JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, dated 31.01.1997, made in LAOP Nos. 245 to 248 of 1992, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi and the Divisional Engineer (National Highways, Unit-II), Madurai, have preferred the above appeals.
2. Since the above appeals arise from a common judgment, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.
3. The details of extent, survey numbers, village, particulars regarding Section 4(1) Notification, passing of award and the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the learned Subordinate Judge are as follows.
Village: Chinnagollapatti: Purpose: Formation of passenger oriented way side amenities complex at 76/4 k.m. Of N.H.7 Road, Madurai-Kanyakumari Road.
__________________________________________________________________
Sl. Name A.S. LAOP Survey Extent Hect.
No. No. No. No.
__________________________________________________________________
Award No. Award 4(1) Amount awarded Amount awarded
And Date Notifi-cation by LAO by Sub Court
Rs. per cent
__________________________________________________________________
1 Sakkaray- 955/
appa Nadar 1997
25/7/90 194/1 Dry 0.34.5 Rs.450/-
2/92 194/2 Dry 0.47.0 3,450/-
10.3.92 194/3 Dry 0.49.5 326/6
Total 1.31.0 = (323.57 cents)
2 Kothai 956/
Nachiar 1997
246/ Dry 0.93.5
1992
194/4 Dry 0.96.0 1.89.5
194/5 ½ portion
Total 0.94.75 = (234.03 cents)
-do- -do- -do- -do- -do-
3 S.K. Rama 957/ 247/ Dry 0.93.5
lingam 1997 1992
194/4 Dry 0.96.0
194/5 ½ portion
194/6 Dry 0.94.0
Total 1.88.75 = (466.21 cents)
-do- -do- -do- -do- -do-
4 Gengammal 958/ 248/
1997 1992
195
/2
Dry 1.16.0 = (286.52 cents)
-do- -do- -do- -do- -do-
4. For formation of passenger oriented way-side amenities complex at 76-4 K.M. Of N.H.7 Road, Madurai-Kanyakumari Road, the above mentioned lands were acquired by the Government. Since we have already referred to the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge, there is no need to refer the same once again.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer, based on the data land in Survey No. 326/6, fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per cent for the acquired lands. Not satisfied with the same, at the instance of the land owners, the matter was referred to the Principal Sub-Court, Srivilliputtur, which resulted in LAOP Nos. 245 to 248 of 1992. On behalf of the land owners, claimant in LAOP No. 247 of 1992 was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C-1 to C-7 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and on their side four documents, including the award, dated 10.03.1992 and the sketch prepared by him, were marked. The learned Subordinate Judge, after discussing the evidence of C.W.1, R.W.1 and documents C-1 to C-7, taking note of the extents involved therein as well as the acquired lands and their proximity to the main road and also allowing 1/4th deduction towards development charges, fixed compensation at the market value of Rs.3450/- per cent and also granted other statutory amounts. The said amount is in challenge in these appeals.
6. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether the learned Subordinate Judge is right in fixing the value of the land acquired at Rs.3450/- per cent.
8. In paragraph 8 of the common judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has considered the documents C-1 to C-7 produced on the side of the claimants. It is not in dispute that all the above mentioned sale transactions have taken place prior to Section 4(1) Notification. The following particulars show the details of date, survey number, extent, value and rate per cent as well as nature of land, relating to Exs.C-1 to C-7 and Ex.R-1.
________________________________________________________________
Sl. Sl. LAOP Doc. Sale Survey Extent Value Rate Nature
No. No. Ex. No. Date Number in in Rs. per of
as No. Deed cents cent land
per in
award Rs.
_________________________________________________________________
1 9 C-3 930 4/4/88 183/1 8.15 29,625/- 3,703/- House
site
2 10 C-4 996 7/4/88 34/2 2.21 14,475/- 7,240/- House
site
3 14 C-2 1236 4/3/88 24/6 1 6,750/- 6,750/- House
site
4 15 C-7 1235 1/3/88 226/4 1.27 6,752/- 5,396/- House
site
5 20 R-1 2377 5/9/88 326/6 97 43,650/- 450/- House
site
6 23 C-5 2945 27/10/ 183/1 5.57 20,250/- 3,682/- House
1988 site
7 31 C-1 256 7/2/90 183/1 7.32 37,000/-5,275.70/House
site
8 32 C-6 565 31/01/ 175/4 2.41 16,864/-6,976/- House
1990 site
__________________________________________________________________
9. The perusal of the above particulars show that lands were sold as house sites and their value works out minimum of Rs.3633.33 and maximum of Rs.6750/- per cent. No doubt, the maximum extent sold under those documents is 8.15 cents and minimum is 1 cent (vide C-3 and C-2 respectively). The perusal of the sketch produced on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer shows the distance between the land covered under Exs.C-1 to C-7 and the acquired lands. We have already referred to the facts that in those documents smaller extent of lands alone were sold. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering all those details and taking note of the fact that the acquired lands just on the National Highways, initially fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.4600/- per cent and considering the fact that even though the lands were acquired for construction of a complex, passage has to be made and other facilities like water and drainage have also to be provided, deducted 1/4th towards development charges and thereafter fixed Rs.3450/- per cent as compensation payable to the claimants.
10. Though the learned Government Advocate argued that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3450/- per cent considering Exs.C-1 to C-7, wherein smaller extent of lands alone involved, it is relevant to refer to the statement of the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award. After stating that he inspected the acquired lands on 03.10.1991, he has observed
“My inspection reveals that the land in question is surrounded by industrial area…”.
The above statement of the Land Acquisition Officer makes it clear that the acquired lands are surrounded by industries. We have already referred to the fact that the acquired lands lie just on the National Highways. In such circumstances and in the light of the various sale considerations, as seen from Exs.C-1 to C-7, we are of the view that the amount determined by the learned Subordiante Judge cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable.
11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants contended that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in allowing deduction to the extent of 1/4th towards development charges, first of all, the respondents have not filed either independent appeals or cross objections seeking such a claim. Secondly, it is not in dispute that certain amenities have to be provided even for the complex to be constructed in the acquired lands. Accordingly, we reject the claim of the learned counsel for the respondents.
12. In the light of what is stated above, we are in agreement with the amount determined by the learned Subordinate Judge and there is no valid ground for interference. All the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
