Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal Nos. 743 of 1980, 57 to 62 of 1981, 65 to 69 of 1981, 73 of 1981, 92 of 1981, 100 of 1981, 104 of 1981, 106 of 1981 and 109 of 1981.

Advocates

Government pleader for Pondicherry for Petr.
V. Srtdevan, G. Masilamani and J. Jaganathan for Respt.

Judges

V. Ramaswami
Ratnam, JJ.

Acts

Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act
Ss. 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act
LAND ACQUISITION ACT
S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act.
S. 8 of the Land Acquisition Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Comprehensive Summary of the Opinion by Ratnam, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion.

Large extents of land in multiple localities (Kurumbapet, Sardarapet, Olandai, Thattanchavadi, Ouigaret, Murugambakkam, Ariyankuppam, Temgathittu, Kuruvinathan and Goodapakkam) were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for various public purposes (housing schemes, ESI dispensary/staff quarters, road widening, formation of a by-pass road, assignment of free house sites to landless labourers). Notifications under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on various dates (including 21 October 1975; 1 February 1974; 2 March 1976; 1 September 1979; 27 March 1971; 9 April 1974; 4 April 1978; 18 May 1976; 18 October 1977; 28 September 1976; 11 May 1976; and 29 June 1977).

Before the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.), owners claimed market values that varied. The L.A.O. fixed market values (listed in the opinion at various rates per acre, per kuzhi, per sq. ft.). Dissatisfied, several claimants sought references to the court under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Subordinate Court at Pondicherry determined market values at different rates (also listed in the opinion). The State appealed, complaining that the lower court's methods and the manner of fixation of market value were erroneous. The appeals were grouped for disposal because the judgments below shared common errors and infirmities.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court dealing with references under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act correctly ascertained market value on the basis of evidence actually placed and marked in the proceedings.
Whether reliance on instances of sale (including post-S.4(1) notification sales and very small-area sales) and guidelines not marked in evidence is permissible when determining market value.
Whether the lower court violated required procedures by: (a) not marking and indexing documents and exhibits chronologically; (b) not listing the witnesses examined; and (c) failing to consider plans/topo-sketches and other materials that should assist valuation.
Whether the court below erred in treating land of one revenue classification (dry/wet) as another (house site) without evidentiary basis.
Whether the court below improperly omitted awarding statutory solatium and interest as required under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the defective judgments below should be set aside and the matters remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law and procedure.

Arguments of the Parties

Government Pleader / State (Appellant)

Contended that the court below ascertained market value on the basis of documents that were not marked in evidence and on guidelines not brought on record.
Argued that the court relied on post-S.4(1) notification sales, which cannot be relied upon as sole basis for market value.
Pointed out instances where the court applied guideline values for house sites to wet/dry lands (and vice versa) instead of using the correct guideline for the land class under acquisition.
Highlighted failures by the lower court to award statutory solatium and interest in some cases.
Noted repeated procedural defects: absence of chronological index of documents marked and absence of lists of witnesses examined, making it impossible to determine on what material the court based its findings.

Claimants / Owners of Acquired Lands

Counsel for owners sought to support the lower court’s determinations, arguing that despite procedural criticisms, the awards of compensation based on the guidelines and other materials were just and reasonable and did not require disturbance.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court set out a detailed procedural and evidentiary framework for dealing with references under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and then evaluated the judgments of the Subordinate Court against that framework.

Statutory starting-point: The court emphasized Ss.23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act as laying down matters to be considered and neglected when determining compensation. The core duty is to determine, on the basis of evidence, the market value that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on the date of the S.4(1) notification.
Evidence of market value:
- Instances of normal sales of similar properties in the locality are the best evidence of market value. Where used, the documents (sale deeds or registration copies) must be produced and marked in evidence; mere mention or reliance on departmental sale statistics in the award is insufficient.
- Documents not before the court cannot be relied upon: "No reliance can be placed on a document not before court."
- The examination of parties to sale deeds may be necessary to elucidate the circumstances of the transaction and to test whether a sale was a normal one or had peculiar influences.
- The court should avoid mechanically fixing an average price where claimants are entitled to the most advantageous market price proven by evidence.
Role of guideline values:
- Government-issued guideline values (used for stamp duty/registration) are admissible and relevant evidence if available immediately prior to the S.4(1) notification. Such guidelines should be marked in evidence and, when applicable to the specific property or block, represent the minimum market value the claimant can claim unless the claimant proves a higher value for specific reasons.
- If the guideline is for a neighboring property, it can be used as evidence reflecting market price in the vicinity, again provided it is brought into evidence.
- The court warned against misapplying guideline values across categories (e.g., using wet-land guideline for dry lands or house-site guideline for agricultural land) without proper basis.
Additional procedural requirements the court mandated:
- The State should furnish, as part of the material, a plan and topo-sketch delineating the acquired lands and indicating the data-sales relied upon; this is primarily the State’s duty because the claimant may not be able to obtain such materials.
- At the end of the proceedings, the judgment should contain a chronological index of documents marked in evidence and a list of witnesses examined (distinguishing documents and witnesses for the Referring Officer and for claimants using a consistent exhibit/witness labeling scheme).
- The court should consider the Land Acquisition Officer’s award, the form of reference, claim statements, and State objections so as to scrutinize the claim and the justification for market values appearing in the award enquiry.
- Claimants should clearly set out their claims before the L.A.O. and indicate the compensation claimed before the court, enabling the court to consider objections under S.25 of the Act.
- The court must award statutory solatium and interest where market value is re-determined; these are not discretionary but statutory reliefs available under Ss.23(2) and 28 of the Act.
Application of the above principles to the appealed judgments:
- The opinion reviews many individual appeals (numerous A.S. numbers) and identifies recurring defects: reliance on unmarked documents (e.g., Ex. R5), reliance on other appealed/defective judgments, use of paper advertisements without explanation, acceptance of post-notification sales as primary evidence, use of sales of very small parcels to value large acquisitions, misclassification of land (treating dry or wet land as house site), failure to mark and index guidelines and exhibits, omission to award solatium and interest, and absence of any intelligible discussion of the evidence in the judgments.
- Because the lower court’s determinations often lacked evidentiary foundation or misapplied guidelines, the court found the judgments to be perfunctory and unsatisfactory and concluded they could not stand.
Remedial conclusion: The court decided that to do substantial justice it was necessary to set aside the defective judgments and remit the LAOPs to the Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and the procedural directions given, after giving both claimants and the State an opportunity to place oral and documentary evidence concerning market value at the date of the S.4(1) notification. The court also directed adherence to Rules 79 and 84 of the Civil Rules of Practice applicable to Pondicherry, and required chronological indexing of documents admitted in evidence and their appending to the judgment to facilitate appellate review.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND THE LAOPS ARE REMANDED FOR FRESH DISPOSAL.

Direct consequences and specific orders explicitly contained in the opinion:

The court set aside the impugned judgments of the Subordinate Court and remitted the following appeals / matters to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law and the directions contained in the opinion: A.S. Nos. 57 of 1981, 58 of 1981, 59 of 1981, 60 of 1981, 61 of 1981, 62 of 1981, 65 of 1981, 66 of 1981, 67 of 1981, 68 of 1981, 69 of 1981, 73 of 1981, 92 of 1981, 100 of 1981, 104 of 1981, 106 of 1981, 109 of 1981, and 743 of 1980.
The appellant (State) is entitled to a refund of the court fee paid on the memoranda of appeals.
The Subordinate Court is to permit both the claimants and the State an opportunity to place oral and documentary evidence establishing market value as on the date of the S.4(1) notification, to mark such materials in evidence, chronologically index all admitted documents and append the index to the judgment, and to record and set out the names of the witnesses examined.
The Subordinate Court must award statutory solatium and interest where market value is re-determined (reliefs available under Ss.23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act) — these are not matters of discretion.
The State bears the duty of producing plans/topo-sketches and other materials necessary to enable the court properly to appreciate location, advantages, and the data-sales relied upon; failure to do so undermines the court’s ability to reach a lawful determination on market value.

Observational implication (as stated by the court): The opinion contains a restatement of the procedural and evidentiary basis for dealing with references under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, specifying detailed safeguards to ensure awards of compensation are just, fair, reasonable and legally sustainable.

Show full summary ...

Director Of Survey-Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry, And Others v. Moharned Ghouse And Others

JUDGMENT

Ratnam, J.

1. We have resorted to a group disposal of all these appeals, not because common questions of fact or law arise for decision in these appeals, but on account of the judgments appealed against being vitiated by one or more of errors and infirmities common to them all. The judgments appealed against are so unsatisfactory that we have also been provoked into a restatement of the basis of the procedure in relation to references under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the manner in which they should be dealt with and disposed of by the eourts. Broadly and briefly stated, for the purpose of various housing schemes, provision of house sites to Harijans, for construction of ESI dispensary and staff quarters, for widening the Tindivanam Road, for the formation of by-pass road (east coast road) and for assignment of free house sites to the landless labourers in the rural areas, large extents of land situate in Kurumbapet, Sadarapet, Olandai, Thattanchavadi, Ouigaret, Murugambakkam, Ariyankuppam, Temgathittu, Kuruvinathan and Goodapakkam were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, were dated 21st October, 1975, 1st February, 1974, 2nd March, 1976, 1st September, 1979, 27th March, 1971, 9th April, 1974, 4th April, 1978, 18th May, 1976, 18th October, 1977, 28th September, 1976, 11th May, 1976 and 29th June, 1977 respectively. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the acquired lands prayed for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands at figures, which varied considerably from owner to owner. On the basis of the sales statistics, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the market value of the acquired lands at different figures, viz., Rs. 45 per acre, Rs. 34.47 per kuzhi, Rs. 338.98 per acre, Rs. 854.70 per acre, Rs. 206.93 per kuzhi, Rs. 488.88 per acre, Rs. 430 per acre, Rs. 394 per acre, Rs. 250 per acre, Rs. 196.48 per acre, Rs. 339 per acre and Rs. 251.71 per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation of the market value of the lands acquired, several claimants sought a reference to court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the sub court, Pondicherry, determined the market value of the lands acquired at different rates, viz., Rs. 373.56 per Acre, Rs. 373 per acre, Rs. 130 per kuzhi, Rs. 5,918 per acre, Rs. 2,000 per kuzhi, Rs. 2.50 per sq. ft., Rs. 3.50 per sq. ft., Rs. 6.50 per sq. ft., Rs. 3.25 per sq. ft. Rs. 800 per kuzhi, Rs. 500 per kuzhi and Rs. 373.80 per Acre. Complaining that the method as well as the manner of fixation of the market value of the acquired lands by the court below is erroneous, the State has preferred these appeals.

2. The learned Government Pleader contended that in the process of ascertaining the market value of the acquired properties for the purpose of awarding compensation to the owners thereof, the court below had proceeded on the basis of documents, which had not been marked in evidence and with reference to guidelines which had not been brought into evidence and with reference to post S. 4(1) notification sales also. In addition, it was also pointed out that in some cases, the court had proceeded to adopt the guideline value of house sites with reference to the wet and dry lands acquired, while the guideline values with reference to the lands acquired was available. Further, it was also brought to our notice that in a few of the cases, the court below had not awarded the solatium and interest as contemplated by the statute. Yet another defect was also brought to our notice in that in some of the cases, the court below had not incorporated at the end of its judgment a chronological index of the documents marked as evidence in the proceedings and a list of witnesses examined and therefore, there was no knowing as to on what documents and oral evidence, if any, the court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the owners of the acquired lands in these appeals would attempt to support the determination of the market value by the court below and say that though the criticism levelled with reference to the method as well as the manner of disposal of the matters by the learned Subordinate Judge may, to some extent, be justified, yet, the award of compensation on the basis of the guidelines and other materials, is just and reasonable and therefore, does not deserve to be disturbed. We have carefully perused the judgments of the court below in all these appeals. We have also bestowed our careful attention to the submissions made on both sides. Ss. 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act lay down the matters which should be considered in determining the compensation and matters which ought to be neglected in that process. These provisions have to be primarily kept in view in the disposal of references under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. We may however observe that in matters relating to award of compensation arising under the Land Acquisition Act, a duty is cast on the court to determine, on the basis of evidence, the market value of the land acquired, which a willing buyer would be inclined to pay, if sold by a willing seller on the date of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. To enable the court to justly and reasonably award compensation to the owner of the property who has been deprived of the same, several matters have to be considered and taken into account. Instances of normal sales of like property in the locality of acquisition enjoying the same or similar advantages would be the best evidence for the ascertainment of the market value of the acquired lands. Special features and advantages have also to be carefully considered. Potential user has to be given due weight. All these must necessarily enter into the computation of and the determination of market value. To afford evidentiary basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the lands as aforesaid, such documents of sales have to be marked in evidence. It would not suffice if those instarces of sales are mentioned in the award and merely referred to by court and relied on. The documents, be they originals or registration copies of the instances of sales, must be marked in evidence and form part of the record. That would enable the State as well as the claimants not only to place all the relevant documents before court, but it would also further assist in finding out the circumstances under which a transaction had been entered into by an examination of the parties to the transaction, if necessary. This would facilitate the court to ascertain whether a particular instance of sale relied upon is a normal one or not and whether the price reflected under that transaction is reasonable or not. A mere reference to the instances of sales found mentioned in the statistics collected by either the Tahsildar or the concerned department for passing an award would not be evidence in the proceedings in the absence of the production and marking in evidence of the documents themselves. No reliance can be placed on a document not before court. The examination of the parties would be necessary for further elucidating the circumstances under which the document came to be executed as well as the nature of the property and the special features therein, if any. If on such evidence, the market value of the acquired land is ascertained, the claimants ought to be given the benefit of the most advantageous market price and fixing an average market price with reference to the data available, ought, to be avoided. In addition to instances of sales, the guidelines issued by the Government with reference to the market value of the lands would also furnish an acceptable and reliable basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. For purposes of payment of stamp duty, while registering documents, the Government has fixed the market value of the properties, either by grouping them together into blocks or even with reference to individual survey fields. In cases where such guideline is available immediately prior to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with reference to the particular property acquired or with reference to the block in which the property acquired may be situated, then that guideline has to be taken into account and considered after marking it as evidence in the proceedings. Though it may be that the guidelines issued by the Government in same cases may not be in relation to the particular property acquired, but with reference to a nearby property, in such a case also, the court can consider the guideline available as a piece of evidence reflecting the value of the market price near about the acquired property at the time the guideline was issued. The Government has fixed up guideline values in respect of various categories of lands like dry, wet house site, etc. The guidelines are relevant as the market value of the property cannot be different for purposes of stamp duty and for purposes of payment of compensation to the owner who had been deprived of the same. Where such guidelines are available with reference to a particular property acquired, the market value shown therein would be the minimum to which the claimant will be entitled, unless the claimant is in a position to show that for other reasons the market value ought to be higher than that mentioned in the guideline. As stated earlier, where it is possible to obtain a guideline value with reference to the particular property urder acquisition immediately before the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that would be the best material available and the minimum that should be made available to the claimant by way of compensation would be the amount so mentioned in the guideline; but this may not always be so. Where tbe guideline is not available with reference to the particular property acquired, the court can take into consideration the guidelines with reference to the neighbouring properties. Even in such cases, it would be open to the claimants to establish that compensation at a rate higher than that mentioned in the guidelines should be awarded on account of some special features or peculiar advantages which would enhance the value of the acquired property. In so considering the guidelines, the court ought to be careful against the application of the guideline value in respect of wet lands to dry lands and dry lands to house sites or vice versa. The ascertainment of the market value of the acquired property has primarily to be done with reference to the classification of the property in the revenue records though that is not an inflexible rule. Weightages has to be given to the potential value, viz., the possibility of the property being put to diverse uses like house sites, etc., the nearness to habitation and the advantages and other amenities eajdyed by it. Though the guidelines may be pressed into service as the best material for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of acquired lands a rigid adherence to the guideline value may not be possible in every case, but there must be an overall consideration of all the relevant aspects in the matter of fixation of the market value of the acquired lands even on the basis of the guidelines.

3. In the matter of fixing the market value of the acquired lands with reference to other instances of sales, it is essential that the court should have before it a plan of the acquired property, as well as a topo-sketch, clearly delineating the acquired lands and also indicating thereon the data sales, relied on by the State and other relevant details. It is at once plain that providing this should be the duty of the State, as the claimant may not be in a position to secure the plan, as well as the details of the other relevant data relating to sales of lands in the vicinity. It would be easy for the Government to have the plan as well as the topo-sketch prepared in order to see to it that the court is in a positron to appreciate the situation of the land, the advantages and amenities enjoyed by it, the location as well as the situation of the other lands taken as data lands, etc.

4. Apart from marking the instances of sales, guidelines, plan, topo-sketch, etc., as evidence at the end of the proceedings, it would be necessary to indicate at the end of the judgment, not only the documents marked in the proceedings chronologically, but also to set out the names of the persons, who have been examined either on behalf of the claimants or the State. Where the Referring Officer figures as the petitioner, the documents relied on his behalf have to be marked as Ex. A series and the witnesses on his behalf have to be referred to as P.Ws while the documents relied on by the claimants may be marked as Ex. B series and their witnesses R.Ws and vice versa. It is also essential that the court should have before it as part of the pleadings, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the form of reference, the claim statement of the owners, the objections of the State, if any, in order that the court may scrutinise the same and decide whether the claim made is in order and how far the market value ascertained in the course of the award enquiry can be justified by the materials placed before the court at the time of the reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. To avoid any controversy with reference to the compensation claimed by the owners of the properties acquired, the claimants should clearly set out their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. They should also put in a statement before court indicating the amount of compensation claimed by them. This would assist the court in appreciating any possible objections that may arise under S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. It would also be the duty of the court in all cases where the market value is re-determined for purposes of awarding compensation to award the statutory solatium and interest. These reliefs are available to the claimants under Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and it is not as if these are matters in the discretion of the court. We have indicated above broadly the many and manifold matters that have to be taken into account by a court in dealing with a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Acim order that the fixation of compensation by the court may be not only just, fair and reasonable, but also would accord with the legal and procedure requirements.

5. We now proceed to consider the judgments of the court below appealed against in the light of what we have stated earlier. In A.S 743/80 against L.A.O.P 120/78 the land acquired is classified as dry land. The court proceeded to fix the market rate of the acquired land treating it as a house site relying upon an instance of sale stated to be marked as Ex. R5 in the proceedings. However, it is found that no such document was marked in evidence. The contents of Ex. R5 are unknown. There is no index appended to the judgment to chronologically indicate the documents marked in the course of the enquiry before the court. There is no indication whether any witnesses at all have been examined. How the market value was arrived at on the basis of a document not marked in evidence is not clear to us.

6. The court below in A.S 67/81 against LAOP 121/78 has relied upon the judgment in DAOP 120/78 appealed against in AS 743/80. Earlier, the infirmities in the order in LAOP 120/78 have been pointed out. It is obvious that reliance upon the judgment in LAOP 120/78 which is by itself defective, cannot carry matters any further and is of no use in arriving at the market value of the acquired lands in another appeal. It is also further seen that a paper advertisement has been relied on. There is no indication in the judgment as to how and why this has been relied on as evidence. The claimant had examined herself as R.W 1, but there is absolutely no reference to her evidence. The fixation of market value cannot therefore be stated to be based on evidence.

7. In A.S 92/81, in arriving at the market rate of the lands forming the subject-matter of acquisition, the land classified as “dry” has been treated as house site and there is no indication in the judgment as to on what basis this has been done. Further, reliance is placed on the adjudications in LAOP Nos. 120/78 and 121/78. In view of what has been stated earlier with referenee to the adjudications in LAOP Nos. 120/78 and 121/78, the court below was in error in having proceeded to ascertain the market value on the basis of that arrived at in LAOP Nos. 120 of 1978 and 121 of 1978.

8. Similarly, in A.S 60/81 arising out of LAOP 57/75, the court below has purported to fix the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of three documents Exs. R1 to R3. While Ex. R1 is with reference to a very tiny piece of property which normally should not be accepted and acted upon where larger extents are acquired, Exs. R2 and R3 are post. S. 4(1) notification sales. The reliance placed by the court below on sales of small extents of land is certainly not correct, as it may be that a small bit had been paid for dearly for certain resulting advantages owing to such an acquisition. Ordinarily, post notification sales ought not to be solely relied upon, as it is not improbable that the proposal for acquisition had boosted up the market value of the property dealt with by those sales. R.W 1 is stated to have been examined, but there is nothing to show how that evidence has assisted the court to fix the market value. There is no index at all to show what documents were marked and who were examined as witnesses.

9. The lands acquired in A.S 62/81 are wet lands and the court below had relied upon the guideline value for a totally different land and had treated the property as house site. Even the guideline has not been marked in evidence. Excepting for a reference to certain post S. 4(1) notification sales as Exs. R1 to R3, there is no indication in the judgment as to the evidence that was let in by the claimant and the contra evidence made available by the State and how the court on the evidence proceeded to ascertain the market value of the land. Solatium has also not been awarded.

10. The court below in A.S 68/81 had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of a 1970 guideline, but it is not disputed that there was no guideline at all in the year 1970. Even assuming such a guideline was there, it had not been marked in evidence and therefore, the fixation of the market value of the lands has absolutely no evidentiary support whatever.

11. With reference to A.S 66/81 no document has been marked by the court below and there is no other evidence excepting the oral testimony of P.W 1. Reliance is placed on a guideline in the course of the judgment and it is found that the guideline has not been marked in evidence. Therefore, the court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the lands acquired without any evidence in support of the same.

12. In A.S 104/81, reliance is placed on a sale deed referred to as Ex. R1, but it is seen that it is subsequent to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and such a sale cannot obviously be relied upon as the sole basis for the fixation of the market value for purpose of awarding compensation. No other evidence, excepting oral evidence of P.W 1, has been made available. There is no discussion in the judgment of the court below of the evidence as to how the court proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands as it did.

13. In A.S 106 of 1981, the judgment appealed indicates that reliance had been placed on guideline value of a house site, while the land acquired is wet land. Even the guideline value with reference to the house, site relied upon has not been filed in the proceedings and marked as an exhibit and in this case also, the fixation of the market value of the acquired lands has no evidentiary basis.

14. In A.S 61 of 1981 and A.S 65 of 1981 arising out of LAOP Nos. 108 of 1978 and 107 of 1978, the lands acquired are wet lands; but the court below has proceeded to rely upon the guideline value of house sites. Even that guideline had not been marked in evidence. A persual of the judgment in A.S 65 of 1981 indicates that it has no index of documents marked and witnesses examined. There is no knowing as to what documents had been marked in evidence and who were the persons that were examined. In the absence of anything to indicate even the nature of evidence stated to have been available before the court below, it is too much to believe that the court below had looked into the evidence before the market value of the acquired lands was ascertained by it in the manner done.

15. In A.S 100 of 1981, the lands acquired are wet lands; but the court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of guideline value of house site. This again has not been marked and therefore the market value arrived at by the court below is not supported at all by the evidence.

16. Dry and wet lands had been acquired in A.S No. 57 of 1981 but the court below has proceeded to rely upon Ex. R1, the guideline maintained by the Revenue Department for house sites and not the guideline either for dry lands or for wet lands or near about the lands under acquisition. Besides, the guideline is for the year 1977, while the date of notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is on 4th April, 1978. A perusal of the judgment also discloses that solatium has not been awarded.

17. In A.S 58 of 1981, dry lands had been acquired and the court below has proceeded to rely upon Ex. R1, which is stated in the judgment to be a certificate regarding a well. How relying upon a certificate relating to a well, the market value of the lands had been fixed is impossible to explain. Reliance is also placed on Ex. R2 guideline; but that has not been marked in evidence. Besides, solatium has not been granted.

18. The guideline relied on in A.S 59/81 had not been marked and there is no index in the judgment to indicate what documents were relied on and who were examined on behalf of the claimants as well as the State. It is not known as to who P.W 1 on whose evidence the reliance has been placed is or what he had deposed. The ascertainment of the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the materials disclosed in the judgment cannot be supported at all.

19. In A.S 69/81, the court below had relied upon as instance of sale of a very small bit of land for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired lands, which are dry lands of a large extent. It is well settled that small bits cannot be taken as the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of acquisition of large extents of land. Here also, there is nothing to indicate in the judgment, what documents were filed by the claimant and the State and who were examined as witnesses. There is no evidentiary basis disclosed by the judgment of the court below to sustain the fixation of the market value as has been done.

20. Regarding A.S 73/81, where dry lands have been acquired, the court below has proceeded to adopt the guideline value in respect of house site and that too for the year 1977, while the date of notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dt. 11th May, 1976. In this case also, the court below had not chosen to award solatium.

21. Dry lands have been acquired in A.S No. 109 of 1981 and before the court below, no documents have been relied on as seen from the judgment. It does not appear whether no documents at all were filed or having been filed, they have been omitted to be looked into. The court merely proceeded on the basis of the oral evidence and fixed the market rate of the acquired lands on the oral testimony and on some certificates relating to compound walls.

22. From what has been stated above, it is seen that the method and manner in which the reference under S. 8 of the Land Acquisition Act have been dealt with by the court below is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The evidence touching upon the ascertainment of the market value of the acquired lands at or about the date of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, has not been clearly set out or even referred to and the court below has proceeded to dispose of the matters in a very mechanical fashion on surmises. The judgments appealed against bear the stamp of perfunctoriness and cannot at all be allowed to stand. To do substantial justice between the State on the one hand and the persons, who have been deprived of their properties, on the other, the only course open is to set aside the judgments of the court below in all these appeals and to remit the LAOPS to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, to be disposed of by him afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein after giving an opportunity to the claimants and the State to place before the court oral as well as documentary evidence to establish the market value of the acquired lands on the date of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also needless to point out that the court below should bear in mind and give effect to Rr. 79 and 84 of the Civil Rules of Practice which are applicable to the territory of Pondicherry in letter and spirit and all documents admitted in evidence should be chronologically indexed and appended to the judgment. If this is done, it would enable not only the trial court, but also the appellate court, to readily rivet its attention upon the relevant evidence and this may result in the saving of considerable valuable judicial time. That would also obviate the need for the court to delve into the records every time and pick out the relevant data. It is indeed unfortunate that the aspects touched upon earlier have not been borne in mind at all by the court below in the disposal of the references and that has necessitated a de novo consideration of matters on the lines indicated above. Consequently, A.S Nos. 57 of 1981, 58 of 1981, 59 of 1981, 60 of 1981, 61 of 1981, 62 of 1981, 65 of 1981, 66 of 1981, 67 of 1981, 68 of 1981, 69 of 1981, 73 of 1981, 92 of 1981, 100 of 1981, 104 of 1981, 106 of 1981, 109 of 1981, and 743 of 1980 are all allowed and the LAOPS remanded for fresh disposal. The appellant will be entitled to a refund of the court fee paid on the memoranda of appeals.

VCS.

Land Acquisition Act,

Director Of Survey-C... v. Moharned Ghouse And ...