IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 30.01.2008 CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.346 of 1997 1.Venkammal (Died) 2.M.Guruvenkata Ramaniya 3.N.Rajalakshmi 4.N.Vilvarani ... Appellant/Claimant -vs- The Special Tahsildar A.D.W., Tindivanam ... Respondent Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.21 of 1991 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tindivanam. For Appellant : Mr.G.Jeremiah For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.21 of 1991 dated 25.07.1995 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.
2. The claimants in the LAOP are the appellants. It is not in dispute that an extent of 1.47.5 hectares of land in R.S.No.151/8A and R.S.No.152/5 situated in Dadapuram village, Tindivanam Taluk was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi-Dravidars. For the land acquisition proceedings, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published in the Government Gazette on 06.02.1985. After enquiry, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the land, at Rs.60/-per cent. The appellants herein being the owners of the acquired land, received the compensation under protest and on their request the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
3.It is seen from the impugned judgment that the second appellant herein was examined as C.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A2. On the side of the respondent, an assistant dealing with the matter, in the office of the respondent, was examined as R.W.1. In support of the respondent no document was marked. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, by the impugned judgment has confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and dismissed the LAOP filed by the claimants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants.
4.Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not legally considered the LAOP based on the evidence available on record, but dismissed the LAOP, though there was no acceptable evidence to substantiate the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of C.W.1, and the document marked on the side of the claimants. Ex.A1, is the copy of the sale deed, dated 12.01.1984, whereby an extent of 1431 sq.ft. of land in S.No.232/61 was sold for the market value of Rs.5160/- per cent. Under Ex.A2, dated 06.02.1985, on the date of 4(1) notification, a smaller extent of 96 sq.ft. of land was sold, stating the market value at the rate of Rs.480/-, which was not considered by the Tribunal.
5.As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, Ex.A.2, cannot be accepted, since the said sale had taken place on the very same date of 4(1) notification, for a smaller extent of land. In this connection, this Court is of the view, that the representation made by the learned Special Government Pleader is quite reasonable. Ex.A3, is the copy of the sale deed, dated 25.04.1986 which cannot be considered for fixing the market value of the acquired land since the sale had taken place subsequent to the date of 4(1) notification. As per Ex.A1, sale had taken place on 12.01.1984, prior to the date of 4(1) notification. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.1, it is a similarly placed land situated nearby the acquired land. It is seen from the impugned judgment that no acceptable reason has been assigned by the Court below for not accepting Ex.A1, Sale Deed, though sale was prior to the date of 4(1) Notification.
6.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the land referred under Ex.A1 is a small extent of 1431 sq.ft though the acquired land is 1.47.5 Hectares (3.75 acres) of land. It cannot be disputed that there is no bar in considering the sale of similarly placed small extent of land, when there is no other sale deed available for consideration. In the instant case, as discussed earlier Exs.A2 and A3 could not be considered for fixing the market value of the acquired land. In the instant case the extent of land as per Ex.A1 was only 1431 sq.ft.
7. To meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the view, to deduct 50% of the market value in computing the value of the appellants land on par with the similar extent of land described in Ex.A1. Accordingly, the market value is computed at Rs.1,555/- per cent and by deducting 50%, the market value of the acquired land has to be computed at Rs.777.50/- per cent and for the acquired 3.75 acres of land, accordingly computed Rs.2,91,562/-.
8.In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have restricted their claims to the extent of Rs.2,58,670.75 and accordingly paid the court fee, hence, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation has to be restricted to the claim made by the appellants / claimants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay compensation for the acquired land at Rs.2,58,670.75 with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year from the date of award and 15% interest for the subsequent period as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.
30.01.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
tsvn
S.TAMILVANAN,J.
tsvn
To,
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Land Acquisition Tribunal,
Tindivanam.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
A.S.No.346 of 1997
30.01.2008