43

PA/04.10.2013/3P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Compnay Lt Vs R.Vennila

Bajaj Allianz General Vs Shanmugam

Oriental Insurance Co., Vs Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs)

Baskar Vs the National Insurance

Mr M.Ravi, Vs Mr. Baskar

M/S. the New India Assurance Vs Gandhi Pillai(Since Died)