IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.1003 of 2001 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi-Dravidar Tribal Welfare, Vellore .. Appellant / Referring Officer -vs- Appakutty .. Respondent / Claimant Prayer:- This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 in LAOP.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vellore. For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For respondent : Mr.T.S.Kannaiyan, Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vellore.
2. About 80 cents of land in S.No.220/2A1 of Sebedu Village in Vellore Taluk was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the people belonging to the Arunthathiar Group.
3.The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities, had caused publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 27.02.1985. On the basis of the data land the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation as Rs.140/- per cent with usual solatium, interest on solatium and compensation for the trees at the rate of Rs.10/- per tree as per the provisions contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer the claimant had preferred his objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Vellore, on the side of the claimant C.W.1 to C.W.3 were examined and Ex.C1 and Ex.C.2 were marked. On the side of the Referring Officer no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.R.1-plan for the land acquired alone was marked. After scanning both the oral and documentary evidences, the Land Acquisition Tribunal thought it fit to enhance the award amount. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Tribunal has allowed the appeal thereby enhanced the award amount of the Land Acquisition Tribunal from Rs.140/- to Rs.387/- per cent with usual solatium and interest on solatium etc and also enhanced the compensation for the trees from Rs.10/- to Rs.100/- per tree, which necessitated the government to prefer this appeal.
5.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.
6.On behalf of the claimant reliance was placed on Ex.C.1, sale deed dated 20.12.1986 executed by one Manickam in favour of one Chandara Ammal. Under Ex.C.1 20 cents of land comprised in S.No.228/3 & 227/3 was sold for Rs.8,500/- ie., at the rate of Rs.425/- per cent. Under Ex.C.2 sale deed dated 21.05.1987 2 = cents of land in S.No.210/3/2 was sold for Rs.5,000/-. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected Ex.C.2 on the ground that the sale under Ex.C.2 relates to a plot which is not similar to the nature of the land acquired by the Government. S.No.228/3 is nearer to the land acquired and in all respects it is similar to that of the land acquired by the Government. To show that the data land is similar in nature and having the same potentiality to that of the land acquired by the Government, on the side of the Referring Officer the said data land was not exhibited before the tribunal. So the Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to the conclusion rightly, that the award of Rs.140/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be sustainable. The Tribunal in its judgment has referred to the judgment passed in LAOP.No.53 of 1997 and has come to the conclusion that the land which was the subject matter in LAOP.No.53 of 1997 ie., the land acquired under the award relating to LAOP.No.53 of 1997, and the land in question under the impugned award in the appeal before the tribunal are one and same, and has adopted the same yardstick for fixing the compensation as Rs.387/- per cent for the land acquired under the impugned award, and Rs.100/- per tree with usual solatium, interest on solatium. The learned Special Government Pleader would state that there was no appeal preferred against the judgment in
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J
LAOP.No.53 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. Even under Ex.C.1 one cent of land was sold for Rs.425/-. It is seen from Ex.R.1 that the land sold under Ex.C.1 ie., in S.No.228/3 and the land acquired by the Government in S.No.220 are situated nearer. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in enhancing and fixing the award from Rs.140/- per cent to Rs.387/- per cent.
7.In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vellore. For deposit of award amount one month from this date.
22.08.2008
Index:yes/No
Internet:yes/No
ssv
NOTE : Issue on Monday (24.08.2008)
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Vellore.
2.The Record Keepar, V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
A.S.No.1003 of 2001