IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.Nos.140 of 1999 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram .. Appellant/Referring Officer -vs- Abdul Wahab .. Respondent/Claimant Prayer:- This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dated 02.04.1998. For appellant : : Mr. V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader For respondent : : Mr. R.Sunil Kumar, Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 1994 on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.
2. The Government have acquired 0.02.0 hectare of land in R.S.No.212/7 and 0.02.0 hectare of land in R.S.No.215/1B2 in Bhoodangudi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, for the purpose of forming access road to Bridge which was constructed across the river Vellar at Bhoodangudi Village.
3.The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities and after publication in the gazette on 7.1.1992 under Section 4(1) Notification of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to “Act”) and after taking into consideration, 30 sale deeds relating to the nearby acquired lands, had passed an award No.1/92 dated 16.10.1992 fixing the compensation for the acquired land as Rs.600/- per cent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has preferred his objections which were referred under Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Before the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the side of the claimant C.W.1 & C.W.2 were examined and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.Sugavanam was examined as R.W.1. Ex.R.1 was exhibited on the side of the Referring Officer. After meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is insufficient and meagre has enhanced and fixed the compensation for the lands acquired from Rs.600/- per cent to Rs.4,000/- per cent and accordingly passed Judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Tribunal, the Government has preferred this appeal before this Court.
3. Now the point for determination is whether the award passed by the land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 1994 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?
4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and considered their respective submission.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of a data land which was sold under the sale deed dated 7.2.1992 in respect of S.No.176/14a and also on the basis of a sale deed dated 14.10.1992, under which 1 acre of land was sold for Rs.60,000/-, had fixed the compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.600/- per cent. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal taking into consideration the potentiality of the land and also on the basis of the documents produced by the claimant on his side has come to the conclusion that the lands which were nearer to the lands acquired by the Government were sold under Ex.B.1, under which 2 cents of land in S.No.214 was sold for Rs.45,000/- and under Ex.B.2 12 cents of land in S.No.217/5 was sold for Rs.90,000/- and under Ex.B.3 1 > cent of land in S.No.212/1B was sold for Rs.35,000/- and under Ex.B.4 6 2/5 cent was sold for Rs.1,80,000/-, has come to the conclusion that the award of compensation given by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low had enhanced the compensation and fixed as Rs.4,000/- per cent. While arriving at the compensation at Rs.4,000/- per cent the Land Acquisition Tribunal has also observed in its judgment that even though under Ex.B.2 12 cents of land was sold at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per cent, the said value cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation since the land sold under Ex.B.2 is a plot, has deducted Rs.3,500/- per cent from the value of the land and fixed the compensation as Rs.4,000/- per cent.
6.At this juncture the learned counsel for the respondent would refer to a judgmenet of this Court in A.S.Nos.873 & 874 of 1998 dated 16.07.2008 wherein under the same award for the same properties about 0.03.0 hectare of land in R.S.No.20/2D1 and 0.01.05 hectare of land in R.S.No.20/5 in Bhoodangudi Village was acquired and the land Acquisition Officer in that case had passed an award fixing the compensation at Rs.300/- per cent, which was later enhanced by the Land Acquisition Tribunal as Rs.4,000/- per cent and this Court has confirmed the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal thereby awarding the compensation of Rs.4,000/- per cent, and state that the same yardstick may be applied to this appeal also. Even though in the case on hand the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the award as Rs.600/- per cent, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced and fixed the award amount as Rs.4,000/- per cent taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the land acquired and also the land sold under Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4. So I do not find any reason to set aside the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.68 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. Point is answered accordingly.
7.In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed in LAOP.No.68 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would represent that already the award amount has been deposited and 50 % of the award amount was ordered to be withdrawn by the claimants, but the claimant has not withdrawn the same. Under such circumstance, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest without furnishing any security.
30.07.2008
Index:yes
Internet:yes
ssv
To
The Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J
ssv
A.S.No.140 of 1999
30.07.2008