K. Chandru, J.@mdashThese appeals and cross objections arose out of land acquisitions made by the Acquiring Authority in Vengampatti Village, Salem District. The lands were acquired for the purpose of laying Salem-Karur Broad Gauge line by a shorter route by the Indian Railways, who are the requisitioning body.
2. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appellant, Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, Standing counsel for the Southern Railways (the requisitioning authority), Mr. A.P.S. Kasturi Rangan for M/s. Sampathkumar Associates, Mr. P. Jagadeesan, Mr. R. Subramanian and Mr. K. Selvaraj for the claimants.
3. The facts leading to the land acquisition are as follows:
On requisition from the Indian Railways, the State Government issued a notification u/s 4(1) on 01.03.1999 notifying the lands situated in Vengampatti Revenue village. In order to avoid delay, the enquiry u/s 5A was dispensed with by invoking urgency clause and by exercising power u/s 17(2) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 6 declaration was made on 20.03.1999. After following due procedure, a final Award came to be passed vide Award No. 2/99-2000 on 19.07.1999. The Acquiring Authority fixed the market rate of compensation for both wet and dry lands at the rate of Rs. 64,220/- per hectare. In respect of the lands which are considered as housing sites, compensation was fixed at Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. Possession of the lands were taken over by the Railways on 03.08.1999.
4. Aggrieved land owners objected to the low rate of compensation. Hence, the issues were referred for determination of market value u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the jurisdictional Reference Court and was assigned to the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. I) Salem. The references were registered by the Reference Court as LAOP Nos. 1 of 2002 to 35 of 2002 and 329 of 2002. A joint trial was conducted on the basis of a memo filed by both sides. Evidence was recorded in LAOP No. 35 of 2002.
5. Before the Reference Court (i.e. the Court below), on behalf of the claimants, 13 witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.13. On their side, 66 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C1 to C66. On the side of the Acquiring Authority, K. Sundaram, the then Tahsildar, was examined as R.W.1 and on their side 14 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 to R14. In LAOP No. 22 of 2002 at the request of one claimant, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to visit the land to inform the Court about the nature of the land along with a Topo sketch. The report filed by the Commissioner was marked as Court Exhibit No. 1.
6. The Reference Court on an analysis of evidence (both oral and documentary) placed before it passed a common judgment dated 13.09.2004. It classified the lands into four categories and fixed the value, which are as follows:
Value fixed for Survey Nos. 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 for Rs. 1700/- per cent in LAOP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of 2002.
Value fixed for Survey Nos. 29, 30, 46, 48, 49 and 65 for Rs. 1,000/- per cent in LAOP Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of 2002.
Value fixed for Survey No. 54 for Rs. 3,000/- per cent in LAOP Nos. 22 and 23 of 2002.
Value fixed for Survey Nos. 118 and 120 for Rs. 30/- per sq.ft in LAOP Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 329 of 2002.
7. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Reference Court, the acquiring authority has come up with these appeals. Some of the aggrieved land owners have also filed cross objections contending that the compensation fixed by the Court below was on a lower side.
8. In view of interconnectivity between all these matters, they were heard together and a common judgment is passed.
9. The following table will show the names of the claimants/land owners, the LAOPs regarding the reference, and the corresponding appeal suits as well as cross objections, if any filed by them.
Sl. No Name of the claimant(s) L.A.O.P. Appeal Suit and
Cross Objection
1 1. Balasubramanian
2. Rani
3. Puspa 1/2002 A. No. 198/2007
C.O. 28/2010
2 C. Madheswaran 3/2002 A. No. 200/2007
C.O. 30/2010
3 1. G.K. Nagaraj
2. VKOS. Raja
3. O. Kasi 5/2002 A.S. No. 201/2007
Nil
4 D. Periyasamy 6/2002 A.S. No. 202/2007
C.O. 31/2010
5 D. Manickam 7/2002 A.S. No. 203/2007
C.O. 44/2010
6 D. Subramani 8/2002 A.S. No. 204/2007
C.O.32/2010
7 D. Krishnan 9/2002 A.S. No. 205/2007
C.O.33/2010
8 1. D. Manickam
2. D. Subramanian 10/2002 A.S. No. 206/2007
C.O.34/2010
9 P. Subramani 11/2002 A.S. No. 207/2007
Nil
10 Mrs. Saroja 12/2002 A.S. No. 208/2007
C.O.35/2010
11 1. S.K. Soundappan
2. K. Umapathy 13/2002 A.S. No. 209/2007
Nil
12 D. Vadivelu 14/2002 A.S. No. 210/2007
Nil
13 Ponnayya 15/2002 A.S. No. 211/2007
Nil
14 SevaGounder 16/2002 A.S. No. 212/2007
C.O.36/2010
15 1. Periyasamy
2. ChinnaGounder
3. Mrs. Irusayammal 17/2002 A.S. No. 213/2007
C.O.37/2010
16 K. Periyasamy 18/2002 A.S. No. 214/2007
C.O.38/2010
17 Elumalai 19/2002 A.S. No. 215/2007
C.O.39/2010
18 1. Govindammal
2. K. Muthuraj
3. K. Ganesan
4. K. Subramani
5. Mrs. P. Palaniammal 20/2002 A.S. No. 216/2007
C.O.40/2010
19 Seva Gounder 21/2002 A.S. No. 217/2007
Nil
20 1. C. Kuppusamy
2. The General Manager,
Salem Town 22/2002 A.S. No. 218/2007
Co-operative Bank Nil
21 Ponna @ Ponnusamy 23/2002 A.S. No. 219/2007
Nil
22 P. Velu 24/2002 A.S. No. 220/2007
C.O.41/2010
23 Suruttaiyan @ Arumugam 25/2002 A.S. No. 221/2007
C.O.42/2010
24 Mrs.Chinnakutti 26/2002 A.S. No. 222/2007
C.O.43/2010
25 Ayyanar S/o Arumugam 27/2002 A.S. No. 223/2007
Nil
26 O.K. Nagaraj 4/2002 A.S. No. 377/2010
27 Seerangan 29/2002 A.S. No. 992/2008
Nil
28 Mrs. Amirtham 30/2002 A.S. No. 993/2008
Nil
29 Murugan 31/2002 A.S. No. 994/2008
Nil
30 1. Mrs. Marimuthu
2. S. Murugan
3. S. Chinnadurai
4. Sarasu
5. S. Govindaraj
6. Mrs.Ramayee 32/2002 A.S. No. 995/2008
Nil
31 Mrs.Saroja 33/2002 A.S. No. 996/2008
Nil
32 1. Mrs. Madhammal
2. K. Periyasamy 34/2002 A.S. No. 997/2008
Nil
33 1. Subramani
2. Palaniappan 35/2002 A.S. No. 998/2008
Nil
34 Krishnasamy Reddy 329/2002 A.S. No. 999/2008
Nil
10. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the compensation fixed by the Court below was erroneous and it ought not to have increased the compensation from Rs. 260/- per cent to Rs. 211 per sq.ft. contrary to the guidelines prescribed u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquired lands are barren lands and are not located in a potential area. The lands are also situated far from the developed area and there are only very few residential plots. The exemplars of sale of plots of land produced by the claimants are small in extent and it should have been discarded by the Court below. The Court below did not even consider the taram, classification and suitability for cultivation of the land which it wants to compare.
11. In the cross objections filed by some of the claimants, it was contended that the evidence of the acquiring authority R.W.1 was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The Court below failed to appreciate that Exs.R3, R4, R11 and C61 are having different material particulars which was not explained by R.W.1. The rejection of Ex.C16 on the ground that it was not a true transaction was also erroneous since there was no evidence to substantiate. Similarly, mere suggestion put to the witnesses C.W.8 and C.W.9 to reject Ex.C16 was not enough and the credibility of Ex.C16 was not dislodged. The lands even at the time of notification u/s 4(1) were capable of being converted into house sites and as per Ex.C2, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 24.90p per sq.ft. The Court below did not appreciate that the lands comprised in Ex.R14 dated 16.06.1997 were divided into house sites and were sold as house sites under Ex.C9 dated 26.10.1998 at the rate of Rs. 18.18p per sq.ft and should have granted the same rate of compensation to the claimants.
12. It was also submitted by Mr. A.P.S. Kasturi Rangan, learned Counsel for the cross objectors that while the Reference Court found that S. No. 54 in the statistical data furnished was sold at Rs. 45/- per sq. even on 26.08.1997 as per Ex.R3, whereas it granted compensation in respect of house sites at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq.ft without any basis. Further when it granted compensation at Rs. 30/- per sq.ft in respect of lands which are nowhere nearer to S. No. 54, it denied the same compensation for the lands situated in S. No. 54 itself and it was a paradox. He also submitted that in respect of acquisition of land in the Ammani Kondalampatti Village, the same Salem Taluk, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- per sq.ft. But on appeal by the acquiring authority, a Division Bench of this Court after making a deduction of 20% fixed the compensation for the lands acquired from that village at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. Hence, there was no reason why the claimants in the Vengampatti Village should be denied the right to get the same rate of compensation especially when the purpose for acquisition was the same. While the Ammani Kondalampatti village (situated outside the Salem Corporation) is 7 kms from the Corporation, the Vengampatti Village is situated 5 kms from Ammani Kondalampatti Village and it is adjacent to the National Highways No. 7 leading to Namakkal and passing through Mallur Town Panchayat. He also submitted that this Court for lands acquired for a Harijan Welfare Scheme vide notification dated 08.04.1991 in S. No. 41/4B in Mallur Town Panchayat, the compensation granted by the Reference Court was at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq.ft in LAOP No. 2/94. The same was confirmed by this Court in A.S. No. 912 of 1997 dated 23.01.2009. Therefore, the Court below cannot grant compensation so low and deny similar benefit to the claimants. It is submitted that apart from confirming the judgment of the Reference Court, the compensation awarded should be increased in favour of the claimants.
13. Mr. Kasturi Rangan, learned Counsel also submitted that Ammani Kondalampatti village is situated only on the area where Railway line is passing through whereas Vengampatti village will have a Railway Station right in the midst of the acquired land though the station is named as Mallur Railway Station as that portion comes within the Mallur Town Panchayat. Therefore, it has the benefits of future development and the commercial value of the land will considerably increase because of the new railway station. It is also submitted that the said railway station will be the first railway station after the Railway station at Salem.
14. Supplementing the arguments, Mr. R. Subramanian, learned Counsel for one of the claimants submitted that if this Court enhance the compensation, it should also grant such enhanced compensation even to persons who are not before this Court. The Court can invoke power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC for granting enhanced compensation even for the claimants who are not before this Court by collecting the requisite court fee from them.
15. Countering the said arguments, Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader supported by Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar submitted that Ammani Kondalampatti village is closer to the Salem City Corporation whereas Vengampatti village is a remote village. The Reference Court has considered the nature, tharam and soil of the land and fixed different rates of compensation and that the claimants cannot get uniform rate of compensation. He also submitted that the Award passed in respect of Harijan Welfare Scheme in Mallur Panchayat stands on a different footing and cannot be compared with the acquisition made in the present case. He also referred to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act to contend that this Court cannot grant more compensation than what was claimed by the claimants.
16. In the light of the above rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is fair and proper? If the answer is in the negative then to what additional compensation to which the claimants/land owners are entitled to?
17. Before passing the Award, the Acquiring Authority considered the sale statistics collected from Vengampatti village for the period from 01.03.1996 to 28.02.1999 marked as Ex.R3. A copy of which is marked as Ex.R4. The Acquiring Authority in respect of both Nanja and Punja lands fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 64,220/- per hectare. As per the Topo Map marked as Ex.R2, the data land taken as the basis was situated on the northern east of Vengampatti lake in S. No. 43. Therefore, the same land cannot be accepted as a data land. The data land is marked as Ex.R5 and recital found in the sale deed showed that it was sold for the purpose of discharging certain debts and for family expenses. It is undervalued and it was referred for enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. R.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that no doubt Ex.R5 showed that sale was due to discharging debt and he had rejected the other sale details where there was undervaluation of the same. He also admitted that the lands were classified into four classes and in the lands which were acquired there are number of houses found and roads were also passing through. Therefore, the Court below found that the data land in Ex.R5 cannot be representative of the acquired land and further Ex.R5 dated 17.06.1996 came into existence 32 months before Section 4(1) notification.
18. After rejecting the data land relied on by the Acquiring Authority, the Reference Court found that in L.A.O.P. Nos. 29 to 33 of 2002, they were all house sites and having old S. Nos. 118 and 120. After considering those lands along with the Topo Map, it can be seen that the Vengampatti Village and Mallur Village were divided near S. No. 54 and on the southern side S. Nos. 118 and 120 are found. Therefore, those lands can be taken as house sites. The data land found in Ex.R6 dated 06.03.1996 was taken as a basis. In that document, in S. No. 54/16A7 the land to the extent of 1025 sq.ft was sold at the rate of Rs. 5125/-. The land which was not developed but classified as Punja land in S. No. 54 was selected as a basis also cannot be accepted. Therefore Ex.R6 also cannot be a representative of the marked rate fixed. Further if the lands are already classified as Nanja and Punja lands, the compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of rate per sq.ft.
19. The Reference Court also found that as per Ex.R3 out of 105 transactions 77 transactions were relating to sale of house plots and Vengampatti village is coming within the Mallur Town Panchayat and S. No. 70 the road leading from Mallur to Mookuthipalayam is situated. Therefore, it can be safely said since substantial number of transactions were sold as house sites, the lands were well developed and the rate of compensation works out to Rs. 5/- per sq.ft to Rs. 18.18p per sq.ft. After analysing all the other sale deeds, the Court below recorded the finding that from the period from 1996 to 1997, the land were sold at Rs. 900/- per cent and if an acre of such land is taken into account and sold out as house site plots then 30% will have to be provided for locating roads and drainage facilities and hence for S. Nos. 17 to 19 and 22 to 26, it fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,700/- per cent in respect of first category of land. In respect of second category of land, the Court below fixed Rs. 1,000/- per cent, in respect of third category, it fixed Rs. 3,000/- per cent and in respect of 4th category, it fixed the compensation at Rs. 30/- per sq.ft. In respect of the lands in which well were found, it found that they have to be taken note of while ordering compensation in respect of individual cases.
20. Therefore, attacking the compensation fixed by a common judgment, the learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that there was no scope for making separate rates of payment which was not done in the case of land acquisition in Ammani Kondalampatti and uniform rate was fixed that too on the basis of compensation per sq.ft rate. Secondly, it was contended that the entire lands were to be utilised for locating railway line and formation of railway station. Therefore, deductions towards development charges will not arise. It was also submitted that the claimants are entitled for an higher compensation. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Reference Court considered S. No. 54 wherein the land was sold at Rs. 45/- per sq.ft. On 26.08.1997 that should have been fixed as compensation uniformly. But not only that compensation was not fixed for 4th category of lands found in S. Nos. 118 and 120, 1/3 deduction was made at Rs. 30/- by stating that they were classified as Punja Lands and even in respect of lands situated in and around S. No. 54 this rate was not paid by the authorities.
21. Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the acquiring authority after referring to the additional claim statement filed by the claimants before the Reference Court stated that in their additional claim statement, the claimants themselves have demanded only Rs. 40/- initially and by additional claim demanded Rs. 50/- per sq.ft and they cannot now seek for more.
22. It must be noted in the present case apart from the oral evidence given by the claimants, one Gnanasekaran Civil Engineer was examined for valuation report which were marked as Exs.C25 to C31. There were also sale deeds with reference to sale transaction in that area and Exs.C1, C2, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16 and C20 they were not considered by the Reference Court. It must also be noted that the Reference Court is not a Court of appeal but Original Court and in case of enhanced compensation, it is for the claimants to prove before the Court with material evidence justifying enhanced compensation. In the present case, the evidence let in by the claimants C.W.1 to C.W.13 as well as exhibits referred to above in the form of exemplars of sale of land in that area were not at all considered by the Reference Court. It only went into analysis of the Award and the related proceedings including statistical data and with the aid of the Topo map fixed the compensation on its own. Even for making different classification, the Court below went only by the classification of records as found in the village records and did not take note of either their present day use as house plots or their potential use of those lands into a developing urban area in the context of a new railway station on the Salem Karur Line coming up in that area. Further if S. No. 54 is valued at Rs. 45/- per sq.ft, there is no scope to refuse that valuation either on the ground that it requires development charges. In the present case, the Railway line laid is on the existing land and the Station is also built up on the lands acquired and most of the lands were having houses as found in the award proceedings. Therefore, making deduction towards development charges will not arise.
23. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons v. State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise.
24. The Supreme Court in Sangunthala v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Ors. reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 considered the potential value of the land can also be a relevant factor. In paragraphs 34 and 36, it held as follows.
34. In view of the admitted case that the lands acquired were potential house sites we do not agree with the views taken by the High Court while calculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are the two sale deeds containing particulars of the sale transactions held three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court after close perusal of the aforesaid documents held that the same disclose that out of more than 100 sales, a number of sales in respect of the lands were sold as house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village and the adjacent survey numbers in Thekkampatty Village were also sold as house sites.
36. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana it was observed that : (SCC p.572, para 4)
4. The expression "market value" has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm�s length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities.
25. The Supreme Court very recently in A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy (Judgment date 11.08.2010) in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2004, in paragraph 22 held as follows:
22. Therefore, it is clear from the aforementioned decisions of this Court that the potentiality of the acquired land, in so far as it relates to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration. The present acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started. The evidence on record also clearly indicates that acquired land is abutting the main road. The acquired land is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides. The High Court also found, as a matter of fact, that the area where the acquired land is situated is fit for construction of houses. On an overall consideration and appreciation of the records, we feel that the deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land when compared with the land in Ex. A3 from the point of view of potential value.
26. The learned Counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
5. It must also be mentioned that in the other judgments the High Court took note of Suraj Bhan case and awarded Rs. 212 per square yard. In some of the judgments the High Court has taken note of the fact that in respect of earlier acquisitions some matters had come to this Court and this Court had approved the rate fixed by the High Court in those matters. It was rightly held that when this Court had fixed rates in respect of earlier acquisitions for the same purpose it was better to adopt those rates with suitable increases than to rely upon sale instances.
27. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs. 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same.
28. In the light of the above legal precedents and factual matrix, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is not in commensurate with the market value of the lands acquired and it requires further enhancement since S. No. 54 was value at Rs. 45/- which is dated 26.08.1997. In the present case, Section 4(1) notification came to be issued on 01.03.1999 after 2 years and that would have gone for appreciation. Considering the development taking place in the village, if 10% increase is given on an annual basis, then the compensation will be Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. As held by the Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes case (cited supra) for laying town railway line, there cannot be any development charges.
29. The Supreme Court in its latest judgment in
75. It is a 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 i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair.
76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or different schemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt such a price as the same is not impermissible. Where there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Bal Ram.
77. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India where sale instances of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land.
30. In the very same railway line project for the lands taken over from Ammani Kondalampatti Village, an uniform rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.ft was approved by a Division Bench of this Court. Though the same rate cannot be considered in respect of Vengampatti village from which the present claimants have lost their lands, in view of the distance from the Salem town, the claimants cannot altogether be denied any relief. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an uniform rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.ft can be fixed in respect of the lands which were acquired considering the purpose for which acquisition has been made and that the substantial sale transactions in that area had taken place and the lands were sold only as house sites.
31. In the light of the above, the appeals filed by the Acquiring Authority will stand dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed and the rate of compensation is fixed at Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. and the statutory dues can be worked out in terms of the enhanced compensation. The compensation awarded for well and other structures by the Court below are not disturbed.
32. It was submitted that some of the claimants who have not filed cross objections should also be given the enhanced compensation. In this context, they placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandrashekhar and Ors. v. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 693. Reference was placed upon paragraph 13, which is as follows:
13. From the observations as quoted herein earlier, we conclude that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Buta Singh (supra) has not reversed the decision in Bhag Singh (supra) and the law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) is materially different from the law established by this Court in Bhag Singh (supra) since both the decisions dealt with different matters and moreover the Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) decision has in fact recognised the validity of the law laid down in Bhag Singh (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion that following the judgment of Bhag Singh (supra) in the present case shall not be in conflict with the opinion of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Buta Singh (supra). Thus, in our opinion, it is settled that the High Court should not have deprived the appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court Fee. This position is also supported by the decision of this Court in a recent case viz. Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2008) 10 SCC 797 wherein it has been held that the High Court should have, after taking note of the facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded the higher compensation subject to the payment of the balance court fee.
33. Therefore, the claimants who have not filed cross objections are also entitled to get the same rate of compensation, provided they pay the court fee before getting a decree from this Court.
34. In the result, all the appeals will stand dismissed. The cross objections will stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 35. Though a common judgment is pronounced, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar appearing for the second respondent are entitled to get separate set of fees.
