A.S.No.

566 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment Reserved on : 10.01.2022

Judgment Pronounced on : 10.02.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

A.S.No.566 of 2018

1.Anandan (Deceased) ... 1st Claimant/1st Appellant

2.Kuppu ... 2nd Claimant/2nd Appellant

3.Mari ... 3rd Claimant/3rd Appellant

4.Rajambal

5.Ponnamalai

6.Rajapuchpam

7.Valarmathy ... Appellants/LRs of First Appellant

Appellants 2 & 3 LRs of the deceased First Appellant already on record and
Appellants 4 to 7 brought on record as LRs of the deceased First Appellant
vide Court order, dated 05.01.2018 made in C.M.P.No.18179 of 2017 in
A.S.SR.No.88770 of 2014 (K.K.S.J., & P.V.J.,)

Versus

1.Union of India,
Rep. By Secretary to Govt., (Revenue Dept.),
Government of Puducherry,
Having office at Chief Secretariat,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

Goubert Salai, Puducherry – 605001. ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent

2.The Sub-Collector (Rev.) (North)-cum-

Land Acquisition Officer,
Kamaraj Salai, Saram,
Puducherry – 605013. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent

Prayer : First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 to set aside the award, dated 23.07.2014 and made in L.A.O.P.No.14
of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court at Puducherry
in so far as rejecting the claim of the Appellants to the extent of
Rs.17,44,20,388/- worked out at the rate of Rs.678/- per Sq.ft over and
above the sum of Rs.100/- fixed by the lower Court and fix the
compensation at the rate of Rs.778 per Sq.ft and allow the appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Mahimai Raj

For Respondents : M/s.N.Mala,

Government Pleader
for Pondicherry
Assisted by Mr.Alexander
Government Advocate
(Pondicherry)

JUDGMENT

(The Judgment was made by Mr.Justice.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)

The Appeal Suit:

This Appeal Suit in A.S.No.566 of 2018 is filed by the

Appellants/Landowners aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the

Learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2010

dated 23/07/2014 and praying for further enhancement of value of their

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

lands at the rate of Rs. 778/- per sq. ft.

Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeal Suit:

2. The appellants are the owners of the lands comprised in

R.S.No.25/2, admeasuring 02.39.00 Hectares (2,57,257.21 sq. ft) in

Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Puducherry. By a notification under

Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 09/06/2006, the said

extent was acquired along with larger extent for expansion for

Airport/facilities. Section 6 Declaration was published on 25/04/2007.

3. On 28/11/2006, the Land Acquisition officer inspected the acquired

lands and made notes of valuation. The L.A.O took note of a total number

of 874 sales effected during the relevant period that is for a period one year

preceding the 4(1) notification (08/07/2005 to 07/07/2006). Of the sales

data collected, he rejected 78 sales data on the ground that those were sales

along with superstructures. Thereafter, he rejected 45 sales data on the

ground that they relate to sale of less than 500 sq. ft. He further rejected

576 sales data on the ground that there are faraway and finally retained 175

sales data. Out of the retained, the highest was in Sl. No. 164 at the rate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

Rs. 167/- per sq.ft. was rejected on the ground that the sale was transacted

on 01/02/2006 anticipating acquisition. The next highest data in Sl.No.128

at Rs.66/- was taken and by giving standard deduction of 33.3% deduction

towards developmental charges, assessed a value at Rs. 41/-. Since the

guideline value was Rs. 60/- more than the assessed value, he took the same.

4. Thereafter, an award was passed in award No.1/2009 dated

21.01.2009 at the said rate of Rs.60 per sq. ft. In respect of the lands in

question, the Land Acquisition officer made a reference under Section 30 of

the Land Acquisition Act to determine the rightful claimant to receive the

award and the said reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.199 of 2009

and, by an award dated 09.09.2009, it was held that all the three claimants

were entitled to one-third each. Thereafter, as per the requisition of the

appellants made earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer made the reference

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining higher

compensation and the same was taken on file L.A.O.P.No. 14/2010.

5. A claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming to enhance the

value at Rs. 778 per sq. ft. The same was resisted by the respondents by

filing a counter. Thereafter, all the three claimants, namely Anandan,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

Kuppu and Mary, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-5,

copies of the sale deeds were marked on their behalf. The Land Acquisition

Officer examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked on

behalf of the respondents.

6. The Trial Court, thereafter, considering the contention of either

side and the evidence on record found that no independent sale deed was

filed by the claimants. The Exs.P-1 to P-5 are the sale deeds found in the

data of the respondent and the respondent had rejected them already by

giving various reasons. Therefore, the Court on its own held that it is safe

and correct to fix the value at Rs.100 per sq. ft. and accordingly enhanced

the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal suit has been

filed before this Court.

The Contentions in the Appeal Suit:

7. In the present Appeal Suit, originally the claimants also filed ten

additional documents which included eight sale deeds during the period

2005-06 and photographs of the acquired land. The purpose of filing the

said additional documentary evidence is that, during the hearing of the

Appeal Suit, the then Bench observed whether it is possible to produce more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

sale deeds than the ones already marked in the trial so as to throw more light

on the actual market value. And, therefore, the additional evidence,

producing the said sale deeds which were part of the sales data originally

compiled by the respondent. The Government Pleader had filed her response

by listing the documents filed both originally along with L.A.O.P and along

with the C.M.P.No.6666 of 2021 as additional documents by offering

remarks as to why the same cannot be taken into account.

8. Again, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, Mr.S.Mahimai Raj, would submit that even

though the additional documents are produced, as per the original

documents marked before the Trial Court itself, the appellants are entitled to

enhanced compensation. He would submit that the documents marked by

the appellants in Exs.P-1 to P-5 form part of the sales data produced by the

respondent themselves, within the check period of one year. Therefore, that

lends additional credence to the documents and the Trial Court erred in

rejecting the same only on the ground that they form part of the

respondent’s sales data. He would further submit that the highest among the

comparable data should be taken and Ex.P-1 being at the rate of Rs. 777.77

per sq. ft. should be taken into account and, rounding it off, the appellant’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

claim of Rs. 778 per sq. ft. should be allowed.

9. Opposing the above submissions, Mrs.N.Mala, the learned

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit

that the sales data has been scientifically taken into account and considered

by the respondent/L.A.O. And even though the assessed value was only Rs.

41/-, Rs. 60 was given. The Trial Court has already, on a compassionate

basis, enhanced it to Rs. 100 which itself is on the higher side. She would

submit that the concerned data taken that is Sale Item No. 517 is in respect

of the very adjacent land itself, and the other sales data now relied upon by

the appellants are far away and are incomparable. The topography of the

entire Karuvadikuppam village will change drastically in respect of every

survey number and it would be completely unscientific to compare distant

Survey Nos. It is her submission that Ex.R-4 sales data is within the

acquired land itself and when data is available within the acquired land,

there is no need to travel further and she relies upon the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors -Vs- State of

Maharashtra1 . And therefore, she would pray that the appeal suit be

dismissed.

1 1996 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SCC 152

7/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

The Points for Consideration :

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments

advanced on behalf of both sides, and we have perused the records. The

points for consideration that arise in this Appeal Suit are :

(i) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court fixing Rs.100/- per

sq.ft. As market value is in order?

(ii) What is the market value to be fixed in respect of the appellants lands?

Question No. 1 :

11. First, the Judgment of the Trail Court does not deserve acceptance

as the reasoning given that the sale deeds from the sales data given should

not be relied upon is incorrect in law and is without any basis. As submitted

by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that being part of the sales data

collected by the L.A.O itself adds to credence of Exs.P-1 to P-5. No other

reasoning is given by the trial court to arrive at the value of the land.

Without any basis whatsoever, the Trial Court fixed the market value at

Rs.100/- and therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the fixation of

market value by the Trial Court at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft is not in order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

Question No. 2 :

12. In order to fix the correct market value, it is necessary to advert to

the evidence on record and the additional evidence sought to be let in before

us. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellants restricting their claim to the originally marked documents, we are

not inclined to take into account the additional documents produced on

behalf of the appellants and, hence, the C.M.P.No. 6666 of 2021 shall stand

dismissed.

13. The appellants have produced the following documents:-

(i) Ex.P-1 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 03.08.2005

executed by the second appellant, by which, she sold the land measuring to

an extent of 1800 Sq.ft bering R.S.No.52/1 in favour of one J.Anbaracy at

the rate of Rs.777.77/- per Sq.ft;

(ii) Ex.P-2 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 27.10.2005

executed by one V.Subbaiah, by which, he old the land measuring to an

extent of 1800 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.82/2 at the rate of Rs.375/- per Sq.ft in

favour of one M.P.Latha;

(iii) Ex.P-3 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 28.10.2005

executed by one B.K.Govindasamy, by which, he sold the land measuring to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

an extent of 1200 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.83/1A at the rate of Rs.666366/- per

Sq.ft in favour of one Savari Jerard;

(iv) Ex.P-4 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 20.02.2006

executed by one K.R.Thiyagarajan, by which, he sold the land measuring to

an extent of 1800 Sq.ft. Bearing Survey Nos.121/5/A1, 121/5/A2 at the rate

of Rs.611.11/- per Sq.ft in favour of one Pilomina Rajan; and

(v) Ex.P-5 – Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 31.05.2006

executed by one R.Manickam, by which, he sold the land measuring to an

extent of 4712 Sq.ft bearing R.S.No.16/6A at the rate of Rs.200.12/- per

Sq.ft in favour of one S.Samundiswary.

By producing the aforesaid documents, learned Counsel for the

appellants requested us to fix either Rs.777.77/- per Sq.ft as per Ex.P-1 or

atleast Rs.375/- per Sq.ft as per Ex.P-2.

14. Let us examine the issue as per the parameters followed by the

Land Acquisition Officer in his notes of valuation dated 28.11.2006. The

first filter adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is that the sales effected

along with superstructure are incomparable and rejected. In that view of the

matter, Exs.P-1, P-3 and P-4 will stand excluded from consideration. The

second filter adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is to weed out the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

of less than 500 sq. ft. Exs.P-2 and P-5 are more than 500 sq. ft. and

therefore can be considered. The third parameter adopted for rejecting 566

sales data is that the sales are far away. However, the notes of inspection do

not specifically mention as to the exact distance criteria adopted by the

respondent/Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting the sales as far away.

However, he has retained 175 sales data even after adopting the distance

criteria. The Respondent/ Land Acquisition officer in his cross examination

admits that Ex.P-1 is very near to the acquired land but, however, the same

is not considered only because there was superstructure. Therefore, we find

from the Topo-Sketch produced before us, that the lands in respect of the

175 retained sales data and Exs.P-1 to P-5 are comparable and located in

the same vicinity and are similarly situated. Of the five comparable sales

data relied on by the appellants, Exs.P-2 and P-5 alone relate to vacant land.

15. The learned Counsel for the appellants submited that as per the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mehrawal Khewaji

Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & others -Vs- State of Punjabe & others2, we have

to take the value as per Ex.P-1, which is Rs.777/- per Sq.ft. But, however,

as stated above, the document in Ex.P-1 is incomparable because the value

2 2012 (3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CTC 396

11/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

of Rs.777/- also includes the value of the superstructure consisting of

ground, first and second floors. As a matter of fact, if the value of the

building is excluded the land value may be even marginal lesser than Ex.P-

2. Therefore, as concluded by as above, we hold that Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5

alone are the payable exemplaries As pointed out by the learned Counsel for

the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned

judgment in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot case, has held in

paragraph No.15 as follows:-

“15. It is clear that when there are several

exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is
the general rule that the highest of the exemplars,
if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction
has to be considered and accepted. When the
land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value which
similar land in the locality is shown to have
fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into
between a willing purchaser and a willing seller
near about the time of the acquisition“
Therefore, since the value under Ex.P-2 is Rs.375/- and the value

under Ex.P-5 is Rs.200/- by following the above dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, Ex.P-2, being the highest value of Rs.375/-, is

taken as the market value of the acquired land.

16. The entire Karuvadikuppam revenue village is a developed urban

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

area, forming the part of the Puducherry city. The value contained in Ex.P-

2, according to us would reflect the fair market value at the relevant point of

time. Since the said plot is only of an extent of 1800 Sq.ft, and the large

extent if plotted out, towards development, roads, public space etc., space

have to be left out for the same. Further considering the low lying nature

and the need to fill up the plot and develop it by standing developed

authorities etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as in the judgment in

Chimanlal Hargovinddas -Vs- Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona

and Another3, as laid down the broad guidelines which are to be considered

by this Court, while fixing the market value in paragraph No.4 of the

judgment and in paragraph Nos.4.12 to 4.14 held as follows:-

“12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors

may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant
factors may be evaluated in terms of price
variation as a prudent purchaser would do.

(13) The market value of the land under

acquisition has there after to be deduced by
loading the price reflected in the instance taken
as norm for plus factors and unloading it for
minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in
clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a
common sense manner as a prudent man of the
world of business would do. We may illustrate
some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors

3 1988 3 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 751

13/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.

2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior

at a distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the
area. depressed portion to be
filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.

6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special under

acquisition disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.“
7. special value for an owner
of an adjoining property
to whom it may have some
very special advantage.

17. Thereafter, in paragraph No.12 taking into consideration the facts

of that case made a reduction of 25% by holding as follows:-

“In the result appellant must be awarded

compensation at Rs.7,000 per acre subject to
deduction or allowance of 25% to account for
land required to be set apart for roads, open
spaces etc. In other words appellant will be
entitled to be paid compensation for 13 acres 7
gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 at Rs.5,250
per acre (Rs.7,000 less 25% i.e. Iess
1750=Rs.5,250) in place of the lesser sum
awarded by the High Court. Appeal must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

partly allowed to this extent accordingly.“

18. Considering the extent, being 1800 Sq.ft in Ex.P-2 and the

submissions of the learned Government Pleader that some parts of the land

are even low lying, we adopt the maximum standard deduction i.e., 1/3rd of

the value and accordingly, by taking a sum of Rs.125/- or the sum of

Rs.375/-, we fix Rs.250/- as the market value of the appellants property.

19. Adopting, the same, the compensation is enhanced and fixed as

follows :

Extent of Land of the Appellants in R.S. No. 25/2 , as per Award

No.1/2009 dated 21/01/2009 : 02.39.00 Hectares (2,57,257.21 sq.ft)

(i) Market Value of the acquired land at the rate

of Rs. 250 /- per sq.ft. : Rs.6,43,14,302.50p

(ii) 30% Solatium as per Section 23 (2) of

the Land Acquisition Act : Rs.1,92,94,290.80p

(iii) 12% interest as per Section 23(1) of

the Act from the Date of 4(1) notification
to Award, that is, from 07/07/2006 to
23/07/2007 (382 days) : Rs. 80,77,171.52p

Total Compensation Payable : Rs.9,16,85,764.82p

The appellants would be entitled for statutory interest as per Section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation. From the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

amount payable as enhanced compensation, the amount already paid to the

petitioner be deducted.

The Result :

20. In the result :

(i) The appellants are entitled to a total compensation of

Rs. 9,16,85,764.82 p;

(ii) The amount is payable with statutory interest as per Section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act, after deducting the amounts

already paid;

(iii) That the second and third appellants are entitled to 1/3rd each

and the appellants 4 to 7 being the legal heirs of the first

appellant will be entitled to 1/3rd;

(iv) The appellants are entitled to for one costs.

21. The Appeal suit is allowed in part accordingly. Consequently,

C.M.P.No.6666 of 2021 is closed.

(T.R., J.) (D.B.C., J.)

10.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

Index : yes
Internet : yes
Speaking order

grs

To

1.The II Additional District Court, Puducherry.

2.The Section Officer,

V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17/18
 A.S.No.566 of 2018

T.RAJA, J.,
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

grs

Pre-Delivery Judgment in
A.S.No.566 of 2018

10.02.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18/18