IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.319 of 1999 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Vellore .. Appellant Vs. B.Ranganathan .. Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge,Vellore and passed in LAOP No.4 of 1994 dated 19.03.1997. For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) For respondent : Mr.A.R.Nixon JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.1997 made in LAOP No.4 of 1994 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
The Government vide the Notification dated 11.08.1988 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 1.11 cents each in Survey Nos.15/1B and 16 in Pudur Village, Vellore Taluk for providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 16.08.1991 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.115/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and Exs. C1 to C2 were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1 one Jayakumar was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.115/- per cent to Rs.450/- per cent.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Reference court in enhancing the compensation from Rs.115/- per cent to Rs.450/- per cent, the Government has filed this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:
“Without adhering to the objective standard, the lower Court simply enhanced the compensation without any basis.”
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the trial court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.115/- per cent to Rs.450/- per cent?
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) by way of reiterating the grounds of appeal would advance his argument that the Land Acquisition Officer, taking into account correctly the sample sale deed from the sales statistics collected by him assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.115/- per cent. Whereas the learned counsel for the land owner would appropriately and appositely placing reliance on Ex.A3, the decree copy relating to LAOP No.24/93, would develop his argument that the lower Court taking into consideration the earlier award passed, relating to one other piece of land acquired under the same Notification under Section 4 (1) involved in this case, followed suit and accordingly, enhanced the compensation in consonance and in concinnity with Ex.A3.
8. The perusal of Ex.A3 would reveal that the said decree emerged assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.450/- per cent relating to the land acquired in Survey Nos.23/3 A and 23/3 B and the land acquired in this case, is in Survey Nos.15 & 16, which is situtated very near to the said survey number 23, which was acquired, relating to which Ex.A3 emerged. But the learned counsel for the land owner also would draw the attention of this Court to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, wherein, the name Masilamani, whose name is found in Ex.A3, is found set out.
9. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the land owner. Over and above that the Reference Court also considered Ex.A2, which is a sale deed relating to the selling of land in Survey No.220/1, bearing an extent of 88 cents in the same village. No doubt, it is situtated somewhat away from the land acquired. But, per cent of land was sold in a sum of Rs.462.50 as per Ex.A2.
10. It is therefore clear that, in that village per cent of agricultural land anterior to Section 4 (1) Notification was sold for more than a sum of Rs.450/-. Relating to the agricultural land acquired in this case, in fact, the potential value of the land was not taken into consideration and in such circumstances, the question of deduction also would not come. It is also a fact that there is no indication that any appeal has been filed as against the decree passed as evinced by Ex.A3. As such, from any angle if the matter is viewed, it is crystal clear that the enhancement of compensation from Rs.115/- per cent to Rs.450/- per cent cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labelled as exorbitant and unwarranted.
11. In such view of the matter, I could see no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the same are confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
08.09.2008
vj2
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
To
The Subordinate Judge
Vellore
G.RAJASURIA,J.,
vj2
A.S.No.319 of 1999
08.09.2008