LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, September 24, 2011

COCONUT TREES COMPENSATION -the age of the trees could be 8 to 9 years and in due course even the flowering trees would become fruit bearing trees and yield income for next 60 to 70 years. The High Court totally ignored the two reports and fixed market value of young trees by treating the same as timber. Learned senior counsel for the respondent could not put forward any tangible argument as to why the report of an expert should not be relied upon for the purpose of fixing value of the trees with reference to their expected yield. Therefore, we are convinced that the High Court committed an error by upsetting the view taken by the Reference Court on the issue of market value of the trees.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE




                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION






                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5797 OF 2002








R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs.                                 .......Appellants




                                        Versus




The Special Tahsildar,


Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line                                     .......Respondent




                                         With




                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5835 OF 2002








Soundararajan (Dead) through L.Rs.                                 .......Appellants




                                        Versus




The Special Tahsildar,


Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line                                     .......Respondent




                                 J U D G M E N T






G.S. Singhvi,  J.










1.    These   appeals   are   directed   against   judgment   dated   5.10.2001   of   the 




Madras High Court whereby the compensation determined by the Reference 




Court vide award dated 2.4.1993 passed in LAOP Nos. 29 and 30 of 1988 




was substantially reduced.



                                                                                      2








2.     On a requisition sent by Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern 




Railway for the acquisition of land for construction of Karur-Dindigul Broad 




Gauge   Line,   the   Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   issued   notification   under 




Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), which 




was published in the official Gazette dated 30.5.1984 for the acquisition of 




19.72   acres   land   including   land   comprised   in   survey   Nos.   658/2,   663/3B, 




664, 665/1, 667/1 and 668 owned by R. Saragapani and Soundararajan (both 




of   whom   are   now   represented   by   their   legal   representatives)   situated   in 




village   Vembur,   Vadasandur   Taluk,   Dindigul   District.     The   Special 




Tahsildar inspected the acquired land and submitted report dated 6.1.1987 to 




District   Revenue   Officer,   Anna,   District   Dindigul   indicating   therein   that 




value of the acquired land and coconut trees available at the site including 




30% solatium would be Rs.3,70,190.50.  










3.     Land   Acquisition   Officer   and   Special   Tahsildar,   Karur-Dindigul 




Broad   Gauge   Railway   Line,   Unit   II,   Dindigul   (for   short,   `the   Land  




Acquisition   Officer')   passed   award   dated   19.5.1987   and   declared   that   the 




landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre. 




He also awarded Rs.160/- per yielding coconut tree and Rs.30/- per young 




coconut tree (trees with flowers and flowering stage).



                                                                                               3








4.      Feeling dissatisfied  with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, 




the land owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act.  Thereupon, 




the   Collector   made   reference   to   the   Court   for   determination   of   the 




compensation   payable   to   the   landowners.     The   same   were   registered   as 




LAOP   Nos.   29   and   30   of   1988.       In   what   was   described   as   the   counter 




statements filed by them, the landowners claimed that they were entitled to 




compensation  at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.   They also claimed that 




the   coconut   trees   were   capable   of   giving   crop   for   50   years   at   the   rate   of 




Rs.500/- per annum.










5.      During the pendency of reference, the  Reference Court  appointed an 




Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the acquired land to ascertain the 




number of trees and their age.  The Court Commissioner took the assistance  




of   Village   Administrative   Officer   and   Shri   P.   Nagarajan,   Agricultural 




Development   Officer   Panchayath   Union,   Vedasandur   and   inspected   the 




acquired   land   on   7.11.1992   after   giving   notice   to   both   the   parties.     The 




landowners   and   their   Advocate   Shri   K.   Subramanian   were   present   at   the 




time   of   inspection   but   none   appeared   on   behalf   of   the   respondent.     After 




inspecting the site, Shri P. Nagarajan submitted report dated 7.11.1992 with 




the finding that the trees were 17 years old and would give better yield for a  




further period of 70 years.   He also opined that each tree will give a total  




income of Rs.29,890/-.   Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner submitted 



                                                                                             4








report dated 20.11.1992 to the Reference Court endorsing the report of Shri 




P. Nagarajan.










6.    The  Reference   Court  first   considered   the   question   as   to   how   many 




trees existed on the acquired land, referred to the evidence of the parties as 




also the Advocate Commissioner's report and observed:




      "What   is   the   number   of   coconut   trees   present   in   the   lands 


      acquired in L.A.O.P. No.29/1988?




      It is found that the number of trees mentioned in the award is 


      wrong Exhibit R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit 


      R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit R6 is the report 


      filed   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   after   inspection   on 


      06.01.1987. It is shown  in the report that there are 9 yielding 


      and 46 young coconut trees in S.F. No. 658/2, that in S.F. No. 


      665/1 there are 6 yielding coconut trees, 59 coconut trees with 


      flowers,   199   young   coconut   trees,   that   there   are   11   coconut 


      trees in S.F. No. 668, that there are 56 coconut trees and 6 very 


      small   coconut   trees   of   not   yielding   and   no   value   in   S.F.   No. 


      667/1. Thus it is shown in the above said document separately 


      the yielding coconut trees, coconut trees yielding stage, young 


      trees, nut yielding value less coconut trees. Hence the number 


      of   trees   as   mentioned   in   the   award   is   not   correct.   When   the 


      railway   line   was   being   laid   under   this   broad   guage   plan   few 


      coconut trees were cut. Exhibit R8 is the letter dated 24.02.1987 


      written by the railway department to the Special Tahsildar. It is 


      stated  in the said  letter that 13 coconut trees were cut and 94 


      young coconut trees had dried/perished due to the hot sun and 


      want of water. Thus 107 coconut trees had been destroyed. The 


      property had been taken into possession is seen as 19.05.1987. 


      Thus   107   coconut   trees   has   been   destroyed   before   taking 


      possession,   due   to   laying   the   railway   line   by   the   railway 


      department. It has to be seen as to how many trees belonging to 


      whom   had   been   destroyed.   Exhibit   R1O   would   render   much 


      help in that extent. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned 


      in Exhibit R7 as follows:



                                                                                        5








        "It   has   been   stated   that   the   coconut   trees   in   the 


        place where the present broad guage line has been 


        laid were cut by the railway department  and then 


        the railway line laid up".




Further   the   Village   Administrative   Officer   in   his   statement 


would state that it was true that coconut trees were cut but he 


does  not   know  how   much   trees  were   cut.   Therefore   it  can   be 


confirmed  after enquiring that there were more trees then that 


are present now. It is further stated in Page 6 that it has to be 


considered that 9 trees were cut in S.F. No. 658/2, that in S.F. 


No. 665/1: 12 trees were cut, 15 trees were cut in S.F. No. 668, 


37 trees were cut in S.F. No. 667/1. RW1 in his evidence has 


admitted   in   Exhibit   R10   that   it   was   stated   that   64   trees   were 


present in S.F. No. 658 and 9 trees were cut, 15 trees were cut 


in S.F. No. 668 and 11 were remaining. That there was a total 


of   276   coconut   trees   in   S.F.   No.   665/1   the   trees   cut   were


12, that in S.F. No. 667/1, total of 99 trees cut were 37. Hence 


based  on Exhibit R6 and on comparing Exhibits R7, R10 and 


the admission of RW1 the coconut trees present in the land has 


to be seen calculation. S.F. No. 658/2 belongs to the claimant in 


L.A.O.P.   No.   29/88   and   the   claimant   in   L.A.O.P.   No.   30/88. 


Hence taking into account, what has been stated in the award, I 


am   allotting   the   balance   to   L.A.O.P.   No.   30/88.   Therefore   in 


S.F. No. 658/2 there are 9 yielding trees and 13 young coconut 


trees.   In   S.F.   No.   665/1   according   to   Exhibit   R6   there   are   6 


yielding trees, 59 flowering trees, young coconut trees 199. 12 


coconut  trees which were cut were in this number.  I included 


this cut down trees with young trees. Therefore the young trees 


are 199 + 12 = 211. Similarly in S.F. No. 668 there are 11 trees  


along   with   15   cut   trees   the   total   is   26.(ie)   the   young   trees 


present in this survey field.   It is shown in Exhibit R6 that 56 


young   coconut   trees   are   present   in   S.F.   No.667/1.   It   has   also 


been stated that 6 coconut trees do not have any value in both 


L.A.O.P.s 29/88 and 30/88. 37 trees were cut from it, including 


the   said   trees   the   total   comes   to   93   trees.   The   statement   in 


Exhibit R6 that there are 6 coconut trees of no value in S.F. No. 


667/1,   is   accepted.   Thus   after   taking   into   consideration   the 


character of the coconut trees the cut trees are included along 


with the number of young coconut trees."



                                                                                                 6








7.     The  Reference Court  then adverted to the question as to what would 




be   the   annual   income   of   the   coconut   trees   and   held   that   average   annual 




income of one tree would be Rs.200/-.   The process of reasoning by which 




the Reference Court arrived at this conclusion is reflected in paragraph 24 of 




its award, which is extracted below:




       "24.    The annual income of a coconut tree must  now be seen 


       PW1 would state that a good variety of coconut tree will yeild 


       one in 45 days, that about 30 to 45 nuts can be fot, and there 


       will   be   8   harvest   in   a   year   and   100   nuts  would   sell   from   Rs. 


       350/- to Rs. 500/-. PW2 would state that the coconut trees had 


       grown very well, that they yeilded good nuts, that it belongs to 


       the fall variety, that the yeild is about 200 to 250 nuts in a year  


       and   each   nut   has   been   sold   at   Rs.   3.30   to   Rs.   4/-.   PW3   the 


       owner of the lands adjacent to the acquired land in his evidence 


       would state that the coconut trees were planted in the lands 17 


       years back, that it has red soil and each tree would yeild about 


       200 to 250 coconut in a year. PW4 the Vedasandur Agricultural 


       Development Officer who has been in Government service for 


       the past 19 years would state in his evidence that these coconut 


       trees are of the tall variety, it has good growth, that there would 


       be   12   to   13   flowerings   in   a   year   in   these   trees   and   each 


       flowering would have 10 to 15 nuts and there would be an yeild 


       of 100 to 150 coconuts in a single tree and the trees would be 


       17 years old and each tree would yeild 120 coconuts. He in his 


       report   Exhibit   C3   given   to   the   Commissioner   has   stated   all 


       about the income, age, and type of the coconut trees present in 


       the land belonging to the claimant.  Sarangapani which is near 


       the acquired lands.  PW7 Rathina  Nadar of Chozhavandan  has 


       stated   that   he   used   to   purchase   coconuts   for   a   price   from 


       Sarangapani and Exhibit C8 is the bill given to Sarangapani on 


       04.03.1983. He has purchased 15190 nuts for Rs. 37,644/-. He 


       has stated that the rate of the nuts would be arounds Rs. 2.50 to  


       Rs. 3.00. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of 


       the said evidence that the annual income from a tree is Rs. 375/- 


       and   excluding   the   expenses   the   income   is   Rs.   334/-   and   the 


       same   is   of   minimum   scale   and   it   is   insisted   that   the   annual 


       income of a single coconut tree must be calculated on the above 


       said   basis.   The   evidences   let   in   would   show   that   the   coconut 



                                                                                            7








      trees in the acquired lands belong to a good variety. There was 


      proper   irrigation   facility.   It   is   also   shown   that   it   has   been 


      properly   cultivated.   But   it   is   definite   that   the   annual   income 


      from a single tree has been shown to be very high on behalf of 


      the   claimant.   Because   the   cost   to   maintain   the   coconut   trees 


      cannot be stated in a planned way. Further the annual income of 


      the coconut tree under Section 4(1) of the act as per notification 


      on 30.05.1984 amended as per order in I.A. No. 289, 290/93 of 


      30.04.1993, must be calculated as on that date. If the period for 


      calculating   the   income,   the   expenses   involved   in   maintaining 


      the coconut tree and the evidence are taken into calculation then 


      I consider, it correct and justifiable to fix the annual income of 


      a coconut tree at Rs. 200/- Therefore I find the annual income 


      of a coconut tree to be Rs. 200/-."








8.    The next question considered by the  Reference Court  was as to what 




would be the value of the remaining land, i.e. the land not covered by the 




trees.  After examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by the 




parties, the Reference Court observed:




      "Exhibit R4 is the sale deed taken by RW1 for calculating the 


      market value. It is given in No. 9 in Exhibit R3. RW1 says that  


      on that basis the value of one acre is Rs. 6,500/- when it was  


      suggested to RW1 that it was a dry land and the well in it had 


      no water, he denied the same. But he has also said that he has 


      not seen the said land. The statement of RW1 that the said land  


      was   equivalent   land   for   calculating   the   market   value   without 


      seeing   it   cannot   be   accepted.   He   has   only   functioned   in   a 


      manner  so   as to  show   the  value  of  the  land  as  very  low.  The 


      land should be taken for comparison to be an irrigated garden 


      lands. The argument placed on behalf of the claimant that they 


      were not given an opportunity to cross examine the purchaser 


      or the seller of lands taken for comparison, regarding its nature 


      as  they  have  not  been   examined   on  behalf  of the  government  


      and the seller and buyer have not been examined only because 


      of the lands are not eligible for comparison, has to be accepted. 


      PW5 states that she sold 21 cents of land for Rs. 41,500/- vide 


      Exhibit C4. PW6 would state that she purchased the land near 


      the acquired lands for Rs. 44,280/- vide Exhibit C5. The lands 



                                                                                                8








        sold vide Exhibit C4 have again been sold vide Exhibit C5. 21 


        cents of land has been sold for Rs. 31,500/- as per Exhibit C4. 


        The value of the well is shown to be Rs. 5,000/-. The value of 


        the motor is shown as Rs. 5,000/-. The land sold is marked as 


        No.   25   in   Exhibit   R3.   The   land   acquisition   officer   has   taken 


        these   lands   for   comparison.   It   is  shown   as  No.   25   in   the   sale 


        deed taken up. But he has rejected it on the ground that it was 


        not similar. This is a dry land cultivated with irrigation facility. 


        Further   Exhibit   B3   would   only   show   that   these   lands   situate 


        near to the lands acquired. It is clear that only this land has to 


        be taken for comparison  for a calculating the market  value of 


        the land. Therefore the lands sold vide Exhibits C4  and 5 are 


        taken for comparison. This sale would show the market value. 


        21 cents has been sold for a sum of Rs. 31,500/- Therefore the 


        value of one cent is Rs. 1,500/-. The market value of one acre is 


        Rs.1,50,000/-. .........."










9.      The respondent challenged the award of the Reference Court by filing 




appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which came to be registered as Appeal  




Suit   Nos.976   and   977   of  1993.     On   being   noticed   by   the   High   Court,   the 




landowners filed Cross Objection Nos. 23/1995 and 111/2001 and claimed 




that they were entitled to additional compensation.










10.     During the pendency of the appeals and the cross objections, the land 




owners   filed   CMP   Nos.   15193   and   16047   of   1997   for   placing   on   record 




letter dated 17.2.1995 sent by Deputy Chief Engineer (Southern Railway), 




Gauge   Conversion   Arasaradi,   Madurai   to   the   Special   Tahsildar   (Land 




Acquisition) in which it was mentioned that the Railway Department entered 




upon   the   acquired   land   comprised     in   survey   Nos.   658/2,   663/3B,   664/2, 



                                                                                                 9








665/1, 667/1 and 668 of village Vembur, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul, Anna 




District on 11.3.1985.










11.     The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   re-evaluated   the   evidence 




produced by the parties and held that the trees existing on the acquired land 




must   have   been   2   -   4   years   old   only.     The   reasons   assigned   by   the   High 




Court for recording this conclusion are extracted below:




        "It is pertinent to note that at the time of inspection, there were 


        only   354   numbers   of   trees   (6   yielding   trees   and   325   young 


        trees) and as matter  of fact,  R-l in his statement  given by the  


        claimant   before   the   Award   Officer   dated   22.4.1987,   he   has 


        admitted   the   particulars   of   the   land   and   the   nature   of   his 


        cultivation. He had  stated that he knew  the extent of the  land 


        that is sought to be acquired and he had also stated the extent of 


        the   land   that   he   was   been   in   enjoyment   and   that   he   had   no 


        objection   for   the   land   being   taken   over   and   agreed   to   receive 


        the   compensation   determined.   All   the   tender   or   young   trees 


        were   planted   after   coming   to   know   of   the   acquisition.   The 


        claimant admits to have purchase 1500 tender/young trees, but 


        he   had   not   obtained   receipts   for   them.   Though   in   his   cross-


        examination as P.W.l he has stated that the said statement was 


        signed because he was asked to sign, it cannot be accepted. In 


        the light of the fact that the existing yielding trees in the extent 


        of the land, i.e. six will not constitute a thope, since minimum 


        80   trees   per   acre   are   required   to   claim   it   as   thope   and   for 


        valuing it by capitalising the income of the trees by 20 years of 


        purchase. The Award Officer taking into account that the tender 


        or   young   trees   were   planted   on   or   about   the   date   of   proposal 


        and   considering   its   age,   determined   the   value   of   the   trees   as 


        timber. We do not find any illegality in the same. Ex. A.7, the 


        report   of   the   Agricultural   Officer   is   based   on   the   inspection 


        dated 7.11.1992 at the instance of the Advocate Commissioner 


        appointed before the sub court. The Reference  Court failed to 


        take   note   of   the   fact   of   lapse   of   8   years   from   the   date   of 


        notification and nearly 12 years from the date of proposals for 


        the Railways. The court did not go into the question of planting 



                                                                                             10








       the coconuts during 1980's and in any event, at the time of 4 (1) 


       notification   in   the   year   1984,   these   trees   must   have   been   2-4 


       years old only. Hence there is no scope of valuing them on the 


       basis   of   capitalisation   method.   The   decision   of   the   Supreme 


       Court in K.A.A. Raja's case referred to above squarely applies 


       to this case."










12.    The High Court did not agree with the method of valuation adopted by 




the  Reference Court  for determining  market value of the acquired land  and 




held   that   the   landowners   are   entitled   to   compensation   at   the   rate   of 




Rs.1,00,000/-   per   acre.     The   reasons   assigned   by   the   High   Court   for 




recording this conclusion are as under:






       "The Reference Court has taken Exs A.4 and A.5 as data sale 


       deeds. By Ex. A.4 21 cents of land was sold on 8.9.1982 for a 


       sum   of   Rs.   41.500/-.   The   same   land   was   sold   by   Ex.   A.5   on 


       6.7.1983 for a sum of Rs. 41,500/-. The Court below has taken 


       this   sale   deed   as   representing   the   correct   market   value   and 


       found   that   the   value   per   cent   will   be   Rs.31,500/--   '21=>   Rs. 


       1,500/-. Based on that, he fixed the market value of the land per 


       acre at Rs. 1,50,000/-. In our view, the said method of valuation 


       is not correct as the said value cannot be taken for comparison. 


       Besides, the parties to the sale deed were not examined to find 


       out under what circumstances these 21 cents of land were sold. 


       From   the   Award   and   the   judgment   it   is   seen   that   the   Land 


       Acquisition   Officer   has   taken   the   valuation   at   the   rate   of   Rs 


       6,500/- per acre.     In his evidence as D.W.1, he has stated that 


       the   document   referred   to   in   the   Award   dated   20.5.1982   was 


       taken as a data sale deed and the rate was fixed at Rs. 6,500/- 


       per acre.  The Officer has not given full particulars as to how he 


       considered this as comparable to the acquired land. Hence the 


       said document cannot be relief on for fixing the market value. 


       Therefore, we are left with only Ex A.4. However, considering 


       the small extent of land, the value as determined on the basis of 


       this   data   sale   land   can   be   taken   into   account   provided 


       development charges of 33.33% are deducted from this value. If 


       so   deducted,   the   value   will   be   Rs.1,00,000/-   per   acre.   The 



                                                                                                11








        claimant is entitled to get compensation at this rate for the 1.52 


        acres   of   land   acquired   from   him,   plus   the   value   of   trees   as 


        assessed as timber by the Award Officer, i.e. Rs.24,375/-. The 


        claimant   shall   be   entitled   to   interest   and   solatium   on   this 


        amount as per law on the value of the land plus trees."










13.     Shri   L.   Nageswara   Rao,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants 




argued   that   the   impugned   judgment   is   liable   to   be   set   aside   because   the 




determination of market value made by the High Court suffers from multiple 




errors   and   fallacies.     Learned   senior   counsel   submitted   that   the  Reference 




Court  had   rightly   relied   upon   the   report   of   the   Advocate   Commissioner, 




which   was   founded   on   the   report   of   Shri   P.   Nagarajan,   Agricultural 




Development   Officer   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the   number,   age   and 




yielding potential of the coconut trees existing on the acquired land and the 




High   Court   committed   serious   error   by   upsetting   the   said   finding   by 




assuming   that   the   trees   were   planted   by   the   landowners   after   coming   to 




know about the proposed acquisition of their land.   Learned senior counsel 




submitted   that   this   observation   of   the   High   Court   is   based   on   pure 




conjectures because  no evidence  was produced by the respondent  to show 




that   the   landowners   had   prior   knowledge   of   the   requisition   received   from 




Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway for the acquisition of 




their land.  Shri Nageswara Rao further argued that the High Court was not 




at   all   justified   in   treating   the   flowering   trees   as   timber   for   the   purpose   of 




fixing their value.   He then submitted that the  Reference Court  had rightly 



                                                                                          12








relied upon the sale deeds Exts. A4 and A5 vide which land measuring 21 




cents   was   sold   in   1982   and   1983   for   Rs.41,500/-   and   the   High   Court 




committed an error by discarding the two sale deeds only on the ground that 




the same related to small piece of land.  Learned senior counsel emphasized  




that   the   respondent   had   not   produced   any   evidence   regarding   the   cost 




required   to   be   incurred   for   making   the   land   fit   for   construction   of   Broad 




Gauge   Line   and   argued   that   the   High   Court   was   not   at   all   justified   in 




applying 1/3rd  cut towards development charges.   Shri Nageswara Rao then 




argued   that   both,   the  Reference   Court  and   the  High   Court  committed   an 




error by awarding interest w.e.f. 20.5.1987 despite the fact that possession of 




the acquired land had been taken by the Railway Department on 11.3.1985. 




In   the   end,   the   learned   senior   counsel  submitted   that   in   terms   of   the 




judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211, the 




appellants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount.










14.     Shri   R.   Sundaravaradan,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   respondent, 




supported   the   impugned   judgment   and   argued   that   the   determination   of 




market value by the High Court is based on correct application of the settled 




principles of law and does not merit reconsideration by this Court.  Learned 




senior counsel submitted that the Reference Court had erroneously fixed the 




age   of   coconut   trees,   which   were   newly   planted   and   were   only   at   the 




flowering stage.  Shri Sundaravaradan submitted that the new trees could not 



                                                                                       13








have been taken into consideration for fixing the value of yield of the total 




number of trees.   He then argued that the determination of market value of 




the remaining land by the  Reference Court  was  per se  erroneous inasmuch 




as the sale instances relied upon by the land owners related to small parcel of 




land measuring 21 cents and the High Court rightly applied the rule of 1/3rd 




cut towards the development charges.










15.    We   have   given   serious   thought   to   the   respective   arguments   and 




scrutinized the record.   At the outset, we consider it proper to observe that 




the High Court committed serious error in deciding the appeals without even 




adverting to CMP Nos. 15193/1997 and 16047/1997 along with which the 




appellants   had   placed   on   record   letter   dated   17.2.1995   written   by   Deputy 




Chief Engineer (Southern Railway), Gauge Conversion Arasaradi, Madurai 




to   the   Special   Tahsildar   (Land   Acquisition)   clearly   indicating   therein   that 




possession   of   the   acquired   land   had   been   taken   on   11.3.1985.     In   our 




opinion, the letter of the Deputy Chief Engineer is conclusive of the date on 




which   possession   was  taken,   i.e.   11.3.1985   and  both,   the  Reference   Court 




and the High Court committed an error by awarding interest with effect from 




20.5.1987.










16.    Adverting to the arguments of the learned senior counsel on the issue 




of fixing market value of the trees, we find that while the Reference Court 



                                                                                             14








had   relied   upon   reports   dated   7.11.1992   and   20.11.1992   of   Shri   P. 




Nagarajan, Agricultural Development Officer and the Court Commissioner 




for   the   purpose   of   recording   a   finding   that   as   on   the   date   of   notification 




under Section 4(1) of the Act, the age of the trees could be 8 to 9 years and 




in due course even the flowering trees would become fruit bearing trees and 




yield income  for next 60 to 70 years.   The High Court totally ignored the  




two reports and fixed market  value of young trees by treating the same as 




timber.  Learned senior counsel for the respondent could not put forward any 




tangible   argument   as   to   why   the   report   of   an   expert   should   not   be   relied 




upon   for   the   purpose   of   fixing   value   of   the   trees   with   reference   to   their 




expected yield.          Therefore,   we   are   convinced   that   the   High   Court 




committed an error by upsetting the view taken by the Reference Court on 




the issue of market value of the trees.










17.     Equally erroneous is the approach adopted by the High Court in fixing 




market value of the remaining land.  Although, the appellants' argument that 




the Reference Court should not have segregated land covered by the trees for 




the   purpose   of   fixing   market   value   of   the   remaining   land   may   not   be 




acceptable because once market value of the trees was separately fixed, there 




could be no justification for clubbing the two types of land for the purpose 




of fixing market value, the High Court committed serious error by ignoring 




the two sale instances - Ext. A4 and A5 and, at the same time, applying 1/3 rd 



                                                                                       15








cut.  It is true that the two sale instances related to a small parcel of land but,  




in the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance could be relied upon 




for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, on which trees 




had not been  planted, after applying an appropriate cut.   By Ext.A4 dated 




8.9.1982, 21 cents land was sold for a sum of Rs.41,500/-.  The same piece 




of   land   was   sold   vide   Ext.   A5   dated   6.7.1983   at   the   same   price,   i.e. 




Rs.41,500/-.     The   notification   under   Section   4(1)   was   published   on 




30.5.1984.  If the rule of escalation in the land price evolved by this Court is  




applied,   then   a   minimum   increase   of   10%   is   to   be   added   to   the   price 




specified in Ext. A5.   Thus, as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the 




approximate  value of 21 cents land would be Rs.45,550/-.   This would be 




equivalent to approximately Rs.2,169/- per cent and Rs.2,27,750/- per acre. 




Though, the respondent did not produce any evidence to show the amount, 




which was likely to be spent on making the land useful for the purpose of 




laying   Broad   Gauge   Line,   if   1/3rd  cut   applied   by   the   High   Court   is 




considered reasonable in view of the principles laid down by this Court in 




Kasturi v. State of Haryana  (2003) 1 SCC 354, which were reiterated in 




Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P.  (2003) 10 SCC 525,  V. Hanumantha 




Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 




SCC 642,  H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi  (2004) 2 SCC 184 and 




Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745, 




market value of the acquired land will be about Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.



                                                                                         16










18.     We also agree with Shri Nageswara Rao that the appellants should be 




given the benefit of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in 




Sunder   v.   Union   of   India  (supra).     It   appears   that   attention   of   the   High 




Court was not drawn to that judgment else it would have, in all probability, 




extended the benefit of that judgment to the appellants.










19.     In the result, the appeals are allowed.   The impugned judgments are 




set   aside   and   the   award   passed   by   the  Reference   Court  is   restored   with 




modification that the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced 




amount with effect from 11.3.1985, i.e. the date on which possession of land 




was taken by the Railway Department.  They shall also be entitled to interest 




on solatium and additional amount  in terms of the judgment  in  Sunder v. 




Union   of   India  (supra).     The   respondent   is   directed   to   pay   the   balance 




amount   of   compensation   and   interest   to   the   legal   representatives   of   the 




landowners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production 




of copy of this judgment.








                                                        ..................................J.


                                                        [G.S. Singhvi]










        ...................................J.


                                                        [Asok Kumar Ganguly]


New Delhi



                       17








September 23, 2011.