THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 09.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.825 of 1998 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare, Cuddalore .. Appellant / Referring Officer Vs. Venu .. Respondent / Claimant Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.56 of 1994 dated 29.09.1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, (Land Acquisition Tribunal). For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Venkatesh JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the award passed in LAOP.No.56 of 1994 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
2.For the purpose of constructing houses for the people belonging to schedule tribes and Narikurava community, the Government has acquired 0.23 cents of land in R.S.No.228/1 in Sera Kuppam village, South Arcot District. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the proceedings contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 25.12.1991 and fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.400/- per cent. The claimant filed his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and meagre. The Land Acquisition Officer has referred the said objection under Section 19(1) of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
3.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant in LAOP.No.48 of 1994 was examined as C.W.1 and the Vendee under Ex.C.2 – sale deed dated 9.5.1990 viz., Thiru.Kuppusamy was examined as C.W.2 and the Special Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the claimant, the award passed in LAOP.No.105 of 1991 dated 18.08.1993 was marked as Ex.C.1 and the sale deed dated 9.5.1990 in favour of C.W.2 was marked as Ex.C.2. The list of data lands, which was taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the compensation, was marked as Ex.R.1 and the rough plan for the land acquired was marked as Ex.R.2. A copy of the document for the payment of the award amount to the claimant-Ramamoorthy by the Special Tahsildar, Cuddalore, was marked as Ex.R.3.
4.The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after meticulously weighing the evidence both oral and documentary, on the basis of Ex.C.2 has enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.1,800/- per cent from Rs.400/-, which necessitated the Government to prefer this appeal.
5.The point for determination in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,800/- per cent for the land acquired by the Government in Sera Kuppam Village?
6.The Point:- Heard the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.22 of 1994 dated 25.4.2003, which had arisen out of the award passed in LAOP.No.105 of 1991, would contend that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal for the land acquired as Rs.1,800/- per cent is on the higher side and the sale deed Ex.C.2, which was marked as Ex.C.1 in LAOP.No.105 of 1991 (Ex.C.1 in LAOP.No.48 of 1994 and batch). The Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.22 of 1994 has held that the compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of Ex.C.2- sale deed dated 9.5.1990 as Rs.1,800/- per cent, because in the said LAOP.No.105 of 1991 the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 14.02.1990, but the sale deed dated 9.5.1990 (Ex.C.2) is three months subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and has held that even though the said sale is a bona fide transaction, the market value cannot exceed Rs.1,410/- and reduced the compensation from Rs.1,800/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal to Rs.1,000/- per cent. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the same yardstick used by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.22 of 1994 can be applied to the present appeal also since the survey number land acquired under LAOP.No.105 of 1991 (against which A.S.No.22 of 1994 was preferred) and the land acquired under this LAOP comes within the same ward. The only point to be taken note of is that Ex.C.2-sale deed dated 9.5.1990 is just three months later in point of time to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published on 21.02.1990 wherein 37 cents of land in New.S.No.No.246/15 (Old S.No.497/1) was sold for Rs.52,000/- ie., Rs.1,410/- per cent. But a perusal of Ex.R.2-plan will go to show that the land sold under Ex.C.2 ie., New.S.No.No.246/15 is situated about 5 survey fields away from the land acquired ie., S.Nos.228 & 229. The Vendee under Ex.C.2 while deposing before the Tribunal as C.W.2 would depose that the property sold under Ex.C.2 (New.S.No.No.246/15) is 500 meters away from the land acquired by the Government. He would further admit that the land sold under Ex.C.2 is appurtenant to Cuddalore to Setheyathope main road, whereas the land acquired is 500 meters away from Ex.C.2-land. But the suggestion put to him by the Government Advocate was that the land acquired is about 1 = km away from Cuddalore – Setheyathope road. Since in the judgment in A.S.No.22 of 1994 the Division Bench of this Court has accepted the sale deed dated 9.5.1990 (Ex.C.2) and fixed the compensation for the land acquired under LAOP.No.105 of 1991 (land acquired in the same village), as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader the same yardstick can be applied to this case also, but taking into consideration the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in this award nearly 1 = years after the execution of Ex.C.2-sale deed [4(1) notification is dated 25.12.1991] and also the fact that the land acquired is far away from Setheyathope to Cuddalore main road, I am of the view that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal for the land acquired as Rs.1,800/- per cent on the basis of Ex.C.2 cannot be upheld and the compensation for the land acquired is to be reduced and fixed as Rs.1,300/- per cent. Point is answered accordingly.
7.In fine, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in LAOP.No.56 of 1994 is reduced and fixed as Rs.1,300/- per cent for the land acquired with usual solatium, interest on solatium, and the additional compensation as permissible under Land Acquisition Act. No costs.
09.07.2008
Index :Yes/No
Web :Yes/No
ssv
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J.
To,
The Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore.
ssv
A.S.No.825 of 1998
09.07.2008