The Revenue Division Officer, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant herein.
2.Lands in Survey No.191/9A and 9B of, an extent of 0.21.0 and 0.50.0 hectare belonged to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of constructing an additional building for the Government Higher Secondary School, Melpuram and 4(1) notification was issued on 28.03.1990 and after conducting enquiry, the appellant considered sale deeds dated 01.04.1987 and 31.03.1990 and selected the land in Survey No.445/5 of an extent of 6-1/2 cents, which was sold on 19.01.1989 for a sum of Rs.2,600/- and fixed the market value at Rs.377/- per Cent and passed an award. The respondents not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the appellant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 1993, on the file of Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.
3.Before the lower Court, the first claimant examined himself and marked two sale deeds and on the side of the appellant, one witness was examined and the data sale deed and plan were marked.
4.The learned Sub Judge after carefully analyzing the document and oral evidence, fixed the market value at Rs.2500/- per Cent, value of tree at Rs.1000/- per tree and enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal is filed by the Government.
5.The point for determination in this appeal is whether the enhancement of the market value by the lower Court is justifiable or not?
6.The land which was acquired is in Survey No.191/9A and 9B. It is abutting the road. The data land viz., Survey No.445/5 is on the eastern side of the acquired land and it has no direct road access. While passing an award, the Acquisition Officer considered sale deeds for the preceding three years and it is not known from the award proceedings what are the sale deeds that were considered and the survey numbers involved in those sale deeds and the basis on which the data land in Survey No.445/5 was selected by the Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value.
7.On the other-hand, the appellant has marked two documents Exs.C1 and C2 and document Ex.C1, is in respect of Survey No.288/6 and document Ex.C2 is dated 12.07.1982 and it is in respect of Survey No.194/E and property of an extent of 3-1/2 Cents was sold in the year 1982 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In this case, 4(1) notification was dated 28.03.1990 and the sale covered under Ex.C2 was 7- 1/2 years earlier to that and even during that period land was sold at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per Cent.
8.It is seen from Ex.C2, topography sketch that Survey No.445/5 is situate south of the acquired property and in between the acquired land and the land in Survey No.445/4, lands in the Survey No.191, 194, Survey No.192 are there and both the Survey Nos.191 and 194 are having similar advantages and both are abutting the road. It is admitted by the witness on the side of the appellant, that the acquired property is 10 feet away from the Kuzhithurai-Arumanai Main road and it was acquired for the purpose of constructing school building. Therefore, the acquired land is a potential house site and the land in Survey No.194 covered under Ex.C2 was also sold as house site. The land covered under Ex.C2 was sold for nearly Rs.3,000/- per Cent in the year 1982 and if we add 20% on the value for the 7-1/2 years' period the value would be Rs.3.600/- per Cent in the year 1990. Even, if we allow 1/3rd deduction towards development charges the value will be not less than Rs.2,400/-per Cent. In this case, there is need for allowing a deduction for development charges because the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of school building. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the market value in respect of the acquired can be fixed at Rs.2,500/- per Cent is reasonable and the lower Court has arrived at the figure on the basis of the Ex.C2 and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Court.
9.The lower Court further awarded compensation for the value of trees and in my opinion, the compensation awarded towards the value of trees is also fair and proper.
10.In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Court and the decree and judgment of the lower Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
er To, The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.