2.M.A.Subramania Raja ...Respondent in A.S.609/98/Claimants
3.Balakrishna Raja ...1st Respondent in A.S.610/98/Claimants
4.Kasiraja ...2nd Respondent in A.S.610/98/Claimants Prayer These Appeals have been filed under
Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1996 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.42 to 44 of 1991 respectively, on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Addl. Government Pleader ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Sivaji :COMMON JUDGMENT The above three appeals were filed by the Referring Officer challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur made in L.A.O.P.Nos.42 to 44 of 1991.
2.Lands measuring an extent of 3.93 acres situate in the village of Sammandapuram, Srivilliputhur Taulk of Rajapalayam in Survey No.174/1 were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars under 4(1) notification dated 24.07.1985 and after complying with the legal formalities, the Referring Officer passed an award by his Award Proceedings No.4/87-88 dated 16.10.1987 and fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per Cent. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the appellant, the claimants, in all appeals, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.Nos.42 to 44 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, and the learned Principal Sub Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,400/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals were filed by the appellant.
3.The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the enhancement of compensation made by the lower Court is justified or not?
4.Before the lower Court one of the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1991 examined himself as P.W.1 and the Referring Officer examined himself as R.W.1 and on the side of the claimants 10 documents were marked and on the side of the appellant 4 documents were marked.
5.The Referring Officer, while fixing the market value of the acquired land considered 364 sale deeds and selected a sale deed in respect of land in Survey No.172/1A and fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per Cent.
6.It is seen from the topography sketch, marked as Ex.R4 that the data land selected by the appellant is situate on the eastern side of the acquired land and as per the details of various sale deeds considered by the Referring Officer, the lands in and around the acquired land were sold at Rs.100/- per Cent to Rs.150/- per Cent, during the relevant period. Therefore, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, the learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that the market value fixed by the Referring Officer, after considering 364 sale deeds, is the proper market value and it should not be interfered with.
7.On the other-hand, the learned counsel for the respondent placing heavy reliance on Exs.A1 to A10 filed by them and contended that the compensation fixed by the Referring Officer is very low and the lower Court after taking into consideration of the potential nature of the acquired land, has correctly fixed the market value at Rs.1400/- per Cent and therefore, the judgment of the lower Court is a well considered one and that should not be interfered with. He further contended that the sale deeds Exs.A1 to A5 would also prove the escalation of price in those lands from the year 1984 and hence, the market value was correctly fixed by the lower Court.
8.Under Ex.C1, land in Survey No.82/2 was sold on 31.08.1984 at the rate of Rs.520/- per Cent and under Ex.C2 land in Survey No.168/3B was sold at Rs.1690.73/ per Cent on 12.09.1984. Those two sale deeds were earlier to the date of acquisition and therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was escalation of price in that area and it is further evident by the sale deeds Exs.A3 and A4 in respect of Survey No.77/14, 204/1C, which were sold at the rate of Rs.3271/- and Rs.3,532/- on 04.10.1985 and 09.01.1986 respectively. The Referring Officer also considered sale deed in respect of Survey No.168/3B, which was sold on 13.09.1984 and under that sale deed land was sold at the rate of Rs.1681.12/- per Cent. This was mentioned in Item No.121 and this sale deed was marked as Ex.A2. The Referring Officer discarded the said document on the ground that it is 4 furlongs away from the acquired land.
9.The sale deeds in respect of Exs.A3 to A5 were after 4(1) notification and therefore, they cannot be considered for fixing the market value.
10.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the acquired land is situate within two furlongs from the municipal limit of Rajapalayam and a college and Housing Board Colony were established nearer to the acquired land long prior to the acquisition and therefore, the value fixed by the lower Court is justified and need not be interfered with.
11.Having regard to the data land and the land covered under Exs.A1 and A2 and having regard to the location of the acquired land, I am of the opinion that the market value fixed by the lower Court is on the higher side. In respect of similar lands in Survey No.171/1B, which was acquired under 4(1) notification dated 18.10.1989, I have fixed the market value at Rs.1,500/- per Cent, in the Appeal Suit Nos.321 and 322 of 1997. The lands covered in those appeals are situate in Survey No.171/1B and it is situate adjacent to the acquired land in this case, and while arriving at the market value for that acquired land in the Appeal Suit Nos.321 and 322 of 1997 after fixing the market value at Rs.2000/- and after deducting 1/4th from that market value, I fixed the market value at Rs.1,500/- per Cent. But those lands were acquired under 4(1) notification on 18.10.1989 and in the present case, lands were acquired under 4(1) notification dated 24.07.1985 and therefore, having regard to the date of 4(1) notification in respect of the acquired land in the present appeals and the date of notification in respect of the Appeal Suit Nos.321 and 322 of 1997, which is latter in point of time, the same market value cannot be fixed for the acquired land in these appeals.
12.Therefore, even assuming that Rs.1,600/- per Cent can be taken as guidance for fixing the market value, having regard to the undeveloped nature of the acquired land, 1/4th from the value has to be deducted towards development charges and if so calculated the market value for the acquired land can be fixed at Rs.1,200/- per Cent and accordingly, I fixed the market value at Rs.1,200/- per Cent.
13.In the result, these appeals are allowed in part and the market value of the acquired land is reduced from Rs.1,400/- per Cent to Rs.1,200/- per Cent. In other aspects, the order of the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
Er To
1.The Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur.
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.