IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 03.01.2008 CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.850 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar(LA), Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathur. ... Appellant -vs- 1.T.S.Mohan Rao 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirupattur, North Arcot District. (R2 impleaded as 2nd respondent vide order of Court in CMP.No.10996/97 dt: 14.10.1997) ... Respondents This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1987 dated 14.02.1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) For R1 : M/s.S.Subbiah, Mr.D.Raja For R2 : Mr.N.Muthusami for E.B. JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1987 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruppathur.
2.The referring officer, Special Tahsildar(LA), Tiruppathur has preferred this appeal against the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. It is not in dispute that 2.37 acres of land in S.No.39/2A, Minnur village, Vaniyuur, was acquired for the purpose of establishing 116/11 K.V.sub-station. For the said acquisition of the land notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was published, on 02.06.1992. The award was passed in award No.1/84 and 1/85 dated 30.06.1984, whereby the land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,347/-per acre. The respondent/claimant, received the amount under protest and at his request the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the side of the respondent/claimant C.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the appellant.
3.The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence has decided the market value at Rs.1,040/-per cent and accordingly directed the appellant herein to pay the compensation with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which the appeal has been preferred.
4.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.1,040/- per cent which is exorbitant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant for enhancing the compensation there was no legal basis for the Tribunal and for fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, ought not to have considered the sale of a similar extent of land.
5.Per contra, Mr.S.Subbiah learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that the Tribunal has considered only the sale that had taken place prior to the date of issuance of 4(1) notification and further considering the extent of land, the Tribunal deducted 20% of the value while computing the compensation for the acquired land. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal could not have deducted 20% of the value of the land towards developmental expenses.
6.It is seen that Ex.A1 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 07.09.1981 whereby 2,180sq.ft. of land has been sold for a sum of Rs.6,540/- in S.No.151/2. Based on which, the Court below has fixed the compensation at Rs.1,040/-per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had decided the market value of the land at Rs.5,347/- per acre based on the sale deed dated 24.01.1981. It is seen from Ex.R3, topographic sketch that the land relating to Ex.R1 is not comparatively similar to the acquired land. Whereas, the land in S.No.151/2 is a similarly situated nearby land, on the eastern side of the road. The Land Acquisition Officer who was examined as R.W.1 had admitted in his cross examination that there are number of factories in and around Ambur and Vaniyambadi areas and that the land was acquired for the establishment of sub station for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on Chennai-Kallikottai national highways. He has further admitted that immediately on the northern of the acquired land, there are factories and also one tourists taxies in the name Saravana Takies. It is not in dispute that the acquired land is situated very nearer to Chennai-Jolarpet Railway track, near Vinnamangalam Railway Station. Further he has admitted that the land relating to the sale deed, Ex.R1 is located nearly one furlong away from the acquired land, whereas the land relating to Exs.C1 to C3 are nearby the acquired land. Though the land described in Ex.C1 is nearer to the acquired land and the sale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification, it could not have been considered for deciding the market value of the acquired land. Merely because it is a lesser extent, the sale deed cannot be ignored by the authorities, since the claimant is entitled to just and fair compensation for the acquired land. Ex.R2 is the certified copy of the sale statistics register. It is not in dispute that the sale relating to Ex.C1 a land in S.No.151/2, is for a similarly placed, but smaller extent of land, considering the said fact, the land Acquisition Tribunal has deducted 20% of the value, while computing the market value of the acquired land. There is no justifiable reason available in the evidence of R.W.1 for rejecting the sale under of Ex.C1, since, the sale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification. Admittedly, there is no evidence to hold that the sale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification with malafide intention of claiming more compensation.
7.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no error in considering Ex.C1, Sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the Tribunal has computed the market value of the data land at Rs.1,300/-per cent and after deducting 1/5th of the amount towards developmental charges, the value of the acquired land has been fixed at Rs.1,040/- per cent by the Tribunal and as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till 02.06.1994 the date of taking over possession was ordered, apart from 30% solatium and subsequent interest. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned Judgment, so as to interfered with the same.
8.In the result, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.
Smi
To,
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court,
Madras.