State appealed enhancement of land acquisition compensation. Court held that Tribunal correctly considered location and potentiality. Found no substantial question of law. Second appeal dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A.No.18 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.255 of 2018
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 13 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for ADW Schemes Act, 31/78 r/w, Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgement and decree dated 18.11.2014, passed in C.M.A.No.3/2005 on the file of Land Acquisition Appellate Tribunal No.3, Dharapuram, modifying the Award No.5/2004-05, dated 28.03.2005, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (ADW), Kangeyam.
For Appellants : Mr.Vineet Subramanian Special Government Pleader (CS) - - - - - J U D G E M E N T (Judgement of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
Instant second appeal, has been filed by the State, challenging the decree and judgment dated 18.11.2014, passed in C.M.A. No.3 of 2005, on the file of the Land Acquisition Appellate Tribunal No.3, Dharapuram, in and by which, the
Tribunal modified the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangayam in Award No.5/2004-05, dated 28.03.2005. The grievance of the State is that the Tribunal has enhanced the compensation from Rs.400/- per cent to Rs.4,750/- per cent in respect of lands acquired.
(i) Lands measuring an extent of 7.52 acres comprised in R.S.Nos.1112/1 and 1112/3, situated at Mettupalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District were sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing free house sites to homeless Adi Dravidars residing at Mettupalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode district under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(ii) For the above said purpose, as per the provisions of the Act, a Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 22.03.2005, in Coimbatore District Gazette Extraordinary.
(iii) After due adherence to all statutory provisions of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed Award in Award No.5/2004-05/A, dated 28.03.2005, fixing the market value of the land acquired at Rs.40,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.400/- per Cent based on the data sale deed in Doc.No.1370, dated 26.08.2002, registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Vellakkovil.
3. In the Award, the Special Tahsildhar has stated as follows:
(i) There is no objection from any quarters for acquisition of the lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes.
(ii) The acquired land is a dry land.
(iii) Guideline value for this land as on 01.04.1996, is Rs.28,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.280/- per Cent.
(iv) In the year 1996, in Mettupalayam Village, in the same survey field i.e. R.S.No.1112, 26 cents of land was sold vide document No.1654/96, dated 11.10.1996 and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Vellakkovi.
(v) Considering the amount involved in the above transaction, guideline value for the said land as on 01.04.1997, was fixed at Rs.2,45,000/- per Acre.
(vi) In the year 2002, in Meetupalayam Village, in R.S.No.1107/1, 2.50 Acres of land was sold for Rs.1,90,000/vide document No.1370, dated 26.08.2002 and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Vellakkovi.
(vii) The Special Thasildar, took this document as data document and fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.400/- per Cent.
(viii) During the hearing before the Special Tahsildhar, the respondents herein, requested for Rs.2,61,000/- per Acre, be
fixed as compensation, citing registration of certain lands in R.S.No.1118/1.
(ix) The Special Tahsildhar, rejected the above mentioned documents and the request of the respondents and fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per Cent.
(i) The Special Tahsildhar, failed to consider the location of the land acquired and its potentialities of being sold, as house sites and grossly erred in determining the value, at a very low rate. (ii) The Special Tahsildhar has not properly applied the required parameters to determine the value of the lands following the prevailing market rate of that area.
(iii) The Special Tahsildhar, failed to note that the land in R.S.No.1107, mentioned in data document, was already considered by the District Level Committee in the year 1996, headed by the then District Collector and decided to acquire the same at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.1,850/- per Cent on 06.12.1996 itself.
(iv) The Special Tahsildhar failed to consider that adjacent fields are used as house sites and purchasers have constructed buildings for residential purpose and the land is situated adjacent to Mettupalayam village on a pucca 60 feet road.
(v) The acquired lands are situated within 150 feet from the Kangayam – Udayam bus route and within half kilometres from Erode – Vellakovil State Highways. (vi) The acquired land is situated within 3 Kms from Mathur Town and this vital potentiality has been ignored by the Special Tahsildhar while determining the value. (vii) The acquired land is located near to developed locality.
(viii) The Special Tahsildhar has not assigned any proper reason for accepting the price of land mentioned in document No.1370, dated 16.08.2002, which is a different survey field and reasons for rejecting the price of the lands sold, within the same survey field and adjoining survey field. The data sale deed land taken by him is situated in a interior place and away from the developed areas. The acquired land and its location, stability, soil quality and other potentialities are entirely different from the data sale deed lands.
(ix) The Special Tahsildhar fixed the compensation without considering the potentialities of the land acquired and without assigning any valid reason for accepting one and rejecting the other data sale deeds and without disclosing the data sale deeds
in his order.
(x) That there was a higher need for plots to construct houses and lands acquired and the adjacent lands had a high potentiality of being sold as house sites. The Special Tahsildhar failed to consider this important aspect and therefore the price determined by him is incorrect.
(xi) The Special Tahsildhar failed to follow the various Government Orders and guidelines at the time of fixing the price of lands.
2/nfhUk; egh;fs; jug;gpy; nfhug;gl;l Vf;fh; 1f;Fz;lhd U:/5 ,yl;;rk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?
gpur;rid 1f;fhd jPh;t[ k/rh/1 Mf Rl;oif mjpfhhp gpwg;gpj;j cj;jut [ jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ 17/3/05 md;W kDjhuh;fis re;jpj;J ifafg;gLj;JtJ rk;ge;jkhf nfhhpf;if tpjpj;J 4(1) go mwptpg;g[k; bfhLj;J tpl;lhh;/ 23/3/05 md;W bra;jpjhs; tpsk;ghuk; bfhLf;fg;gl;L tpl;lJ/ 28/3/05 md;W cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ/ 31/3/05 md;W RthjPdkhd mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;fg;gl;L RthjPdk; vLf;fg;gl;L tpl;lJ/ 14 jpd';fSf;Fs; 4(1) mwptpg;g [ bfhLj;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L RthjPdk; vLf;fg;gl;Ltpl;l cj;jut[ k/rh/M/1y; gy fpiua';fis fz;Qqw;wjhft[k;. 69 fpiua';fs; nkl;Lg;ghisaj;jpy;. g{ khz;ld;tyR fpuhkj;jpy; 25 fpiua';fisa[k;. ntsk;ghisak; 45 fpiua';fisa[k; ghh;itapl;ljhf cj;jutpy; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpy; nkl;Lg;ghisak; fpuhk rh;nt vz;/1107-2y; xU bcwf;nlh; epykhdJ xU yl;rk; U:gha;f;F tpw;gidahdij vLj;Jf; bfhz;L vf;fh; 1f;F U:/40.000-? Vd eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;j fpiua Mtzk; Mtzkhf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; xg;gilf;fg;gltpy;iy/ 1/4/97y; tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[ U:/2.45.000-?f;F cs;sJ vd
k/rh/1/M/fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/ bghJthf re;ij kjpg;ghdJ tHpfhl;o kjpg;ig tpl mjpfkhf ,Uf;Fk;/ tHpfhl;o kjpg;iga[k; epuhfhpj;J tpl;L mth;fSf;F Vw;whw;nghy; cs;s fpiuaj;jpy; Rl;oif mjpfhhp Vw;Wf; bfhz;L Vf;fh; 1f;F U:/40 Mapuk; vd eph;zak; bra;jpUf;fpwhh;/ 1996y; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth;fSila jiyikapy; Vw;gl;l FG Tl;lj;jpy; 6/12/96 y; xU 1 Vf;fh; epyj;ij 1.85.000-? f;F bgw;Wf; bfhs;tjhf khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; v/k/rh/1 Md 3k; vjph;kDjhuh; ifbaGj;jpl;oUf;fpwhh;fs;/ me;j Mtzk; v/k/rh/3 Mf FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mij fUjpy; bfhs;shky; U:/40.000-? Vd 2004y; eph;zak; bra;jpUg;gJ Kw;wpYk; vw;Wf; bfhs;sToajy;y vd Kot[ fhz;fpnwd;/
gpur;rid 2f;fhd jPh;t[
5/ ifafg;gLj;jg;gll epyk; v/k/rh/3 d; mog;gilapy; ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ tPl;L kidf;F Vw;wJ/ mUfpy; bry;tFkhuft[z;ld; tyR ej;jk; cs;sbjd fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/ v/k/rh/1 Mf tprhhpf;fg;gl;l 3k; vjph;kDkhuh; jd;Dila rhl;rpaj;jpy; epy Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l g[yvz;/1112 g{kpahdJ bjd;tly; jhh; nuhl;il xl;o nky;g[wk; mike;Js;sJ/ khjphpf;F vLf;fg;gl;l g{kpahdJ nkl;Lg;ghisak; fpuhkj;jpy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l g{kpapypUe;J 2 fp/kP/ js;sp cs;sJ/ tPl;L kidf;F Vjthf cs;s /04/05 bcwf;nliu Mh;$pjk; bra;njhk;/ kPj ,lk; fpzW. jlk; vd;gjdhy; Mh;$pjk; bra;atpy;iy/ epy Mh;$pjk; bra;j g{kp bry;tFkhu ft [z;ld; tyR ngUe;J epWj;jj;jpypUe;J 50 kPl;lh; Jhuk; jhd; cs;sJ/ bry;tFkhu ft[z;ld; tyR gs;spTlk;. Muk;g Rfhjhu epiyak;. kpd; ,izg;g[ tp!;jhpg;g[fs; cs;sJ/ bts;snfhtpypUe;J <nuhL bry;Yk; gpujhd rhiyahd Mh;$pjk; bra;j g{kpahdJ 3 fp/kP/ Jhuk; jhd; cs;sJ/ epy Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l g{kp 3 nuhLfs; re;jpf;Fk; ,lj;jpypUe;J rw;W bjd;g[wj;jpy; mike;Js;sd/ Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l g{kp tPl;L kidfshf gad;gLj;Jg;gl;l g{kp vd;why; rhp/ epy kjpg;g[ bra;j fhyj;jpy; tHp fhl;o kjpg;ghdJ me;j fpuhkj;jpy; xU Vf;fUf;F U:/3.01.500-? ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rhp vd bjhptpj;jpUf;fpwhh;fs;/ epy Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l g
{kpahdJ tPl;L kidfshf gphpg;gjw;W VJthf ,Ue;j g{kp. nuhl;il xl;oa g{kp/
6/ 1107 vd;gJ tptrha g{kp. Ml;nrgid bra;ag;gl;l g{kpapypUe;J bjw;nf 2 fp/kP/ g{kpia jhz;o cs;s , lkhFk;/ ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l bra;ag;gl;l g{kpahdJ FoapUg;g[fs; fl;Ltjw;F Vw;w g{kp vd bjhpe;J v/k/rh/3 go 1996na Vf;fh; 1f;F U:1.85.000-? I jUtjhf ngrp tUtha; Jiwapdh; ifbaGj;jpl;oUf;fpwhh;fs;/ ,e;j g {kpahdJ tPl;L kidfs; fl;Ltjw;F Vjhd g{kp vdt[k;. nuhl;il l;o mike;Js;s g{pkp vdt[k;. ngUe;J epWj;jk;. gs;sp Tl';fs;. t';fpfs; mUfhikapnyna g{kp mike;jpUf;fpwJ vd v/k/rh/1d; rhl;rpaj;jpd; K:yk; mwpa KofpwJ/ kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; k/rh/2 Mf 25/04/2000y; gjpt bra;ag;gl;l fpiua Mtzk; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ me;j Mtzj;jpd; go ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ 1 brz;lhdJ U:/2605-? Mf tpw;gid bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ k/rh/5d;go 13/5/2002 md;W xU brz;lhdJ U:/3008-?f;F fpiuakhfpa[s;sJ/ k/rh/M/7 fpiuakhd ifafg;glj;jg;gl;Ls;s g{kpapy; 26 brz;l;Lk; fpzWk; nrh;e;J U:/89.000-?f;F fpiuakhf bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpYs;s g{kpf;F 26 brz;Lf;F kl;Lk; U:/63.700-? Vd eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ/ 11/10/1996 y; fpiuakhf bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;go ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ xU brz;oDila kjpg;g[ U:/2450-? cj;jut[ k/rh/M/1ypna mjpf bjhiff;F bjhpe;j j';fKj;J fpiuakhf bfhLj;jjhft[k; vdnt mJ Vw;Wf;bfhs;s Toa tpiy vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ v/k/rh/3 d;go 96y; vf;fh; 1f;F U:/1.85.000-? Vd xj;Jf;bfhz;l vjph; kDjhuh;fs; th';f Kw;glhjjhy; fpiuak; bfhLf;fg;gl;L. MJ rw;W Tljyhf bfhLf;fg;gl;ljhf Tl vLj;Jf; bfhs;syhk;/ v/k/rh/2d;go 1995y; tHpfhl;o kjpg;ghdJ Vf;fh; 1f;F 28000-?/ 1996y; mnj 2.80.000-?. 1997y; 2.45.000-? Mdhy; 2004y; 3.01.500-? re;ij kjpg;ghdJ v/k/rh/M/2 d; mog;gilapy; ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ 9 Mz;Lfspy; 10/76% cah;e;Js;sJ/ 1996y; xU Vf;fh; U:/1.85.000-?f;F fpiuak; bgw;Wf; bfhs;tbjd vjph; kDjhuh;fs; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;sJ/ mg;bghGJs;s
re;ij kjpg;g[ U:/1.85.000-? Vdpy; 2004y; 9 Mz;Lfs; fHpj;J re;ij kjpg;ghdJ tHpfhl;o kjpg;ig tpl 10 kl';F cah;e;Js;s epiyapy; re;ij kjpg;g[ 3 kl';fhtJ cah;tjw;F tha;g;g[ cz;L/ mjd;go Vf;fh; U:/5.55.000-?f;Fk; k/rh/M/5d;go ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ re;ij kjpg;g[ cah;it tUlj;jpw;F 10% kl';F vd fzf;fpLk; gl;rj;jpy; 2002ypUe;J 2005tiu 30% Tl;of; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ re;ij kjpg;ghdJ brz;l; 1f;F U:/3914-? tUfpwJ/ k/rh/7go brz;l; 1f;F U:/2450-? Vd tpiy Kof;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ me;j kDtpw;fhf Kof;fg;gl;lJ vd;gjw;fhd rhl;rpak; ,y;iy/ j';fKj;Jit tprhhpj;J mthplk; thf;FK:yk; gjpt bra;ag;gl;ljhf fhl;lgltpy;iy/ j';fKj;J nfhhpf;ifahsh;fSf;F cwtpdh; vd;gjw;Fk; rhl;rpak; , y;iy/ gyjug;gl;l fpiua';fis epuhfhpj;J nghy; k/rh/7 fpiuaj;ija[k; epuhfhpj;J tpl;ldh;/ mjd; mog;gilapy; ghh;f;Fk; bghGJ 2005 Mk; Mz;oy; 9 Mz;Lfs; fHpe;j epiyapy; tUlj;jpw;F 10% tPjk; 90% fzf;fpLk; bghGJ U:/2450+2205=U:4655-? fpiua kjpg;ghf tUfpwJ/ k/rh/1na bkhj;jk; 3/42/5 bcwf;nlh; epyk; kDjhuh;fSf;F ,Ue;jjhf fhl;otpl;L mjpy; 3/04/5 bcwf;nlh; epyj;ij kl;Lk; ifafg;gLj;jptpl;L kPjKs;s ,l';fs; ghiwahf ,Ug;gjhf xJf;fptpl;l epiyapy; jw;bghGJ ve;j gad;ghl;ow;Fk; me;j epy';fs; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jhy; 1996y; U:/1.85.000-? re;ij kjpg;g[ vd vjph;kDjhuh;fs; eph;zak; bra;j epiyapy; 2005y; brhj;jpDila re;ij kjpg;g[ Fiwe;j gl;rk; Vf;fh; 1f;F U:/4.75.000-? ,Uf;Fk; vd eph;zak; bra;fpnwd;/ Mjpjpuhtplh;fSf;F FoapUg;g[f;fhf epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ v/k/rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epyk; ej;jj;ij xl;oa epyk; vd bjhptpj;J tpl;lhh;/ bghJthf mgptpUj;jpf;fhf 10 ypUe;J 30% tiu bkhj;j bjhifapy; fHpj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epyk; tPl;L kidfSf;F Vw;w epyk; vd;gjdhYk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l ,lj;jpy; Vw;fdnt cgnahfkpy;yhky; cs;s /38/5 bcwf;nlh; , lj;ij ifafg;gLj;Jk; bghGJ fHpj;Jf; bfhz;L ifafg;gLj;jpa[s;s epiyapy; jw;bghGJ kPj ,lkhdJ ve;j cgnahfj;jpw;Fk; gad;glhky; cs;s fhuzj;jhy;
ve;j xU bjhifa[k; mgptpUj;jpf;fhf fHpj;Jf; bfhs;sgltpy;iy/
chpik nfhUgth;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 3/04/5 bcwf;nlh; epykjpg;gpw;F Rl;oif mjpfhhp brz;l; 1f;F U:/400-? Vd eph;zak; bra;j bjhif rhpahdJ my;y vd Kot[ fz;L brz;l; 1f;F U:/4750-? Vd eph;zak; bra;fpnwd;/
Kotpy;. Chpik nfhUgtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 3/04/5 bcwf;nlh; epykhd 7 Vf;fh; 52 brz;oy; Rl;oif mjpfhhp eph;zak; bra;j brz;l; 1f;F U:/400-? cs;slf;fp bkhj;jkhf U:/35.72.000-? y; kDjhuh;fs; bgw;Wf; bfhz;l U:/345920-8?I fHpj;Jf; bfhz;L U:/32.26.080-? kPjKs;s bjhiff;F 31/3/05 ypUe;J 15% Cf;fj;bjhif fzf;fpl;L 6% tl;onahL 3 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; ,Hg;gPL bjhifia ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutpl;L ,e;j nky; KiwaPl;il mDkjpj;J cj;jutpLfpnwd;/ bryt[ bjhif ,y;iy/ ”
“(i) Whether the lower Court justified the enhancement of the Award without any convincing reasons based on the documents unrelated to the acquired land ?
(ii) Whether the lower Court justified to enhance the value of the acquired land by rejecting the document relied by the appellant without any valid grounds ?
(iii) Whether the lower Court erred by accepting the documents relied upon by the respondents those are irrelevant and unconnected to enhance the Award and failed to consider the classification, soil, fertility and nature of the acquired land with regard to the land relied by the respondent ?”
(i) That the Tribunal failed to consider that the State has fixed the value of the acquired land by following all the procedures as per law.
(ii) That the Tribunal failed to consider that the documents relied upon by the respondents herein to enhance the Award is entirely different from the acquired land on the basis of soil, fertility, nature and value.
(iii) That the Tribunal ought to have seen that the documents relied upon by the respondents to enhance the Award is approved plot and it cannot be the basis to enhance the Award.
(iv) That the Tribunal ought to have seen that the property relied upon by the respondents is far away from the acquired land and enhancing the value of the land based on the document relied by the respondents is unjustifiable.
(v) That the Tribunal erred in rejecting the documents considered by the appellant to fix the value of the acquired land and enhanced the award by relying the documents produced by the respondents which are irrelevant and unconnected.
8. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.
9. The grievance of the State in the instant second appeal is with regard to enhancement of market value from Rs.400/- per Cent to Rs.4,750/- per Cent. In the instant case, the Special Tahsildhar fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per Cent based on a document registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Vellakkovil, in the year 2002, in document No.1370/2002, dated 26.08.2002, in Meetupalayam Village in R.S.No.1107/1, measuring an extent of 2.50 Acres, for Rs.1,90,000/-. But the said data document relied on by the Special Tahsildhar has not been marked in evidence before the Tribunal.
10. From the records, it could be seen that the guideline value for the acquired land as on 01.04.1996, was Rs.28,000/per Acre i.e. Rs.280/- per Cent. The guideline value as on 01.04.1997, was Rs.2,45,000/- per Acre i.e Rs.2,450/- per Cent. The said guideline value i.e. Rs.2,450/- per Cent was arrived at, based on a document registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Vellakkovil, in the year 1996, in document No.1654/1996, dated 11.10.1996, in Meetupalayam Village, in the same survey field
i.e. R.S.No.1112, measuring an extent of 26 cents. Therefore, the guideline value of the acquired lands as on 01.04.1997, itself was Rs.2,450/- per Cent.
11. Further, from the material on record, it could be seen that in the District Level Committee Meeting held on 06.12.1996, headed by the then District Collector, it has been decided to acquire the lands in R.S.No.1107, which is in close proximity to the acquired lands in R.S.No.1112, at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/per Acre i.e. Rs.1,850/- per Cent and to that effect, the said document has been marked in evidence. Therefore, in the year 1996 itself, the Special Tahsildhar himself has agreed to acquire the lands in R.S.No.1107, mentioned in data document, at the rate of Rs.1,850/- per Cent.
12. In the light of the above, we fail to understand as to why the Special Tahsildhar has decided to fix the market value of the acquired lands as on 28.03.2005 at Rs.400/- per Cent, when the guideline value of the acquired lands as on 01.04.1997, itself was Rs.2,450/- per Cent, more so when in the District Level Committee meeting held on 06.12.1996, Special Tahsildhar has agreed to acquire the lands in R.S.No.1107, mentioned in data document at Rs.1,850/- per Cent, which is in close proximity to the acquired lands in R.S.No.1112.
13. While determining the market value of acquired land, the location of lands and potentiality for development to be taken into consideration. For ascertaining market value of the land, location and access are also relevant for determination of the market value. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. The question whether the land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, location, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put. Determination of market value must reflect not only value at the time of declaration, but also its potential value to be taken into account.
14. In the instant case, the acquired land has good potential value as the adjacent fields are used as house sites and the purchasers have constructed buildings for residential purpose and the land is situated adjacent to Mettupalayam village on a pucca 60 feet road. The acquired lands are situated within 150 feet from the Kangayam – Udayam bus route and within half kilometres from Erode – Vellakovil State Highways. Further, it is situated within 3 Kms from Mathur Town. The acquired land is situated in a levelled manner and in developed area and near to developed localities belonging to private parties and Government.
15. The Special Tahsildhar has failed to consider these important aspect and therefore, compensation determined by him at Rs.400/- per Cent is incorrect.
16. The Tribunal has considered the above aspects, as well as the data documents registered during the relevant period and rightly rejected the compensation fixed by the Special Tahsildhar at Rs.400/- per Cent and arrived at the compensation of Rs.4,750/- per Cent, which is just and reasonable.
17. We do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kk To 1. The Land Acquisition Appellate Tribunal No.3, Dharapuram. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.(2 copies) +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 10161
S.A.No.18 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.255 of 2018
RJI(CO) TR(23/04/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal justified enhancing compensation from Rs.400 to Rs.4,750 per cent based on documents unrelated to the acquired land?
Whether the lower Court erred by accepting documents irrelevant to enhance the Award and failed to consider the classification, soil, and nature of the acquired land?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Tamil Nadu
Valliathal
Samimuthu
Jeyabalan
Nallasamy
Shanmugam
S. MANIKUMAR
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
