The claimant is the appellant herein.
2.Not being satisfied with the enhancement of compensation from Rs.73.17/- per Cent to Rs.1000/-per Cent, the owner of the land has filed this appeal for further enhancement. It is seen that in respect of lands in Survey No.36/2 of an extent of 0.81 acres, out of the total extent of 0.92 acres, were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Barbers residing in Beebikulam, Meenambalpuram area, Madurai Town. The 4(1) notification was dated 30.07.1986 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with the legal formalities passed an award in Award Proceedings No.7/86-87 dated 31.03.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the legal formalities considered 18 sale deeds in Thiruppalai village and after discarding 17 sale deeds selected the lands in Survey No.178/7 for fixing the market value.
3.According to the Special Tasildhar (L.A), 62 Cents in Survey No.178/7 of Tiruppallai village was sold at Rs.6,000/- and therefore, he fixed the market value at Rs.73.17/- per Cent and passed an award. The claimant aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.101 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, and the learned Sub Judge enhanced the market value to Rs.1,000/- per Cent. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Sub Court claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.2,500/- per Cent and the learned Sub Judge has awarded Rs.1,000/- per Cent and hence, this appeal is preferred by the claimant for further enhancement of compensation.
4.Before the lower Court the claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and marked a sale deed as Ex.C1 and on the side of the respondent one witness was examined and marked one document.
5.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation awarded by the lower Court is justified or not?
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on Ex.C1, sale deed dated 09.12.1985 in respect of 4.35 Cents, which was sold for Rs.14,100/- and argued that the land covered under Ex.C1 is situate in Survey Nos.56/2, 56/3, 57, 58/1, 58/2 and 58/4. Out of the total extent of 13.66 acres, the total area was divided into house plots and after forming proper lay out, and this 4.35 Cents of land was sold for Rs.14,100/- and therefore, the same value cane be adopted for the acquired land also.
7.On the other-hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, argued that the compensation enhanced by the lower Court to Rs.1,000/- per Cent is on the higher side and as they have not preferred any appeal against that compensation, they should not be any further enhancement over and above the amount fixed by the learned Sub Court. The learned Sub Court while discussing the merits of Ex.C1, has stated that the land covered under Ex.C1 is 176 Sq.ft. away from the acquired land and it is a 'pakka' house site after formation of the road and therefore, that should not be taken as the correct value for fixing the market value for the acquired land. The learned Sub Judge further held that having regard to the distance of the acquired land to the 'natham' road and the land covered under Ex.C1 to the Natham road, the value of the acquired land can be fixed at Rs.1,000/- per Cent.
8.It is seen from the topography sketch of the land that the data land selected by the Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the acquired land is very far away from the acquired land. Further, while considering 18 sale deeds, the Acquisition Officer has considered many sale deeds from Survey No.56. But unfortunately, in the award proceedings he did not mention the details of those sale deeds in respect of the sales from Survey Nos.56 and 57. Therefore, it can be easily presumed that the lands, which were sold in Survey Nos.56 and 57 must be sold for a higher price and that was the reason the Acquisition Officer has not mentioned the details of the sale consideration in respect of sale deeds in his award proceedings. This is confirmed by Ex.C1, wherein 7 months prior to the acquisition, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.3241/- per Cent.
9.Of course, the land sold under Ex.C1 was a house site, after formation of proper lay out and therefore, that value cannot be taken as correct market value.
10.Further it is seen from the topography that the acquired land is also abutting the road as well as the land covered under Ex.C1. Though, there is a distance of 200 to 300 meters between the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.C1 and having regard to the facts that both the lands are abutting the road, I am of the opinion that the acquired land has got potentiality of road frontage as that of the lands covered under Ex.C1. Further, after the acquisition 11 Cents of land was left out and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is a well in the 11 Cents and therefore, he may not be in a position to use the remaining land.
11.It is admitted by P.W.1 that the acquired land even at the time of acquisition was used as agricultural land and therefore, the value fixed for the house site cannot be applied to the acquired land. Hence, having regard to the road advantage of the acquired land and the purpose for which the land was acquired, in my opinion, 50% can be disallowed from the value fixed in respect of the land sold under Ex.C1 towards development charges. If so calculated, the acquired land can be valued at Rs.1,650/- per Cent. Accordingly, I enhance the market value of the acquired land from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,650/- per Cent.
12.In fine, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,650/- per Cent. In other aspects, the decree and judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
er To, I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.