JUDGMENT
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
1. For construction of Navodaya Vidyalaya, an extent of 2 Hectares 91 Ares comprised in survey No. 308/2 in Kottuchery village, Karaikal Taluk was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry.
2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette No. 10 dated 30.1.1987 (Extraordinary). The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal, who conducted the award enquiry, passed the award in reference No. 6147/86-87/C4 dated 22.2.1988 fixing the compensation payable at Rs.2,26,916.20. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant/land owner sought for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, took the reference on file and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 8 of 1989. Before the reference Court, though the parties let in oral evidence, only respondent/State let in documentary evidence. The reference Court, came to the conclusion that higher compensation need to be paid to the appellant and fixed it at Rs.4,36,500/-. The appellant/land owner being aggrieved by such fixation, which according to him is on the lower side, has filed the above appeal.
3. The settled legal position is that if the land owner claims that he is entitled for more compensation before the reference Court, the burden is solely on him to prove the same (Manipur Tea Co., Pvt. Ltd., v. Collector of Hailakandi); (Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao). Now, the question is, whether the appellant/land owners have discharged their burden.
4. The appellants have not filed any documentary evidence before the Court in this regard. Only the son of the first appellant by name Jagannathan has been examined. All that he has stated is, that the Government rate for issuing valuation certificate and for stamp duty, the value given is Rs.300/- per kuzhi and that as per the Government guidelines the value per Are is Rs.2,250/-. Of course this has not been disputed by the revenue by putting any question to the witness in the cross examination. On behalf of the revenue, the then Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector has been examined as RW-1. In the cross examination the said witness has admitted that for survey No. 308/2 in Rayanpalayam, Varichikudy, the guideline value is Rs.2,250/- per Are and that he has not given any reason for giving lesser price. That is to say, the amount now awarded is Rs.1,500/- per are as against Rs.2,250/- per are as per the guideline value.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, drawing the attention of this Court to the oral evidence of these two witnesses, which we have referred supra, would make two fold submissions. Firstly it is contended that when the Government itself fixed the guideline value, there can be no justification for the reference Court in fixing the market value at a lower rate than the one fixed as guideline value and secondly, only because of that, the appellant/land owners did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove the price of the lands acquired.
6. The burden of proof that is to be discharged by the land owner, who is claiming higher compensation is to be on the basis of materials placed by him /them by producing documents evidencing comparable sale transactions of similar and similarly situated lands on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even if the government fixed the guideline value, that cannot be taken as a basis and on that basis, the market value of the land cannot be fixed (, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties). That being so, there is no substance in the first contention.
7. With regard to the second contention, true, there was a clear direction by the Government to fix the same market value as reflected in the guideline value registers. In fact the direction was issued by a Government order viz., G.O.Ms. No. 14, Revenue Department, Pondicherry, dated 8.2.1989 and the relevant paragraph in the said Government Order reads thus,
“After thus assessing the value of the land to be acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer should compare his assessed value with the value of the land under acquisition as shown in the guideline register pertaining to the year in which notification under Section 4(1) was issued. The guideline register is given to the registering officers for purpose of levying stamp duty. Where the value shown in the guideline register is higher, that should be adopted for determining the fair market value of the land to be acquired, unless there are strong reasons there against which should be recorded in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer.”
This Court is of the view that the above Government Order would not come to the rescue of the appellant/land owners. This is because, the said Government Order came to be issued on 8.2.1989, whereas in this case, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 30.1.1987 and in fact even the award was passed on 22.2.1988. Or in other words, when the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Government Order was not in force and it came into existence only subsequently. That being so, it is futile to contend that only because of the said Government Order, he did not produce any evidence before the Court. Hence, there is no substance in this contention as well.
8. In this view of the matter, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.