M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Appellant/Referring Officer has preferred this Appeal as against the Award dated 27.02.2006 in L.A.O.P. No. 67 of 1997 passed by the Learned II Additional Sub Judge, (Full Additional Incharge), Villupuram.
2. The Government have acquired a total extent of land measuring 3.90.00 hectares of land comprised in R.S. No. 46, situated in the village of Salamedu in Villupuram District in the Registration District of Villupuram registered in the name of (or) occupied by the person including the land of the First Respondent/Claimant R.S. No. 46/14A 0.01.39 Hectares mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27.05.1994 for the purpose of implementation of neighbourhood scheme by the Second Respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai.
3. For the true area of the acquired land measuring 3.90.00 Hectares of land, the Land Acquisition Officer by his Award No. 12/95 dated 30.06.1995 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 17,56,302/-as compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award has fixed the land value of Rs. 2.70 per square feet in respect of land acquired. The First Respondent/Claimant has been awarded with a sum of Rs. 6,260/-by the Tribunal i.e., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
4. Before the trial Court, in L.A.O.P.67 of 1997, on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant, Witness C.W.1 has been examined and Exs.P1 and P2 have been marked. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer, Witness R.W.1 has been examined and no documents have been marked.
5. The trial court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has determined the market value of the land per square feet at Rs. 25/-and determined the compensation payable at Rs. 48,301.25 with 9% interest from the date of Award dated 30.06.1995 which is the date of acquisition for one year and thereafter, awarded 15% interest till realisation and further granted three months time for depositing the Award amount.
6. Being dissatisfied with the Award dated 27.02.2006 in L.A.O.P.67/1997 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before this Court.
7. The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is,
Whether the Award passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P. No. 67 of 1997 dated 27.02.2006 is sustainable in the eye of law?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
8. The Learned Special Government Pleader urges before this Court that the trial court has committed an error in increasing the market value exorbitantly from Rs. 2.70/-per square feet to Rs. 25 per square feet in disregard to the procedure mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. and further, the trial court has relied on Ex.P2 Sale Deed dated 16.04.1993 executed by Vairakannu @ Veerakannu in favour of M. Sridevi and a small extent of land cannot be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at a market value of the land.
9. It is the further contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant that the First Respondent/Claimant has not proved her claim as per law and the trial court without following the due procedures under law has gone wrong in enhancing the market value of the land and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice.
10. It is the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader that the trial court has not allowed deductions in respect of the developmental charges and in the absence of the same, the impugned Award suffers from serious infirmity in law.
11. It is to be pointed out that the relevant date for fixing the market value of the acquired land is on the date of notification as per Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as per decision Jagath Singh v. Haryana State (1996) LAC 60 (P&H).
12. Also in the decision Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Kandhaswamy (2003) 2 LACC 396 (Madras), it is held that ''...crucial date for fixing the market value of the acquired land is on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification."
13. It is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that while awarding the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court has to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. It is true that there are several methods of valuation such as i) opinion of Expert ii) price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages iii) a number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. Also the potential value whether the land is close to developed or developing colonies, road etc., will also be taken note of by a Court of law''.
14. Admittedly, a market value of a land ought not to be determined based on facts of imagination or flight of fancy. A market value of the land cannot be calculated with mathematical precision. A certain amount of conjecture is quite inevitable but a Court of law must be careful not to go too far in this direction. The acid test is that sitting in the arm chair of willing vendor would offer to a willing purchaser, taking note of all relevant prevailing attendant circumstances and conditions of the normal market, fertility of land, location, suitability of purpose it has been purchased, its existing potentialities and likely to use which in the same condition to pay the price as on date of notification.
15.A owner of the land or a claimant should not be put to loss by means of valuation of his land. Equally, a Court of law has to bear in mind the public exchequer should not be put to undue burden by excess or exorbitant valuation. It is the primordial duty of a Court of law to strike a balance between twice interests, in the considered opinion of this Court.
16. At this stage, this Court aptly codes the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court Special Land Acquisition Officer U.K. Project v. Mahaboob and Anr. (2009) 4 M.L.J. 137 (S.C.) wherein it is held that '' even though the land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings, the Collector is supposed to offer fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account but the land acquisition officers seldom make reasonable offers and they tend to err on the safer side and invariably assess very low compensation.''
17. At this juncture, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that in A.S.760 of 2004, this Court on 12.11.2009 has passed the Judgment in and by which the market value of the land at Rs. 25/-per square feet determined by the trial court in its Award in L.A.O.P. No. 104 of 1997 has been reduced to Rs. 16.75 per square feet after deducting 1/3rd for development charges and the compensation has been rounded off to Rs. 16.75 per square feet and further granted the solatium, interest on solatium, etc.,
18. Applying the Judgment of this Court in A.S.760 of 2004 dated 12.11.2009, this Court fixes the value of the land at Rs. 25/-per square feet and after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges accordingly, determined the compensation in respect of the market value of the land rounded off to Rs. 16.75p per square feet besides granting the other statutory benefits to the Respondent/Claimant and accordingly, allows the Appeal in part without costs.
19. It is useful for this Court to refer to Rule 12 of the Legal Practitioners'' Fees Rules, 1973 which runs as follows:
R.12. (1) In the High Court in appeals from original or appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property, or for land or other immovable property of any description, fees are payable on the same scales under Rule 3(2)(b).
Provided that when the appeal is compromised, settled withdrawn or dismissed for default (a) before the appeal gets into the ready board, the fee shall be one-fourth of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) and (c) after the appeal stands on the ready board the fee shall be one-half of the fee prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) subject to this, in all the above cases, the minima prescribed in Rule 14 shall apply:
(Provided further that when the appeal is from an award or from any part of an award of a Court in a land acquisition case, as between the collector and the claimant or claimants the maximum fee shall be Rs. 2,000.00.)
(2) When the amount or value of the claim in the appeal exceeds Rs. 2,000 an additional fee calculated at one-third of the fee allowable under Clause (1) shall be payable to junior Practitioner engaged with a senior Practitioner:
Provided that the junior was on record at least from the last of the dates fixed for the appearance of the respondent.
Provided further that in any case, where a juniors'' fee is payable under this rule or under Rule 19, the Court shall have a discretion to fix that fee at half the seniors'' fee instead of one-third.
(3) The fees for the junior legal practitioner for settling of documents for translation and or printing in first appeals shall be a minimum of Rs. 25 and a maximum of Rs. 50 subject to the discretion of the taxing officer.
20. Hence, this Court fixes the fees of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) in terms of Rule 12 of Legal Practitioners Fees Rules 1973, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.
21. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Award passed by the trial court in L.A.O.P. No. 67 of 1997 dated 27.02.2006 stands modified.
