In this civil revision petition, the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.11.2006, made in C.M.A.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, are impugned.
2. It is found that in respect of the land belonging to the respondent, acquisition proceedings were initiated for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars after issuing necessary notification as mandated under law. It is further found that in order to fix the compensation to which the respondent is entitled to for the land acquired, statistics have been called for by the concerned authority and after culling out nine sale transactions with reference to the same and after considering that excepting the sale transaction found in Serial No.1, the other sale transactions are not germane for fixing the compensation and further finding that the property comprised in the above said sale transaction in Serial No.1 and the land acquired are of the same quality and resembles in all other aspects, accordingly, the same had been taken as basis for fixing the value for the land acquired and so working out, it is found that the cost of the land acquired, which measures an extent of 0.85.0 Hectares, the authority concerned fixed the cost at Rs.10,292/- by fixing the value per Hectare at Rs.12,108/- and adding 15% solatium amounting to Rs.1,544/-, held that the respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.11,836/-.
3. Impugning the same, it is found that as per the law then inforce the respondent herein had preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2005 and accordingly, in respect of the respondent's case, Exs.A1 to A7 were pressed into service and no oral evidence was adduced and on the side of the petitioner, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced and accordingly, the Appellate Court finding that the basis for fixing compensation by the petitioner on the basis of the sale transaction in Serial No.1 is not correct as the said land is not located nearby the land acquired land and the quality and other aspects of the said land and the land acquired are not similar, discarded the said transaction. Further, the Appellate Court also did not find acceptance to the sale transaction relied upon by the respondent, dated 20.09.1995, which pertains to a punja land and the quality of the said land not being similar to the land acquired, had finally held that both the respondent as well as the petitioner have not produced any reliable evidence to fix the value of the land acquired. Accordingly, it is found that the Appellate Court, considering the purpose of the acquisition of the land of the respondent finding that the same is fit for construction of houses, accordingly, further finding that the value determined by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.50/- per Cent is on the lower side, holding that the same requires modification, finally held that the market value of the land acquired should be fixed at Rs.1,000/- per Cent and accordingly, allowed the appeal as above and also held that the respondent is entitled for 30% solatium and the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of acquisition. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
4. As seen from the materials, it is found that there is no acceptable material placed on either side to fix the value of the land acquired. The petitioner is unable to point out that the Appellate Court had erred in not considering the sale transaction relied upon by it while fixing the compensation and further, it has not been made out that the land comprised in the said sale transaction is similar in all aspects with that of the land acquired. Equally, it is found that the land value relied upon by the respondent as determined by the Appellate Court is also not having any nexus whatsoever so as to be the basis for the fixation of the value of the land acquired. In such view of the matter, it is found that there is nil material placed on either side to enable the Court below to fix the value of the land.
5. Resultantly, as determined by the Court below, it is found that the value of the land at the rate of Rs.50/- per Cent fixed by the authority is on the lower side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the findings of the Court below that the land acquired is fit for construction purposes, which fact is not in dispute and the other advantageous factors pertaining to the said land, in my considered opinion, the value of the land acquired should be determined at the rate of Rs.350/- per Cent.
6. Regarding the finding of the Court below that the respondent is entitled for 30% solatium, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioner that as per Section 7 of the Acquisition of the Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, the solatium can be awarded only upto 15% on such market value and therefore, it is found that the Court below had erred in awarding 30%. It is, thus, found that the respondent is entitled to obtain the solatium only at 15% as per the Act. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner also contended that the interest awarded by the Court below is also on the higher side and without any basis and according to him, the interest should be only at 6% and not more than that. In this connection, reliance is placed upon Section 12 of the above said Act. Considering the above provision of law and the date of
Section 4(1) notification of the land acquired, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to pay interest on the modified compensation at the rate 9% per annum from the date of acquisition till deposit if it is made within three months and in default, at the rate of 12% per annum.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the compensation of the land acquired is ordered to be fixed at the rate of Rs.350/- per Cent with 15% solatium and the interest as above directed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Sub Judge, Kovilpatti.
.