Allowed

Union of India Rep by v. D. Thanikachalam

Madras HC28 Jun 2021AS/336/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal suit challenged an order fixing the market value of acquired agricultural land. The High Court affirmed the Land Acquisition Officer's decision to deduct 20% for development charges, reasoning that agricultural land acquired for housing must be developed via layout and drainage, rejecting the Referral Court's higher valuation.

What did the court decide?

The order in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 is set aside; the value of land is fixed at Rs.16,140/- per Acre with solatium, interest, and costs.

Union of India Rep by Vs D. Thanikachalam — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

A.S.No.336 of 2015

¶6

Union of India

¶7

Rep. By Secretary to Government (Revenue), Puducherry.

¶8

The Deputy Collector (Revenue) (South) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry.

¶9

..Appellants/ Respondents

¶10

Vs.

¶11

D.Thanikachalam S/o. Dhanapal ..Respondent/ Petitioner

¶12

PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act praying to set aside the order dated 30.04.2013 made in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

¶13

For Appellants : M/s.V.Usha (AGP) For Respondent : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Order dated 30.04.2013 made in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

¶16

The respondent is the claimant in the LAOP. The appellant herein acquired the subject land for the provision of free house sites to landless labourers in Pudukuppam Village. On the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, this subject property was acquired and award has been passed on 21.03.2003, thereby fixed the value at Rs.16,140/- per Are. It was approached by the claimant. As such, it was referred before the referral Court in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008. The claimants claimed that the acquired land is situated in the heart of the well developed residential area and it is above the road level. The Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration Item No.12 in the sale particulars, the sale deed dated 29.04.2004 and thereafter the market value at the rate of Rs.19,432/- per Are and deducted 20% for the

¶17

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

¶18

development charges and fixed the market value at Rs.16,140/per Are, which is the guideline value. Considering the same, the referral Court determined the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.19,432/- per Are with the proportionate solatium, interest and costs. The referral Court further observed that the Land Acquisition Officer while computing the compensation could not have deducted 20% of the market value towards development charges. It was further observed that if the acquired land and the lands in the retained sale deed are agricultural lands, the deduction towards development charges does not arise. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal suit was filed by the appellant.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly the acquired land was agricultural land. Therefore, the minimum deduction should be made for development of the said land since the acquisition was made for issuing house sites to the landless labourers in Pudhukuppam Village. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer rightly deducted 20% for development charges. Inspite of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2020 SC 2354 (Sajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.)

¶20

Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general rule. But epending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court held as under:“19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The 11 percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) …….

¶21

Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the “deduction for development” factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.”

¶22

It is held that the Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well planned layouts, if any,

¶23

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

¶24

the deduction cost may vary from 20% to 75%. In this case on hand, the Acquisition Officer had taken notification of Item No.12 in the sale particulars which ought to have been evicted for the identical nature and the potential to fix the value for the land which was acquired by the Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the market value of land involved in the said sale deed is the highest value at the rate of Rs.19,432/- per Are. The nature of the land is an agricultural land and the purpose for acquisition is providing the house sites to the landless labourers. Therefore, the land should be developed by way of layout, drainage, etc. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer rightly deducted the development charges towards infrastructure at 20% and fixed the value of Rs.16,140/- per Are. Without considering the above, the referral Court fixed the value at Rs.19,432/- per Are for the acquired land without any deduction.

¶25

In view of the above, the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry is set aside and the vale of the land is fixed at Rs.16,140/- per Are with the proportionate solitium interest and costs.

¶26

Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed on condition that the appellant is directed to deposit the award amount to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.71 of 2008, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/Deputy Registrar(CJ CONF)

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar dh

¶29

¶30

The II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

¶31

A.S.No.336 of 2015

¶32

RR(CO) A.SK(28.10.2021)

¶33

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

Union of India Rep by v. D. Thanikachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Rep by v. D. Thanikachalam

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

Mrs.S.K.Aruna Devi Vs Mr.P.S.Kanniyan

Durlop Chopra Vs S.Venkatesan

Chennai Kammavar Naidu Vs P.Soundara Raj

Mr.v.Rajagopalan Vs Mrs.T.R.Parimala

Smt. Ulakiammal L Vs Ms. Punachiammal

Kaliaperumal Vs Kalaiselvi