This Appeal Suit has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.11 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 appellant.
3. An extent of 0.00.66 Hectares of land in Survey No.A4/15-2 in Vilavankode Village, belonged to the respondent 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 appellant fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,440/- per cent and a sum of Rs.425/- for each coconut tree. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant 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.45,000/- per cent. The Tribunal has also fixed a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation for the building and awarded a further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards trees. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently argued 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 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 that when the claimant who failed to let in evidence to prove the value of the building, the Court ought not to have granted such an amount.
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 claimant was not there in the land at the time of his inspection. Hence, the Commissioner has not valued the building. However, the evidence of the claimant is available on record and his evidence disclosed that two buildings were located in the acquired land.
6. From the evidence, it can be seen that the building appeared to be one which had the constructed area not less than 1000 Sq.Ft. Hence 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 trees, the learned Additional Government Pleader did not make any serious objection and this Court find that the award of compensation for the trees cannot be reduced below the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
7. As far as the market value is concerned for similar lands acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification, this Court has confirmed the award of the Tribunal in respect of the lands which are abutting National Highways. For those lands, which are abutting the National Highways, the Tribunal has fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per cent and the same was confirmed by this Court in a batch of appeals in A.S.(MD)No.138 of 2009, dated 01.12.2016. In respect of the lands which are located away from the National Highways, this Court has confirmed the market value fixed by the Tribunal either at Rs.40,000/- per cent or at Rs.45,000/- per cent, depending upon other factors. However, in this case also, in the Commissioner's Report, it has been found that the building located in the acquired land was just abutting the National Highways. As a matter of fact the value of the building is also fixed at Rs.1,59,000/-. Though the Tribunal has fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per cent for the land in other cases, only a sum of Rs.45,000/- was awarded in the present case.
8. In such circumstances, as confirmed by this Court in the earlier occasion, this Court find that the claimant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent. Since the Tribunal has fixed the market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per cent and no appeal has been filed by the claimant, this Court confirm the award of the Tribunal by fixing the market value for the land at Rs.45,000/- per cent. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal in so far as the value of the building and the trees are concerned, having regard to various factors which are relevant to determine the loss on account of deprivation of enjoyment of building and the length of this litigation.
9. In the result, the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Kuzhithurai, in L.A.O.P.No.11 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. .