vs.
1.K.S.L.Muthukumara Jeyaveera Pandian ..Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/Respondent No.2 A.S.No.128 of 2007 Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Karuppana Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.129 of 2007 Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Kaliappa Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.130 of 2007:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Kandasamy .. Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.131 of 207:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani.
(Now) Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.K.Alagiappa Gounder ...Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.132 of 2007:
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Kalimuthu ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.133 of 2007 Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Kandasamy Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.No.134 of 2007:-
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani. ... Appellant/1st respondent vs.
1.P.Velusamy ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent A.S.Nos.87 to 97 of 2007 Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nangachiyar Reservoir Project, Palani.
(Now) Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani ... Appellant/1st respondent in all AS.Nos.87 to 97/07 vs.
1.K.S.Muthukumara Jagaveerapandian ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent in Respondents in AS.No.87/07
1.Kaliappa Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.88/07
1.R.Palanisamy Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.89/07
1.K.Murugesh ...1st st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.90/07
1.Maruthaiappa Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.91/07
1.P.Rathinasamy Goundder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.92/07
1.K.Alagammal ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.93/07
1.Karuppana Gounder ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.94/07
1.P.Natarajan ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.P.Dhandapani ...2nd Respondent/2nd Claimant
3.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 3rd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.95/07
1.Kandasamy ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.96/07
1.Karuppusamy ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O, Palani ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Respondents in AS.No.97/07 PRAYER in the Above Appeals Appeal Suit has been filed under
Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2006 made in L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 42, 49, 55, 36, 38, 40, 39, 11, 67, 44, 46, 66, 45, 53, 65, 47, 60, 48 of 1996 respectively on the file of Sub Court, Palani.
!For Appellant ... Mr.K.M.Viajayakumar Addl. Govt. Pleader ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Thirumoorthy :COMMON JUDGMENT In view of the common issues involved in all the above appeals, they have been taken up together for disposal.
2. The appeals have been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the Reference Court, wherein the Reference Court has fixed the valuation at Rs.750/- per cent in L.A.O.P. No.9 of 1996 and at Rs.350/- per cent in all other cases.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Lands have been acquired situated in Idayankottai village, Dindigul District for the purpose of Water spread area of Nangachiyar Reservoir Project of Idayankottai Village, Palani Taluk Dindigul District. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 16.11.1992. Thereafter, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.2/94 and Award No.3/94 dated 08.08.1994 and 14.07.1994, thereby fixing the valuation for the lands acquired in Survey No.244 with an extent of 14.8 acres at Rs.260/- per cent and in all other cases at Rs.135/- per cent. The said amount has been fixed on the ground that the lands acquired in Survey NO.244 is a Nanja land and the lands acquired in other cases are dry punja lands. The Reference Court in L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 11,36,38,39,40,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,53,55,60,65,66 and 67 of 1996 has enhanced the said amount to Rs.750/- per cent in so far as the Survey No.244 is concerned and Rs.350/- per cent in so far as the other survey numbers are concerned. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the Reference Court, these appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in accepting Ex.C1 to C3. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, there was no deductions made towards development charges. It is also submitted that the Court below has committed an error in not considering the data sale deed relied upon by the appellant. Per contra, the learned counsel appeared for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Court below has rejected the data sale deed, since the same is not related to the village and the lands acquired, in view of the fact the data sale deed pertains to some other village.
5. It is further submitted that there cannot be any deductions towards the development charges since the data sale deed, the sale deeds covered under Ex.C1 to C3 and the lands acquired are of agricultural lands. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has given a factual finding about the potential value of the lands acquired. According to the learned counsel that the Court while fixing the compensation has to take into consideration of the sale deed which are beneficial to the claimants. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the bonafide benefit reported in CDJ 2003 MHC 751 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs.Rathinareddi) in support of his contention with the sale deeds which are most advantageous to the claimants alone should be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 298 (Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (Adi dravidar Welfare), Krishnagiri vs. Munusamy) to submit that when the data land as well as the lands relied upon by the claimants for fixing the value are agricultural lands and on that basis the valuation is fixed, then there cannot be any deduction towards the development charges. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the valuation fixed will have to be confirmed.
6. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. Admittedly in the present case the appellant has not produced any sale deed before the Reference Court. Therefore, in the absence of any sale deed relied upon by the appellant, the Court below has correctly taken into account the sale deeds produced by the respondents/claimants. Admittedly, the sale deeds are pertaining to the agricultural lands. Similarly, the lands acquired are also agricultural lands. The lands have been acquired for the purpose of the reservoir scheme. Therefore this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that in such a situation there cannot be any deduction towards the developmental charges. This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 298 (Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (Adi dravidar Welfare), Krishnagiri vs. Munusamy) applies to the present case on hand.
7. In so far as the reliance of the Court below on Ex.C1 to C3 it has correctly taken into account of the sale deeds and fixed the valuation at Rs.750/- per cent for Survey No.244 and Rs.350/- per cent for the other lands. The Court has taken into consideration of the comparative value mentioned in all the three sale deeds. In fact, a perusal of the above said sale deeds would show that they are pertaining to the year 1989, 1990 and 1991, whereas, the Notification in the present case has been published on 16.11.1992. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the valuation fixed by the Court is just and very reasonable.
8. The Court below has also taken into consideration about the potential value of the land. The Court below has given a factual finding about the fact that there are three revenue villages nearby and there are hospitals, banks and post office situated near the acquired lands. In fact, a perusal of the judgment and decree of the Court below would indicate that the amount fixed by the Court below is very much reasonable. In the judgment reported in CDJ 2003 MHC 751 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs.Rathinareddi), the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the market value will have to be fixed by taking into consideration of the transaction that would fetch maximum price and therefore the sale deed which is most advantageous to the claimants alone should be taken into consideration. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also observed that the Court while fixing the valuation should sit in the arm chair of the willing seller and then fix the valuation. In so far as the valuation fixed for Survey No.244 is concerned, it is seen that even the Land Acquisition Officer has made a distinction between the said land and the other lands on the ground that the said land is fully an irrigational land, being a Nanja land. Therefore, he fixed the valuation at Rs.260/- per cent which has been enhanced to Rs.750/- per cent. Hence, this Court finds that the difference shown for the said land as against the other lands is justifiable and proper.
9. Hence on a consideration of the above said facts and also on considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the Reference Court do not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
cs To The Sub Judge, Palani.