THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 14.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.269 of 1998 The Special Tahsildar (L.A) World Bank Project, Sasthiri Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-20. .. Appellant / Referring Officer Vs. A.Sahunathala .. Respondent / Claimant Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.1996 in LAOP.No.55 of 1988 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.N.Sankaravadivel, Advocate JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.55 of 1988 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Government has acquired 2400 sq.ft of land in S.No.19/1A2 in Kolathur Village, Purasavakam Taluk, for the purpose of forming inner-ring road.
2.After following the formalities like issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’), the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the land in Serial No.2065, which was relating to Survey No.19/3, has held that the land acquired by the Government and the data land are identical, has fixed the compensation for 1 sq.foot at Rs.2/50 and accordingly passed an Award No.4 of 1985 dated 7.11.1985. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, which was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act.
3.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the claimant has examined herself as C.W.1 and exhibited Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5. On the side of the Referring Officer / respondent, the then Special Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. After going through the oral and documentary evidence meticulously the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.5, an award passed in LAOP.No.6 of 1990 dated 27.08.1992, has enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.2/50 per one sq.foot (=Rs.1,090/91 per cent) to Rs.6,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Government has preferred this appeal.
4.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.V.Ravi appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel Mr.N.Sankaravadivel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.5, the award passed in LAOP.No.6/1990, has enhanced and fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.4,545/-, but there was an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.6 of 1990. The learned Government Pleader had also produced the typed set of papers filed in CRP.NPD.No.1458 of 2005 containing the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.6 of 1990, as well as the judgment in A.S.No.380 of 1995, which had arisen out of the judgment in LAOP.No.6 of 1990.
6.A perusal of the judgment in A.S.No.380 of 1995 passed by this Court would go to show that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.4 of 1985 relating to the acquisition of land by the Government for the purpose of formation of inner-ring road at Kolathur village, was relating to S.No.7 to 19 in Kolathur Village. The present LAOP.No.55 of 1990 against which the present A.S.No.269 of 1998 has been preferred relates to S.No.19/1A2, whereas the subject matter of LAOP.No.6 of 1990 is S.No.19/2B and the subject matter in LAOP.No.26 of 1990 relates to S.No.7/2B. In LAOP.No.26 of 1990, the Land Acquisition Tribunal had fixed the compensation as Rs.4,545/- per cent against which no appeal was prepared. But the same yardstick for fixing the compensation for the land which was the subject matter in LAOP.No.6 of 1990 was not adopted by the Tribunal who had fixed the compensation as Rs.6,000/- per cent. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.380 of 1995, which was directed against the judgment in LAOP.No.6 of 1990, will go to show that the land concerned in LAOP.No.6 of 1990, LAOP.No.26 of 1990 and the land in the present LAOP.No.55 of 1998 (against which the present appeal A.S.No.269 of 1998 has been preferred) are identical almost in all aspects. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, the data land taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the compensation as Rs.2/50 per sq.foot ie., Rs.1,090/91 per cent was produced as Ex.R.1 dated 8.9.1982, whereas 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gezette in this case on 2.2.1983 ie., 5 months prior to 4(1) notification. While disposing of A.S.No.380 of 1995, which had been preferred against the judgment in LAOP.No.6 of 1990, this Court has considered the award passed in LAOP.No.26 of 1990, which relates to S.No.7/2B, connected with Award No.4 of 1985 dated 7.11.1985 (LAOP.No.55 of 1988), and reduced and fixed the compensation in LAOP.No.6 of 1990 from Rs.6,000/- per cent to Rs.4,545/- per cent. The learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the respondent would admit that the judgment in A.S.No.380 of 1995 (preferred against the judgment in LAOP.No.6 of 1990) has become final. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the same yardstick applied in A.S.No.380 of 1995 can be applied to the present appeal also for fixing the compensation for the land acquired under LAOP.No.55 of 1988. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the appeal is to be allowed and the compensation per cent is to be reduced and fixed as Rs.4,545/- per cent for the land acquired under Award No.4 of 1985 in respect of S.No.19/1A2 measuring 2400 sq.feet.
7.In fine, the appeal is allowed and the judgment in LAOP.No.55 of 1988 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside and the compensation is reduced and fixed as Rs.4,545/- per cent in respect of 2400 sq.ft in S.No.19/1A2 of Kolathur Village, Purasavakam Taluk. The said compensation shall carry with usual solatium, interest on solatium and additional compensation as permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. No costs. Time for depositing the award amount to the credit of LAOP.No.55 of 1988 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is one month from this date. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount without furnishing any security.
14.07.2008
Index :Yes/No
Web :Yes/No
ssv
NOTE : Issue Today.
To,
The VI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J.
ssv
A.S.No.269 of 1998
14.07.2008