BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/04/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
A.S.No.922 of 1996
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabapuram ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Samraj
2.Pappammal ... Respondents
Prayer
This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act,
against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 1993
on the file of Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Addl.Government Pleader
^For Respondents ... Mr.S.V.Sundhar
:JUDGMENT
The Revenue Division Officer, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant herein.
2.Lands in Survey No.191/9A and 9B of, an extent of 0.21.0 and 0.50.0
hectare belonged to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of
constructing an additional building for the Government Higher Secondary School,
Melpuram and 4(1) notification was issued on 28.03.1990 and after conducting
enquiry, the appellant considered sale deeds dated 01.04.1987 and 31.03.1990 and
selected the land in Survey No.445/5 of an extent of 6-1/2 cents, which was sold
on 19.01.1989 for a sum of Rs.2,600/- and fixed the market value at Rs.377/- per
Cent and passed an award. The respondents not being satisfied with the
compensation awarded by the appellant sought for reference under Section 18 of
the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 1993, on the file of Sub
Court, Kuzhithurai.
3.Before the lower Court, the first claimant examined himself and marked
two sale deeds and on the side of the appellant, one witness was examined and
the data sale deed and plan were marked.
4.The learned Sub Judge after carefully analyzing the document and oral
evidence, fixed the market value at Rs.2500/- per Cent, value of tree at
Rs.1000/- per tree and enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the
appeal is filed by the Government.
5.The point for determination in this appeal is whether the enhancement of
the market value by the lower Court is justifiable or not?
6.The land which was acquired is in Survey No.191/9A and 9B. It is
abutting the road. The data land viz., Survey No.445/5 is on the eastern side
of the acquired land and it has no direct road access. While passing an award,
the Acquisition Officer considered sale deeds for the preceding three years and
it is not known from the award proceedings what are the sale deeds that were
considered and the survey numbers involved in those sale deeds and the basis on
which the data land in Survey No.445/5 was selected by the Acquisition Officer
for fixing the market value.
7.On the other-hand, the appellant has marked two documents Exs.C1 and C2
and document Ex.C1, is in respect of Survey No.288/6 and document Ex.C2 is dated
12.07.1982 and it is in respect of Survey No.194/E and property of an extent of
3-1/2 Cents was sold in the year 1982 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In this case,
4(1) notification was dated 28.03.1990 and the sale covered under Ex.C2 was 7-
1/2 years earlier to that and even during that period land was sold at the rate
of Rs.3,000/- per Cent.
8.It is seen from Ex.C2, topography sketch that Survey No.445/5 is situate
south of the acquired property and in between the acquired land and the land in
Survey No.445/4, lands in the Survey No.191, 194, Survey No.192 are there and
both the Survey Nos.191 and 194 are having similar advantages and both are
abutting the road. It is admitted by the witness on the side of the appellant,
that the acquired property is 10 feet away from the Kuzhithurai-Arumanai Main
road and it was acquired for the purpose of constructing school building.
Therefore, the acquired land is a potential house site and the land in Survey
No.194 covered under Ex.C2 was also sold as house site. The land covered under
Ex.C2 was sold for nearly Rs.3,000/- per Cent in the year 1982 and if we add 20%
on the value for the 7-1/2 years’ period the value would be Rs.3.600/- per Cent
in the year 1990. Even, if we allow 1/3rd deduction towards development charges
the value will be not less than Rs.2,400/-per Cent. In this case, there is need
for allowing a deduction for development charges because the land has been
acquired for the purpose of construction of school building. Therefore, the
finding of the trial Court that the market value in respect of the acquired can
be fixed at Rs.2,500/- per Cent is reasonable and the lower Court has arrived at
the figure on the basis of the Ex.C2 and hence, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the finding of the lower Court.
9.The lower Court further awarded compensation for the value of trees and
in my opinion, the compensation awarded towards the value of trees is also fair
and proper.
10.In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding
of the lower Court and the decree and judgment of the lower Court is confirmed
and the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
er
To,
The Subordinate Judge,
Kuzhithurai.