Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Indukaladharan Nair

Madras High Court|08 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This Appeal suit has been filed by the appellant/Land Acquisition officer as against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal(Subordinate Court), Kuzhithurai, in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1997, dated 27.06.2006.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal suit are as follows:-
An extent of 14 cents of land in Survey Nos.A4/17, A4/18-2 and A4/19- 1B, situated at Vilavankode Village, belonging to the first respondent in this appeal were acquired for construction of a bridge. The lands belonging to the first respondent and others in the same locality were acquired by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 01.06.1992. The Land Acquisition officer passed an award on 30.05.1995. The market value for the acquired land was fixed at Rs.2,440/- per cent and compensation was also awarded to coconut trees at the rate of Rs.425/- per tree. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition officer, the claimant, namely, the first respondent and other land owners in respect of other parts of the lands, acquired for the same purpose, preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking reference before the Civil Court to get just compensation for the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, upon reference enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,440/- per cent to Rs.35,000/- per cent in the case of the first respondent in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1997. The Land Acquisition Tribunal relied upon the Commissioner's report, dated 12.07.2001 marked as Ex.C.1 and the evidence of the claimants. The sale exemplar relied upon by the claimants, namely, Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, were also taken into account by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Aggrieved by the quantum, the Land Acquisition officer has preferred the above appeal.
3. It can be seen that an extent of 1.46.02 Hectares of land in Nallur, Vilavankode Village was acquired.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.138 of 2009, dated 01.12.2016. It can be seen from the Judgment that the lands which were acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification is the subject matter of the above appeal and the market value has been arrived at Rs.50,000/- per cent. The Division Bench of this Court taking into account that the lands which are located abutting the National Highways should be given more value than the lands which are located away from the National Highways in the same locality. After referring to the fact that in respect of other acquired lands, this Court has earlier fixed the compensation, by taking into consideration the market value for the land at Rs.40,000/- per cent in A.S.No.169 of 2011, dated 13.08.2013, has confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, fixing the market value at Rs.50,000/- per cent.
5. As seen from the facts narrated above, this Court has already approved compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per cent even in respect of lands which are away from the National Highways. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court can enhance the compensation following the Judgment of this Court in the other cases, this Court is not able to accept the said proposition. In my view in similar circumstances, the Court has no power to enhance the compensation without there being an Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the claimant. This Court has taken the view that the Court may not be right in fixing the market value beyond the quantum that was claimed by the land owner. However the Tribunal taking into consideration the location of the acquired lands and other features, has fixed the market value only at Rs.35,000/- per cent unlike in other cases where the market value is fixed at Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per cent. In that view of the matter, this Court find that there is no merit in the appeal and hence, this Appeal suit is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Indukaladharan Nair

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
08 February, 2017