COMMON JUDGMENT

The above batch of appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 26.2.1988 made respectively in

L.A.O.P Nos. 283/85, 284/85, 302/85 to 305/85, 308/85, 309/85, 311/85, 315/85, 317/85, 319/85. 321/85, 322/85, 325/85, 329/85, 337/85, 338/85, 340/85, 342/85, to 345/85, 347/85, 348/85, 352/85, 353/85, 356/85, 359/85 to 362/85, 365/35, 378/85,-384/85, 410/85, 419/85, 425/85, 426/85, 439/85, 440/85, 443/85, 447/85 to 450/85, 25/86 to 28/86, 32/85. 81/84, 148/84, 157/84, 158/84, 167/84, 183/84, 220/84, 222/94, 286/84, 288/84 to 291/84, 293/84, 300/84, 313/84 to 316/84, 318/34, 320/84; 321/84, 327/85, 32/85, 45/85, 50/85, 52/85, 56/85, 59/85, 61/85, 62/85, 75/85, 77/85, 223/85, 228 to 234/85, 239/85, 263/85, 264/85, 271/85, 272/85, 279/85, 282/85, 287/85, 288/85, 292/85 to 294/85, and 301/85, by the court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur thereby enhancing the award of compensation in favour of the claimants therein from Rs. 10/- per cent, as it had been fixed by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 75/- per cent as the value of the land and further ordering interest at 12% p.a from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the date of Award and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of payment of compensation coupled with a solatium of 30% on the amount calculated in terms of the above fixation of the compensation.

2. It is relevant to note that aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P Nos. 81 of 1984 and 288 of 1985, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), S.H.A.R Unit, Ponneri Taluk preferred two appeals respectively in A.S 427 of 1990 and A.S No. 476 of 1990 and the claimants before the trial Court also came with the appeals against the judgment and decree passed in the same L.A.O.Ps, and instead of numbering them as Cross Objectionss, the Office has numbered them as A.S Nos. 846 of 1998 and 697 of 1990 respectively. Hence, those two Appeal Suits are also taken for consideration treating them as Cross Objections in the concerned appeals A.S No. 427 of 1990 and A.S No. 476 of 1990 respectively.

3. The history of the case is that at the instance of the second respondent in all the above appeal suits, is Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Space, Bangalore, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued their order No. 2261, Education Department dated 14.10.1981 to acquire the entire patta lands in Karimanal Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chengalpet District, for the use of Space Department, Union of India and in all about 3,500 acres of lands were sought to be acquired under different notifications ranging from 27.10.1982 to February, 1983. On administrative reasons find for the convenient acquisition of all those lands, they were divided into six units and the work concerned with the acquisition of the lands comprised in each unit had been entrusted with the Land Acquisition Officer and his staff. Thus, an extent of Ac. 50336 cents have been acquired in Unit-VI and the total extent involved in this Unit-VI got divided into 23 Blocks for the sake of convenience. It is with regard to the acquisition and fixation of compensation the above appeals and Cross Objections have arisen.

4. Duriing the course of such acquisition, observing certain norms as guidelines, the Land Acquisition Officer had ultimately arrived at the conclusion to fix the value of the land at Rs. 10/- per cent. Having become aggrieved of such fixation of the land value, for the purpose of compensation, references have been made to the lower Court at the instance of the Claimants and the Court of reference, the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, conducting an enquiry in the respective Land Acquisition Original Proceedings, had ultimately arrived at the conclusion to fix the value of the land at Rs. 75/- per cent further directing the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the said amount in the names of the claimants with interest and solatium as aforeseen

5. Aggrieved against the said enhancement of the compensation, fixing the value of the land at Rs. 75/- per cent, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) S.H.A.R Unit, Ponneri Taluk has come forward to prefer the above appeal suits in A.S Nos. 1124 of 1989 to 1175 of 1989 and 427 of 1990 to 480 of 1990 on grounds such as (i) that the lower Court failed to see that only after having gathered the sales statistics, the Land Acquisition Officer had chosen to award the compensation its fixed by him taking the correct sale deed as the data; (ii) that the lower Court failed to see that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable: (iii) that the lower Court failed to see that the Land Acquisition Officer after having inspected the acquired land and the data land only had fixed the compensation for the acquired land; (iv) that the lower Court erred in fixing the enhanced compensation without basing its reasons on any particular deed of sale which would reflect the correct market value, as on the relevant date, when the lands were acquired; (v) that the lower Court erred in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land; taking into consideration the price fetched by small pieces of lands, which is against the principles and various provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act; (vi) that the lower Court errored grossly in fixing the value of the acquired land as claimed by the claimants when they have miserably failed to substantiate their claims by producing documents showing the prevalent rate on the date of acquisition; (vii) that the lower Court was prejudiced while fixing the compensation for the acquired land as it had accepted the oral evidence of the claimants in to to which is an interested testimony; and (vii) that the Court below has erred in enhancing the compensation even after concluding that the claimants have not proved their case.

6. So far as the claimants are concerned, they have pleaded before the lower Court that the lands in the reference concerned with the village of Karimanal, have been acquired for the extension of the SRIHARIKOTA LAUNCHING STATION PROJECT; that they are agricultural wet and dry lands fit for cultivation of paddy and casuarina; that the acquarian wealth has also been felt in the area after seventies and there was an ever increasing demand for the lands and the area is bound with good potable water connected with electricity and transport and some of the lands have been sold at Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/- per cent even long prior to Section 4(1) notification of the acquisition proceeding.

7. It is also further pleaded that the Land Acquisition Officer on illegal and improper grounds has rejected the sale deed of Gnanaraj Nadar in spite of the sale being genuine and bona fide; that on the only ground that they are concerned with the sale of smaller extent, the same cannot be totally rejected; that even as agricultural lands, large extent of lands have been sold at Rs. 50/- per cent prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification; that the data sale taken by the Land Acquisition Officer do not reflect the true market value, since they are not similar to the acquired lands; that they are raising casuarina in the dry and manawari lands, which is a lucrative crop and the lands are ideally situated for raising the said crop and the cutting of the said crop once in five years, in an average, there will be a gross income of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and that the expenses are incurred only at the initial stages and at a later stage of pruning and those expenses at the maximum would not exceed Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Hence, the net income per acre per op i.e, once in five years would be Rs. 10,000/- and if the lands are valued and assessed capitalising the income, it would cost Rs. 42,000/- per acre. Hence, the claimants in all these matters are claiming compensation of Rs. 200 to Rs. 480/- per cent-besides the other statutory benefits enshrined under the Act.

8. On the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, before the bwer Court, the very Award passed by him would be requested to be treated as a pleading in the place of a counter. In the said award proceeding, besides retaining the procedure adopted in the enquiry proceeding and the description of the acquired land, he would also furnish the sales statistics in Karimanal village and Thaneerpandal Village of Ponneri Taluk, from which the lands have been acquired. In all, sales statistics for 44 sales, held in between 3.9.1979 and 303.1982, have been offered and a cursory glance into the same would show that the lands have been sold under different sale deeds ranging from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 200/- per cent on various dates and the Land Acquisition Officer, giving reasons would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to fix the value of the land at Rs. 10/- per cent for all the lands acquired in the said village and had passed his Award as above.

9. During enquiry before the Court of reference, one Gnanaraja Nadar would testify himself as the sole witness P.W.I and would mark two documents on the side of the claimants as Exs. A1 and A2 both dated 27.3.1982, Ex. A1 being the xerox copy of the sale deed executed by P.W.I in favour of one Parthasarathi Mudaliar for a sale consideration of Rs. 400/- and Ex. A.2 also being the xerox copy of the sale deed executed by one Manuvel Nadar in favour of Pandi Nadar for a sale price of Rs. 400/-. On the contrary, on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, six witnesses have been examined as R.Ws 1 to 6 and the sole document that is marked is the very Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 1/83 as Ex. B1.

10. During arguments, the learned senior counsel Mr. TR. Mani appearing for the second respondent/Union of India and covering up the case of the appellant/Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) would advance his argument in an elaborate manner first contending about the necessity for the requisitioning body to be impleaded. The learned counsel would point out that the Land Acquisition Act is of the year 1894 and on the question of impleading the requisitioning body as a necessary party, the Courts have differed whether they have a say or not and this question came up for debate and the view of this Court that they cannot have a say has not been accepted by the Supreme Court. In consolidation of this point, the learned senior counsel would cite the following judgments:

(i) Union of India v. Sher Singh reported in AIR 1993 SC 701 = 1993-1-L.W. 485, which is affirmed in,

(ii) U.P-Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 and

(iii) M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli reported in AIR 1995 SC 1004.

11. The learned senior counsel would then contend that the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Ragaswamy reported in AIR 1990 Madras 160 — 1989-2-L.W. 381 wherein a matter of acquisition of lands for and on behalf of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, this Court held that the Union Government is not a necessary party to the proceeding, was reversed by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 1004 defining that the person interested means the person for whose benefit the land is acquired and he is the proper party and if he is not impleaded, he is entitled to file an appeal or a Writ Petition against the enhanced award. Citing the above judgment, the learned senior counsel would contend that it is Audi Alteram partem principle that should be given effect to and hence Union of India should be impleaded and heard.

12. Dealing with the facts of the case, the learned counsel would point out that the claimants have claimed to fix the market value at Rs. 250/- to Rs. 480/- per cent as Against Rs. 10/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and would term it as an obnoxious claim. He would further say that the award passed by the lower Court at Rs. 75/- per cent was not agitated by the 94 claimants.

13. He would then focus his attention regarding the facts of the case and would say that the Land Acquisition Officer went by the data sale deed in the very site and all the sales since being confined from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 12/-, he preferred the sale deed at Rs. 10/-; that the lower Court has considered the sale deeds in Exs. A1 and A2 that in all the above sales, one Ghanaraj, who is examined as P.W.I sold three small bits of lands in favour of three different individuals; that the first sale done in 1973 was in respect of an extent of Act O. 03 cents of land sold for an amount of Rs. 400/-; that the date of Section 4(1) notification is 27.10.1982 and technically this sale is for meagre extent and would remind that the acquisition is for the entire village; that as it is ‘cape carnival’, the area is strategic for Space Research Centre, but it is unfit and unused for any other purpose; that it is the least populated area and it is admitted on the part of the claimants that the only tree that could grow there is casuarina; that the occupation of those living there is fishing; that they are not inland water fisherman, since they do not fish in rivers and ponds but sea fishermen; that there is no water available for cultivation and alternate accommodation was provided with by the Government for those who got displaced on account of the said acquisition and now the compensation is only for the bare land..

14. At this juncture, the learned senior, counsel would cite from the pleadings and would say that it is a vast territory that got acquired measuring 3000 and odd acres and if the sale deeds concerned with the sale of two cents or three cents is taken as a data sale land for such a vast acquisition, it would be improper,

15. The learned senior counsel would further argue that it is settled law that if any document is putforth, the party of that document should be examined to prove the veracity of its contents; that in all these cases, the Award Officer has been examined but regarding the documents marked on behalf of the claimants neither the vendor nor the vendees got examined. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel would cite a judgment delivered in Raton Kumar Tandon v. State of U.P (AIR 1996 SC 2710) wherein it is held that.

“Sale deed relating to small piece of land-vendor of Sale deed not examined — Sale deed cannot be relied upon as proof of valuation prevailing in the area”.

16. The next judgment cited by the learned senior counsel for the same point is one in G. Narayan Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1996 SC 3469) wherein also regarding the determination of compensation, it is held that

“For comparable sale instances — Neither vendor nor vendee of such sale deeds examined — such untested sale deeds cannot be relied on while determining compensation”.

The learned senior counsel would cite yet another judgment in Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi (AIR 1997 SC 1779) wherein also for the determination of compensation in acquisition proceedings, it is held that

“Award is based on sale statistics — persons connected with the sale deeds not examined — Sale deeds could not form basis to determine compensation”.

17. The other two judgments cited by the learned senior counsel are delivered in (1) A.P State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah (AIR 1997 SC 2600 = 1997-3-L.W. 172) and (ii) Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao (AIR 1997 SC 2625) wherein also the same point is stressed that for the determination of compensation, the sale deeds of comparable lands have to be proved by examining the vendor or vendee or scribe and that sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party is the best evidence and the sale transactions of neighboring lands are also relevant.

18. The learned senior counsel would then concentrate on the burden of proof and would say that if the claimants say that the award is inadequate, the burden is on the claimant to prove that the award was wrong. The learned senior counsel Would cite the sale statistics from the pleadings and would contend that from out of the 44 sales effected, excepting one or two lands sold as the building site at Rs. 24/- or Rs. 26/-. most of other lands have been sold in between Rs. 8.55 ps. and Rs. 12/- per cent. He would point out that the Land Acquisition Officer has discredited Exs. A1 and A2 and referring to the other lands, which have been sold more or less in between Rs. 8/- and Rs. 25/-, the learned counsel would also point out that in between, all the other lands falling in line as mentioned above and the lands covered by Exs. A1 and A2 alone, the prices have been intentionally shot up on coming to know of the acquisition preparations.

19. The learned senior counsel would further contend that casuarina is a six year crop; that the land is fit for cultivation of casuarina, but there is no evidence for the casuarina having been cultivated in those lands. He would also say that most of the claimants have not claimed that they have raised casuarina and that whether the casuarina crop existed or not, could only be ascertained by the, report of the officer and would cite a judgment in State of J&K v. Mohammad Mateen Want reported in AIR 1998 SC 2470 wherein it is held:

“Compensation — Determination — Big Chunk of land acquired — Sale instances relating to small parcels of land — cannot be said to be comparable side instances — Market price of acquired land cannot be based on it”,

20. The learned Senior counsel would point out that in this case, the local Tahsildar on inspection has submitted his report; that it is a settled law that multiplier could be applied and it is 10 years multiplier and not 20 years as advocated by the other side and would cite a Judgment in Vithalabhai Bakorbhai v. Executive Engineer, Capital Project reported in AIR 1996 SC 3150 wherein it is held:

“The High court, therefore, relic upon the yield of income and applied multiplier of 10. It is now settled law that multiplier of 10 is the appropriate multiplier. Proper basis for evaluating the market value is the annual yield”.

21. The learned senior counsel would draw the attention of the Court to Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 wherein it is contemplated that “the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired” and would cite a judgment in State of Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra reported in AIR 1996 SC 221 wherein it is held:—

“Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) — S. 24 -Compensation — Determination of value after taking existing potentialities into consideration — Giving of further increase, for future potentialities — illegal being contrary to Section 24 fifthly and sixthly”.

22. With regards to positive evidence, the learned senior counsel would advocate that since there is no plea to reject the award, the award may be accepted. The otner course is that if there is a comparable land as passed, it is a large area and the area acquired is Act O. 50 cents or more than that, what are the necessary deductions to be given has been proposed by the Supreme Court in the following three judgments. They are:

(i) K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Lao)., reported in AIR 1995 SC 2481;

(ii) Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3168; and

(iii) K.S Shivadevamma v. Asst. Commr. & Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2886.

As per the first judgment cited above, it is held:

“Sales relating to smaller pieces of land when found to be germane, Gujarat High Court deducted 00% of the value, this Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons v. State of Gujarat (C.A No. 3263/79) dated July 26, 1995, upheld the deduction of 60% by the High Court. When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine the market value of large track of lands. Suffcient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large track of land. In that view of the law, we are of the considered opinion that ratio in the cases in which it was dealt with only about deduction of developmental charges of undeveloped large extent of land does not render any assistance in deciding the principle followed by the High Court in this matter. In view of the judgment of this Court in Administrator General of West Bengal's case (AIR 1988 SC 943) and all subsequent decision;, we do not think that it is a proper case for interference”.

As per the second judgment cited above, it is held:

“Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 -Compensation — Determination — Deduction for development charges upto 53% is valid Land acquired, capable of development but considering the fact that development of land would have taken years, High Court deducting 12% more i.e 65% — Order of High Court is rational and justified”.

As per the third judgment cited above, it is held:

“Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 -Compensation — Determination — Sale deed of small piece of land relied on by claimants — Cannot form basis for determining compensation for larger extent of land”.

“Land possessing potential value, but no development had taken place as on date of notification issued under S. 4 — Development charges can be deducted irrespective of purpose for which land was acquired — Claimants, however, entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 20/- per Sq. yard and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from data of taking possession and 15% thereafter till date of deposit”.

23. Then the learned senior counsel would point out that the Court cannot grant compensation than what is claimed: that it is Rs. 50/- per cent they have claimed in their claim application and they cannot now claim Rs. 480/-or Rs. 250/-; that the Supreme Court has minimised the multiplier from 20 years 10 years and that the crop has been increased from five years to six years.

24. The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the appellant, besides adopting the arguments advanced on the part of the learned senior counsel for the Union of India, would further contend that in all these cases, the Sub Judge has mechanically fixed the land value; that in the claim statement, the value offered is Rs. 50/- per cent; that for cutting a Casuarina tree, only 10 years multiplier could be adopted; that no material evidence has been produced to show the yield except the claim statements; that on the basis of the yield, it cannot be valued at all; that the only other remaining part of the claimants is to the effect that the value of the land is Rs. 50/- per cent; that on any account, they have no reason to claim more than Rs. 50/- per cent at all and would cite a judgment in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Tarachand reported in AIR 1996 SC 2777 and would say that so far as Exs. A1 and A2 are concerned, the genuineness of these two documents is doubtful and that the burden of proof is heavily on the claimants and they have not established their case that they are entitled to what they have claimed and would ultimately pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur.

25. In reply, the learned counsel Mr. M.S Subramaniam appearing for the first respondents respectively in A.S Nos. 1124/89 to 1135/89, 1137/89, 1138/89, 1140/89, 1143/89 to 1163/89, 1165/89 to 1175/89, 427/90 to 431/90, 433/90 to 441/90. 443/90 to 445/90, 447/90 to 453/90, 455/90 to 457/90, 459/90. 460/90. 469/90 to 474/90, 476/90 to 480/90 and for the appellant's in A.S Nos. 697/90 and 846/98 and for cross-objectors in all the cross objections would advance his arguments generally applicable in all the above appeals and cross-objectors contending that Section 4(1) notifications in all the above appeals were issued on different dates from 26.10.1982 for the acquisition of the lands for the public purpose of making use of the same for the Sriharikota Launching Station Project and they have all been agricultural wet and dry lands fit for cultivation of paddy and casuarina; that for the convenient acquisition to be made, the lands were divided into various units and the said Units came to be divided into Blocks and each Block got entrusted with one Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer concerned with the lands connected to the above appeals, passed his Award, thereby fixing the market value at Rs. 10/- per cent; that the claimants received the amount with protest and with a request for the reference of the matter to the jurisdiction Court, as a result of which, the subject matter came to be referred to the lower Court and proceedings were initiated under L.A.O.P series as given in the cause title.

26. The learned counsel would further contend that the claim of compensation is from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 480/- per cent; that the basis of the claim is on the two folds i.e (i) on the basis of the fixation of the value of lands as agricultural lands or house sites purchased under sale deeds and (ii) on the basis of the capitalisation; that the lower Court fixed the market value of the reference made at Rs. 75/- per cent on the basis of oral evidence adduced on the part of the respective claimants and based on Ex. A1 sale deed; that the claimants have also filed Ex. A2, that the capitalisation method did not find favour with the lower Court and would read out the relevant passage from the pleading of the claimants regarding the alround important of the land in the locality. He would further contend that according to the evidence of the claimants, if casuarina is raised in the land in one acre, they will get Rs. 20,000/- as gross income for one crop i.e ranging from 4 to 5 years and the expenses and the initial maintenance and for harvest of the said crop, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per acre would be required and hence there would be a net profit of Rs. 12,000/- per acre in one crop season.

27. The learned counsel would further point out that if capitalisation method is adopted, it must be 20 years each and the net income for four years will come to Rs. 48,000/-and hence the claimants valued one cent of the land at Rs. 480/- and that the Referring Officer has not denied this, when puts as a suggestion, but says that he has no knowledge. To resort to the P.W.D and the Forest Departments for the valuation, though notice is given by the referring Officer, they have not produced any document and hence on the basis of a document not produced, it is not proper for the Court to infer valuation on capitalisation to a hypothetical position and would say that the sale deeds can be taken as genuine sale deeds.

28. The leaned counsel would further argue that Ex. A1 is a sale deed in respect of Survey No. 310/1 measuring 2 cents sold for Rs. 400/- and it works out to Rs. 200/- per cent for this Gnanaraja Nadar is the vendor and these lands are also part of the acquired lands; that the vendor was examined as P.W.I; that even the reference Court has not totally accepted the said document, but fixed the value at Rs. 75/- per cent; that R.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his evidence that from the year 1973 to 1981, the value of the lands increased 3 or 4 times and by allowing Rs. 10/- per cent increases annually from 1973, the increase comes about Rs. 80/-, as per our own High Court's Division Bench Judgment. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite the following three cases:,

(i) Ranee of Vuyyur v. Collector of Madras, reported in 1969(1) M.L.J 45;

(ii) State Of Madras v. P. Seetharamammal reported in 1972 (1) M.L.J 58 = 85 L.W 158; and

(iii) Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amristar Improvement Trust, reported in (1982) 1 S.C.C 419;

29. So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, the Apex Court has held:

“Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course”.

So far as the second judgment cited above is concerned, the same principle as given in the first judgment has been adopted in this case also, besides adopting the judgment first cited above.

30. So far as the third judgment cited above is concerned, it is held that when sale of small lands are relied upon for development and other purposes, 20% to 33% deductions could be allowed.

31. The learned counsel would also cite yet another judgment in State of Madras v. Balaji Chettiar reported in ILR (1953) Madras 891 wherein it has been pointed out that “normally a deduction of 10 to 25% would be proper on account of this circumstance”.

32. The learned counsel would further argue that the data sale land should have the facility like road, water, electricity etc. and for the lands which are not having such facilities, our High Court allowed deduction of 20% only and Exs. A1 and A2 can be relied on though the data lands are smaller in extent. The learned counsel would point out that in the year 1973, the land had been sold at Rs. 100/- per cent and the same had been sold in the year 1983 at Rs. 200/- per cent; that the Supreme Court says to make an allowance of 33%, 20% deduction would be worked out to Rs. 40/- and if it is deducted, a price of Rs. 160/- per cent would be arrived at; that if it is 33%, it would be Rs. 134/-; that from 1973 onwards, the escalation price is taken for 9 years at Rs. 10/- per year; that if 33% deduction is allowed for Rs. 190/- less Rs. 63/-, the figure of Rs. 127/-would be arrived at which could be taken as the base. The minimum could be taken as Rs. 127/- and the maximum as Rs. 160/-; that referring to the cross-objections of the claimants, he would say that the claimants claimed from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 480/- per cent.

33. The learned counsel would also point out that the Referring Officer has not filed the award copies or the data sale deeds and the only evidence that is available is in the form of Exs. A1 and A2; that the vendor of the sale deed has been examined; that even adopting the maximum deductions in these cases at 33%, the value of the land could be arrived at Rs. 127/- per cent.

34. Coming to the other statutory benefits of the claimants, the learned counsel would further contend that the awards having been passed by the Land Acquisition Officei alter 30.4.1982, all the claimants become entitled to an amount of Rs. 12/- on the market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for the period commencing from the date of Sec. 4(1) notification to the date of award. Secondly, under Section 23(2), the claimants are entitled to a solatium of 30% on the market value. Thirdly, under Section 28 of the Act, they are entitled to 9% interest per year from the date of taking possession of the land and thereafter at 15% p.a till the date of deposit on the excess amount awarded by the Collector,

35. Analysing from the pleadings of parties, the evidence put forth, both oral and documentary and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for both, what comes to be known is that a large extent of land, almost a village had been taken over on acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of housing Sriharikota Launching Station Centre of the Space Authority, Union of India and the Land Acquisition Officer and the Awarding Officer acting on behalf of the District Collector at his own estimates and based on several sale deeds executed in the recent past, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to fix the value of the land at Rs. 10/- per cent awarding the same as the compensation, said to be the market value of the land acquired therein.

36. Aggrieved against the said award made on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had requested for a reference to be made, resulting in all the cases concerned with the above appeals having been referred to the reference Court and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur and the said Court on enquiry would fix the value of land at Rs. 75/- per cent and it is only aggrieved against the said judgment passed by the reference Court in all the above matters, the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Land Acquisition Officer have preferred all the above appeal suits (except A.S Nos. 697/90 and 846/98) and ten of the claimants have filed the cross-objections and two of the claimants have come with the appeals in A.S Nos. 697 of 1990 and 846 of 1998, which are now taken as cross-objections. The Court below has taken into consideration the documents marked as Exs. C.1 to C.3 and also the oral evidence adduced on the part of both sides and would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to enhance the value of the land to Rs. 75/- per cent from that of Rs. 10/- per cent as arrived at by the Awarding Officer.

37. From among the documents marked as Exs. C.1 to C.3, Ex. C.1 is sale deed, wherein the vendor is one Gnanaraja Nadar, who was examined as P.W.I and he would adduce evidence to the effect that all the lands acquired in the above batch of cases since being in one and the same block, village etc., the sale deed under Ex. C.1 can be applied.

38. On the contrary, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquistion) would also get into the box and adduce evidence to the effect of his assessment of the land and arriving at the conclusion to fix the cost of the iand at Rs. 10/- per cent. But, regarding the nature of the Iand, the fertility of the soil and other feasibilities, this witness would show his perfect ignorance in the cross-examination without being able to answer many of the questions straight.

39. It would be argued on the part of the appellant that it is a land fit for no cultivation and that only casuarina could grow in the said lands, but no claimant adduced evidence to the effect that they have grown casuarina in their respective lands and that there is an admission on the part of the claimants in their claim statements to the effect that the agricultural lands have been even sold at Rs. 50/- per cent and if it is their own estimate, they have no locus standi to claim more than that amount to be paid as the compensation and that so far as Ex. A.1 is concerned with the sale of very small extent of land and the same could not be applied to the larger extent wherein lands have been acquired in hundreds of acres and if at all such documents are taken into consideration, sufficient deductions should be made as propounded by the Supreme Court in many of its decisions wherein the Apex Court has gone upto the extent of suggesting that the deductions could even go upto 65% in the circumstances of the case and hence there is no point in rejecting such evidence out right and what is to be done is to apply the exact ratio of the proposition of law as fixed by the Supreme Court to the case in hand.

40. On the part of the claimants, the learned counsel would advocate a more practical and acceptable method of arriving at the value of the land on the basis of capitalisation method that is fixing the market value of the land from out of the capital gains or the yield or produce of the land and in consideration of the oral evidence adduced on the part of both sides. Most part of the oral evidence adduced by the claimants would confirm that the yield per season consisting of five years for the popular casuarina crop would fetch an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and for plantations, the initial expenses involved and for pruning at the final stage and cutting etc. an expense of Rs. 8,000/- is being arrived at and deducting the same from the gross income of Rs. 20,000/-, an amount of Rs. 12,000/-would be arrived at as the net profit per acre for a term of five years and if the same is calculated applying the multiplier as 10, as held by the Supreme Court, the net income would go up to Rs. 24,000/- per acre. Of course for this evidence uniformly adduced on a part of the claimants, no corroborative evidence is available from any independent source of sale deeds and hence the same cannot be adopted in toto.

41. Since the documents marked as Exs. A1 and A2 in this case through PW1 are Photostat copies, they cannot be either considered or relied upon for any purpose, much less, fox the fixation of the land value with which the jurisdiction of the Court entirely lies. Since they being the photostat copies they do not have any alacrity and hence, the lower Court should not have allowed those documents to be marked. Even in the event the other side is not seriously objecting or even allowing it to be marked with consent, it is the law that is essential and not the likes and dislikes or parties. When it is basically the legal question, the answer for which is in the negative, it goes without saying that the Reference Court has committed a serious error in attaching some importance for the said document even though at times, these documents are discredited regarding there coming into being and the contents of the same. Hence, going a step further fixing the market value based on the value adopted by these documents will be of disasterous consequences and hence, this Court does not want to rely upon these documents to any extent regarding the fixation of the market value and only the oral evidence adduced on the part of both parties and the other document, viz., Ex. Bl which is nothing but an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 1/83.

42. Looking at the other side, the Land Acquisition Officer appearing as RW1 in all the cases, has himself deposed to the effect that Rs. 6,000/- net income would be obtained by the owners of the land for a crop season of six years and if it is to be taken into account and if the same is calculated for two crop seasons of 12 years, it would come to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. But, only a 10 year multiplier to be adopted as per the Apex Court ruling. Then for 10 year period, it can be taken at Rs. 10,000/- per acre; that there is no point in thinking of fixing the market value of the land even below the standard that is fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in his evidence by adopting the capitalisation method. Since on the part of the claimants, evidence has been let in and the estimate of the claimants since being on the higher side, sufficient deductions for improvement could be made and since the land is one which comes to be known by all evidence not fit for any other purpose excepting to grow casuarina and to see the yield once in six years and in such event, if larger deduction is thought of it would not be unreasonable and taking into consideration since only a 10 year multiplier could be applied as per the recent decision of the Apex Court, applying a deduction of 50% and hence in the instant case, the calculated amount for an acre is Rs. 24,000/-. At the same time, evidence is also available from the other side in a reliable manner that it is not five years for a crop season, but six years and this contention has also not been vehemently rebutted on the part of the claimants and hence if this argument is to be given weightage, the two crop seasons would consume 12 years and if 10 year multiplier is applied, the net income per acre for 10 years would come about 10,000/-. But neither adhering strictly to the theory advanced on the part of the claimants and fixing it as Rs. 120/- per cent, nor adhering to the evidence of the other side and fixing the value of the land per cent at Rs. 100/-, a value fixed in between would justify the fixation of the market value of the land and hence the market value adopting the capitalisation method, for the land in question is hereby fixed at Rs. 110/- per cent and the same seems to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

43. Though according to the above calculations in adoption of the capitalisation method, an amount of Rs. 110/- per cent has been arrived at as the fixation of the land value, so far as the same is concerned with the previous batch of cases in A.S Nos. 774 of 1987 to 778 of 1987 batch, still, the said amount cannot be allowed to most of the cases in this batch on account of the fact that none of the claimants barring two came forward to prefer appeals testifying the validity of the fixation of the compensation by the Reference Court (except in A.S Nos. 697/90 and 846/98) and cross-objections as indicated supra. Hence, absolutely, there is no scope for fixing the value of the land over and above Rs. 75/- per cent so far as the appeals preferred by the State Government are concerned. However, so far as the cross-objections and the A.S Nos. 697 of 1990 and 846 of 1998 are concerned, though the market value as claimed by those claimants are not given, still this Court is of the view that their plea could be considered on par with the calculations arrived at supra by this Court. Hence, only in those 12 matters, wherein the claimants have preferred appeals and cross-objections, the cost of the land is enhanced and fixed at Rs. 75/- per cent by the Reference Court is hereby confirmed.

44. So far as the benefits claimed by the claimants counsel under Section 23(1 -A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the solatium of 30% under Section 23(2) and the interest at 9% p.a from the date of taking possession for one year and there-after at 15% p.a till the date of deposit on the market value awarded under Section 28 of the Act have not been in dispute by the other side and the same are hereby granted in terms of the award amount to all the claimants in the above batch of appeals.

In result,

(i) all the Appeal Suits in A.S Nos. 1124 of 1989 to 1175 of 1989 and 427 of 1990 to 480 of 1990 are hereby dismissed;

(ii) that the appeals in A.S Nos. 697 of 1990 and 846 of 1990 and all the above cross-objections are allowed in part fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 110/- per cent with other benefits as discussed in para No. 44 of this judgment and the rest of the claims in these matters are rejected;

(iii) that the cross-objectors in Cross objection Nos. 57 of 1991, 34 of 1996, 39 of 1996, 73 of 1997 to 76 of 1997 and 114 of 1997 are hereby directed to pay the Court Fee due on the said cross-objections as per Law since they have been numbered as Pauper Cross Objections.

RR/VCS.