(Prayer in A.S.No.72 of 2020: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in LAOP No.157 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017.

in C.M.P.No.660 of 2020 To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.157 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

In A.S.No.74 of 2020: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamalee in LAOP No.308 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017.

In C.M.P.No.662 of 2020: To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.308 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal,III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee pending disposal of the above appeal.

In A.S.No.75 of 2020: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamalee in LAOP No.309 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017.

In C.M.P.No.663 of 2020 To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.309 of 2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee pending disposal of the above appeal.)

Common Judgement

1. Heard.

2. These appeal suits are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.157 of 2008, 308 of 2008 and 309 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, whereby the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- per Are (approximately 30,364 /- per cent)

3. In these appeals, the appellant is the Referring Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, and the respondents are the claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the same rank as they stood before the Reference Court.

4.These first appeals arise out of references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) in respect of lands situated in Morai Village, Poonamallee Taluk, acquired for the formation of the Outer Ring Road (Phase–I). The Section 4(1) notification was issued on 28.10.2003, and the enquiry was conducted on 17.11.2003. By Award No.15 of 2006 dated 20.09.2006, the Land Acquisition Officer (“LAO”) fixed the market value at Rs.500/- per cent (Rs.1,235/- per Are).

5. The acquisition pertains to a linear road project traversing Morai Village. The LAO recorded that several sale transactions were examined and, by adopting one data sale as comparable, fixed the market value at ₹500/- per cent. The landowners, contending that the said rate was wholly inadequate having regard to the location, potentiality and peri-urban character of Morai as on 2003, sought references under Section 18 of the Act.

6. The Reference Court chiefly relied upon Ex.C2—Award No.1 of 2015 dated 06.07.2015, relating to lands in S.No.470/9, Morai, wherein compensation had been fixed at Rs.34,848/- per cent (Rs.86,074.56 per Are). The Reference court also noticed Ex.C1, a sale deed of 2014 relating to a plot in Balaji Nagar. Treating Ex.C2 as the guiding indicator and stating that adjustments were required for differences in soil classification/tharam/assessment, the Reference Court enhanced the market value in the present acquisition to Rs.75,000/- per are. Aggrieved thereby, the Referring Officer has preferred these appeals.

7. The Referring Officer contends that the Reference Court erred in relying upon post-notification material—particularly Ex.C2, which is not only a later award but one pegged to a valuation date of 01.04.2012—without any principled rollback to the Section 4(1) date of 28.10.2003. It is further contended that the proximity and comparability of Ex.C2 lands with the acquired lands have not been established by any village/field map or other reliable evidence, and that the data-sale analysis of the LAO was not duly examined.

8. The claimants submit that Ex.C2 relates to lands in the same revenue village, Morai, and to lands adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands, and that the area had significant developmental potential even as on 2003. They contend that the enhanced rate reflects the true market value and potentiality of the acquired lands.

Points for determination

9. The following issues arise for consideration:

                     (i) Whether Ex.C2 (Award No.1 of 2015) can be treated as a comparable indicator for fixing the market value as on 28.10.2003?

                     (ii) What market value, as on 28.10.2003, can lawfully be fixed on the materials available?

Discussion

Issue (i):

10. It requires emphasis that Ex.C2 is not a sale deed but an award. Award No.1 of 2015 dated 06.07.2015 emanated from a re-notification process pursuant to the directions of the Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration in Lr. No. M1/25583/2003 dated 11.12.2013, published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette No.49 dated 18.12.2013, whereby the market value was fixed at Rs.34,848/- per cent. The said fixation traces to the order of the this court in W.P. No.37875 of 2003 dated 16.04.2013, where the claimant of that notification sought to quash the Section 4(1) notification dated 10.11.2003 on the ground of procedural error; this court , however, directed the claimant to approach the competent authority for fixation of land value as on 01.04.2012. Ex.C2 is thus pegged to the valuation date of 01.04.2012, far removed from the Section 4(1) date governing the present acquisition, namely 28.10.2003. Consequently, Ex.C2 cannot be adopted as a primary exemplar for fixation of market value in the present case. In the present acquisition, valuation must remain anchored to 28.10.2003.

Issue (ii):

11. Market value must be determined with reference to the date of the Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court’s enhancement rests substantially on material of 2014–2015 without a worked-out rollback to 2003. The appellate exercise must therefore adopt a lawful and consistent benchmark grounded in comparable acquisitions for the same project, in the same locality, and within the same time band.

12. In this regard, reliance on the decision of this Court in A.S. No.574 of 2011 batch dated 31.08.2015 related to acquisitions in Morai Village for the same Outer Ring Road project, pursuant to a Section 4(1) notification dated 06.11.2003, and this Court upheld the fixation of Rs.16,500/- per cent. Since the present acquisition is for the same project in the same village and the notification date herein (28.10.2003) falls within the same immediate time band, the said rate is adopted. Accordingly, the market value as on 28.10.2003 is fixed at Rs.16,500/- per cent (approximately Rs.40,755/- per Are).

13. The acquisition is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants are entitled to statutory benefits on the re-fixed compensation, namely:

                     (a)additional amount under Section 23(1-A) at 12% per annum from 28.10.2003 till the date of award or the date of taking possession, whichever isearlier;

                     (b) solatium under Section 23(2) at 30%; and

                     (c) interest under Section 28 on the excess amount at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter, with due credit for sums already paid/deposited.

14. In the result, the common judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 made in L.A.O.P. Nos.157 of 2008, 308 of 2008 and 309 of 2008 are modified. The market value is re-fixed from Rs.30,364/- per cent to Rs.16,500/- per cent (i.e from Rs.75,000/- per Are to Rs.40,755/- per Are) as on 28.10.2003. The respondents/claimants shall be entitled to statutory additions as indicated above, with due adjustment of amounts already paid or deposited. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.