BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16/06/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
A.S.No.652 of 1997
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge
Railway Line,
Karur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Lakshmanan
2.S.Ramasamy
3.R.Nagendhira Krishnan ... Respondents
Prayer
This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act,
against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1995 made in L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1988
on the file of Sub Judge, Karur.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Addl. Government Pleader
^For Respondents ... No appearance
:JUDGMENT
The Special Tahsildar (LA), Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway line,
Karur, is the appellant herein.
2.Lands in Survey Nos.103/2, 106 and 107 of an extent of 0.18356 Sq.ft.,
0.20508 Sq.ft and 0.23665 Sf.ft. respectively, in Inam Karur and Balambalapuram
village, were acquired for the purpose of Dindigul- Karur Broad Gauge Railway
line and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed
the market value at Rs.0-35/- per Sq.ft. Not being satisfied with the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants/respondents sought for
reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.18 of
1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the
compensation from Rs.0.35/- per Sq.ft. to Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. Aggrieved by the
same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.
3.Before the lower Court, on the side of the respondents/claimants 4
documents were marked and they examined 2 witnesses and on the side of the
appellant, two documents were marked and one witness was examined.
4.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of
compensation fixed by the lower Court is justified or not?
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, for the
State contended that the Referring Officer after considering 39 sales deeds
selected the data land for fixing the market value and correctly fixed the
market value at Rs.0-35/- per Sq.ft. and therefore, the enhancement of
compensation from Rs.0-35/- to Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. by the lower Court without any
basis is liable to be set aside.
6.On the other-hand, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/claimants that the sale deeds Exs.C1 and C2 marked by them would
prove the escalation of prices in that area and the acquired property is situate
within the prime locality of Karur town and hence, a sum of Rs.50/- per Sq.ft.
ought to have been fixed as compensation for the acquired land.
7.The Referring Officer in his Award Proceedings after referring to 39
sale deeds considered by him, selected the data land in Survey No.245/10 and he
has stated in his Proceedings that there were no sale of wet lands similar to
that of the acquired land in Karur town and therefore, he has taken the land in
the adjourning village for fixing the market value. Therefore, it is clear from
the above admission that instead of fixing the market value by considering the
sale in respect of lands in and around the acquired land, the Referring Officer
has taken the land in the adjourning village. Therefore, in my opinion, the
selection of data lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land, by the
Referring Officer, is not proper and therefore, the market value fixed by the
Referring Officer at Rs.0.35/- per Cent is not correct.
8.The next question for consideration in this appeal is what would be the
correct market value that can be fixed for the acquired land?
9.It is seen from 39 sale deeds considered by the Referring Officer, Item
Nos.18,19 and 20 were in respect of Survey No.73, which is in the same village
and admitted by the Referring Officer that those lands are situate in that
locality and are similar to the acquired land in respect of soil etc. But, the
Referring Officer discarded those sale deeds on the ground that they are
abutting the ‘Rathinam Salai’ and those lands were purchased for the purpose of
extending the existing dying factory. Similarly, Item No.37, the land in Survey
No.96 was also discarded for the same reason and those lands were sold in the
year 1982 for a sum of Rs.1,56,250/- per acre and Item No.37 was sold in the
year 1984 for a sum of Rs.1,51,402/-. The land in Survey No.73 is closer to the
Broad Gauge line and in the year 1982, it was sold at the rate of Rs.1,562/- per
Cent. viz., Rs.3/- per Sq.ft. As per Ex.C1, the land was sold at the rate of
Rs.0.85/- per Sq.ft. in the year 1980 and as per Ex.C2 in the year 1984 land in
survey No.315 was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per Sq.ft. No-doubt, under Ex.C2
land was sold as a house site. But the sale consideration mentioned in Exs.C1
and C2 would prove the escalation of prices in that locality over that period.
Admittedly, the land was acquired for the purpose of Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge
and it is a potential land having other facilities and advantages, which were
not properly appreciated by the Referring Officer. The lower Court on the basis
of evidence has held that Cinema Theatres, daily market, Government Hospital and
Railway station are nearer to the acquired land and the National Highways are at
a distance. Further, he relied upon the Award Proceedings in L.A.O.P.No.2 of
1982, wherein the land in Survey Nos.190 and 192 were given the market value at
Rs.10/- per Cent and no appeal was filed against that award. The learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Additional Government Pleader,
was not able to contradict that settlement. Further in respect of similar land
acquired for the same purpose in Thathaneri village, Madurai North Taluk, this
Court has already fixed the market value at Rs.4,000/- per Cent. Though,
Rs.4,000/- per Cent was fixed in respect of Thanthaneri village, Madurai North
Taluk, for the same purpose, having regard to the escalation of prices in and
around the locality, in which the present acquisition had taken place, in my
view, fixation of Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. by the lower Court cannot be said to be
excessive and I concur with the market value fixed by the lower Court and do not
see any reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Court.
10.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the decree and judgment of
the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
er
To,
The Subordinate Judge,
Karur.