BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/12/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.364 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.10792 of 1997 The Special Tahsildar,ADW, Paramakudi. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs P.S.Jamal Muhamed ... Claimant /Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1993, dated 25th March, 1994. !For Appellant ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader. ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Sivaji :JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1993, dated 25th March,
1994.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder as they were arrayed before the
trial Court.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary for disposal of the appeal
would run thus:
The grievance of the land owner was that the compensation award was
assessed at the rate of Rs. Rs.8,403/- per acre which was not based on any sound
recognised principles. The Subordinate Judge assessed the compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,400/- per cent.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader during argument would contend
that the trial Court failed to deduct one-third from the grossly assessed amount
towards road and other development charges because the trial Court arrived at
the compensation by treating agricultural land as house site. At this juncture,
learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice the decision of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court relating to similar appeals which arose out
of the land acquired in the same vicinity wherein the land involved in this
case. A perusal of the said judgment dated 14.9.2005 in A.S.Nos.671 and 677 of
1997, would reveal that in respect of the land acquired in Kattuparamakudi
village, enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub Court was confirmed by setting
out the following reasons. Excerpts from the judgment of the Division Bench
would run thus:
“Aggrieved against the enhanced compensation fixed at Rs.1,400/- per cent from
Rs.84 per cent by the Award dated 25.3.1994 in L.A.O.P.Nos.21 and 25 of 1993 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, both the appeals have been
filed by the The Special Tahsildar(ADW), Paramakudi.
2. An extent of 15 cents of land in Survey No.136/2B of the respondent in Appeal
Suit No.671 of 1997 and an extent of 1 acre and 57 ” cents of land in Survey
No.137/4 of the respondent in Appeal Suit No.677 of 1997, both in
Kattuparamakkudi Village were sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing
house sites to Adi Dravidars. Notification under Section 4(1) was published in
Gazette on 30.12.1992 in respect of both the lands. The Land Acquisition
Officer/the Special Tahsildar after observing all the formalities fixed the
compensation at Rs.84/- per cent. At the instance of the owners of the lands,
reference was made to the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram and was taken on
file in L.A.O.P.Nos.21 of 1993 and 25 of 1993 respectively. The Subordinate
Court considering the documents Exs.C1 to C3 marked on the side of the claimants
and also the documents marked on the side of the respondent as Exs.R1 to R6 and
also considering the evidence of claimants and the evidence of Special
Tahsildar in both the appeals as per the separate evidence let in and, more
particularly, taking into consideration of the Sale Deeds Exs.C1 to C3 and that
adjacent lands in the same village have been sold for from Rs. 1 to 2 lakhs per
acre, fixed the compensation at Rs.1,400/- per cent, which has made the Special
Tahsildar to file these Appeals.
3. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Special
Tahsildar after perusing several sale deeds of the nearby land and after
inspecting the land for considering the value of the sale deed in respect of
Kattuparamakudi Village and since it is related to the dry land, adopted the
value in respect of the sale deeds conveyed in Vendoni village being the dry
land and accordingly, fixed the compensation at Rs.84 per cent and that, since
the sale deeds related to house sites only, the compensation amount fixed by the
Sub Court is very much on the higher side.
5. We have perused the document Ex.C.1 dated 18.6.1990, which is two years
prior to the notification under Section 4(1). As per the sale deeds Exs.C1 to
C3, which all relate to the year 1990-1992, the lands have been sold between
Rs.1 and 2 lakhs per acre in the years 1990 – 1992. The Special Tahsildar has
accepted in his evidence that the land acquired is very near to the
municipality and the acquired lands have been sold as house sites from the year
1989. Considering as per the Exs.C1 to C3 Sale Deeds, the lesser extent of
lands have been sold and the fact that the acquired lands are situated near the
municipal limit and also adjacent lands have been sold as house sites in the
year 1989, the Subordinate Court fixed the award at Rs.1,400/- per cent, which
is very much reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. We do not find any
ground to interfere with the award passed in both the appeals and the appeals
are dismissed accordingly. No costs.”
4. As such the ratiocination that could be noticed from the aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench, would reveal that they have not chosen to deduct
one-third amount towards road and development charges.
5. When I raised a query, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the appellant would state that no appeal was preferred to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as against the judgment dated 14.9.2005 of the Division Bench of
this Court in A.S.Nos.671 and 677 of 1997. Learned counsel for the respondent/
land owner would insist that there cannot be two yard sticks that the Government
could adopt in paying compensation one for the land owners in those appeals
decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and another as against the
land owner in this appeal. There is force in the contention of learned counsel
for the land owner. In view of the fact that almost at one period of time the
lands involved in those appeals decided by the Division Bench and the land
involved in this appeal were notified and land acquisition proceedings
completed, this Court cannot carve out an exception to this case. The
reasoning given by the Subordinate Judge is almost the same reasoning as found
set out in the Judgment of the Division Bench. The Subordinate Judge took into
account the proximity of the land acquired, to the Municipal area and also about
the prospective urbanisation of the area. Hence, in such a case, the assessment
arrived at by the Subordinate Judge cannot be found fault with. No other point
was urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and the award passed by the
Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1993, dated 25th March,
1994, is confirmed. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.10792 of 1997 is also
dismissed. However, in the circumstance of the case, there is no order as to
costs.
rsb
To
Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.