This Appeal Suit has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1997, dated 27.06.2006 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Kuzhithurai.
2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. An extent of 0.02.05 Hectares of land in T.S.No.A5/37-1 in Vilavankode Village, belonged to the respondents was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of a Bridge across N.H.47 at Kuzhithurai. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazatte on 06.05.1992. The substance of the Notification was also published in the locality on 01.06.1992. By an award dated 30.05.1995, the appellants fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.7,328/- per cent. Since the claimants had a building in the land acquired, the claimants also demanded compensation for the building as well as the trees standing in the property acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award, fixed compensation for building at Rs.6,985/- and for trees at Rs.850/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to get just compensation. On reference, the Land Acquisition Tribunal fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent. The Tribunal has also fixed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the building and awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compound wall and a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards trees. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is on the higher side and that it is not supported by any documents. He also contended that the value for the building and the compound wall is not based on any acceptable evidence. Since the value has been fixed relying upon the Commissioner's Report, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the Commissioner is not an expert to value the property and the claimants who failed to let in evidence to prove the value of the building, cannot get compensation purely on guess work.
5. No doubt, it is true that the valuation for the building should be based on some experts' opinion. Only a competent Engineer can give proper valuation on the basis of the materials. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner in his Report, has stated that the building which was constructed by the claimants was not there in the land at the time of his inspection. Hence, the Commissioner has not valued the property. However, it is the evidence of the claimants which is available on record and his evidence disclosed that the building which was in existence consisted of two shops and a residential building portion.
6. Having regard to the fact that the building appears to be not less than 500 Sq.Ft., of constructed area, at no stretch of imagination, the value of the building cannot be reduced below Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is not acceptable. As far as the compensation for the compound wall and trees, the learned Additional Government Pleader did not make any serious objection and this Court find that the award of the compensation for the compound wall and trees cannot be reduced below the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
7. As far as the market value for the land is concerned, for similar land acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification, this Court has already confirmed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per cent. The land belonged to the claimants is located just abutting the National Highways and for similar lands covered by the same Notification, this Court has confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in A.S.(MD)No.138 of 2009, by Judgment dated 01.12.2016.
8. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the above appeal.
9. In the result, the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Kuzhithurai, in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1997, dated 27.06.2006, is confirmed and the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Kuzhithurai.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .