These appeals are directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Ranipet made in LAOP.Nos.24/96, 22/96 and 23/96 dated 30.4.1999 by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. (a) LAOP.No.24/96:
The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land, in survey No.22/7B measuring 0.12.0 hectare (0.30 acre) was belonging to the claimant and the said land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people by the Land Acquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Department and 4(1) notification was issued for that purpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after the statutory enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had also fixed 30% of the solatium and 12% as the additional value for the said land with interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988 and the claimant had refused to accept the same and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the said case to the Subordinate Court Ranipet for fixing the market value.
(b) LAOP.No.22/96:
The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land in survey No.22/7A measuring 0.11.5 hectare (0.28 acre) was belonging to the claimant and the said land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people by the Land Acquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Department and 4(1) notification was issued for that purpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after the statutory enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had also fixed 30% of the solatium and 12% as the additional value for the said land with interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988 and the claimant had refused to accept the same and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the said case to the Subordinate Court Ranipet for fixing the market value.
(c) LAOP.No.24/96:
The lands in Arcot Taluk, in Palaiyanur Village, Punja land in Survey No.12/15 A, an extent of 0.02.0 hectare, 22/4 B an extent of 0.18.0 hectare, in survey No.22/5 F, an extent of 0.09.0, in survey No.22/6 an extent of 0.24.5, in survey No.22/8 an extent of 0.05.0 hectare in survey No.23.2A, an extent of 0.42.5 and a total extent of 1.01.0 hectare (2.49 acres) were belonging to the claimant and the said lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people by the Land Acquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department and 4(1) notification was issued for that purpose on 23.12.1987 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken from the claimant on 10.1.1989 and after the statutory enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.123.08 per one cent and had also fixed 30% of the solatium and 12% as the additional value for the said land with interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988 and the claimant had refused to accept the same and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the said case to the Subordinate Court Ranipet for fixing the market value.
3. The lower court had enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands from Rs.123.08 per cent to Rs.400 per cent after perusing the evidence produced before the lower court. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the Land Acquisition Officer had preferred all the three appeals.
4. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S) for the appellant and T.S.Kanniyan for the respondents.
5. On a perusal of the records of the lower court and Judgment and decree passed by the lower court and arguments advanced on either side, this Court finds the following points for disposal in these appeals.
(i) Whether the finding of the lower court in fixing the market value at Rs.400 per cent on the date of 4(1) notification viz., 23.12.1987 for the acquired lands are liable to be set aside or modified?
(ii) to what relief the appellants are entitled for?
6. Point No (i) :
In Palaiyanur village in Survey.No.22/7B an extent of 0.12.0 hectare (0.30 acres); and in Survey No.12/15 A, an extent of 0.02.0 hectare, 22/4 B an extent of 0.18.0 hectare, in survey No.22/5 F, an extent of 0.09.0, in survey No.22/6 an extent of 0.24.5, in survey No.22/8 an extent of 0.05.0 hectare in survey No.23.2A, an extent of 0.42.5 and a total extent of 1.01.0 hectare (2.49 acres) and a well situated therein were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of disbursement of house sites to the Adi dravidar community people and accordingly, 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.12.1987 and after following the normal procedures under the said enactment and after the enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, he had fixed a sum of Rs.123.08 per one cent towards the compensation along with 30% solatium and 12% additional value and with usual interest and passed an award in A.No.3/88-89 dated 31.12.1988. The claimants/respondents did not accept, the said fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the cases were referred to Subordinate Judge, Ranipet for fixing the correct market value of the acquired lands. Accordingly, the lower court had examined the witnesses and had come to a conclusion of fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.400 per cent with 30% solatium and 12% additional value and interest given under the Act.
7. Learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S) would submit that the lower court in its Judgment had referred various evidence adduced on either side but it had not followed anything as a proved fact and no document produced on either side was taken for fixing the market value but it had come to a guess work by fixing a sum of Rs. 400 per cent. He would further submit that the documentary evidence in Ex.C.1 produced by the claimant was in respect of house site but Land Acquisition Officer had followed the same in respect of the Punja lands and fixed the value at Rs.123.08 per cent and therefore, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be upheld. He would therefore, request the court to set aside the order of the lower court in fixing the market value at Rs.400/- per one cent and to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit in his arguments that the oral evidence adduced on either side would go a long way, to show that the valuation of the property fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low and the document he relied upon cannot be used for ascertaining the value of the acquired lands since the said land was away from the acquired lands, whereas the property in Ex.C1 was only four survey numbers away from the acquired lands. As per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this value of the house site even though smaller in extent has to be adopted by following the deduction procedure. Accordingly, the value of one cent in Ex.C.1 was Rs.667 and suitable deduction of 20% can be applied to fix the correct market value and then if so fixed, it would be a justifiable one and the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer would not meet the ends of the justice. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the appeals.
9. After giving anxious considerations to the arguments advanced on either side, we could see that in all the three cases, the lower court had admitted Ex.C.1 a sale deed dated 30.12.1985 in which three cents of house site was sold for a sum of Rs.2000/-. To prove the sale deed, P.W.2 was examined and it was also upheld by the lower court. Even though, the said document was proved before the lower court, the said valuation was not adopted for fixing the value of the acquired lands by the lower court. However, it had come to a conclusion and awarded a sum of Rs.400 per cent without any basis. The property in the said sale relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer was admittedly away from the acquired lands, despite the said property was a Punja land. It is a settled law that when there was no sale deed available within the proximity of the acquired lands for the larger and similar extent, smaller extent of lands, could be compared with the acquired lands and the sale deeds containing smaller extent of sale can be applied for fixing the value for larger extent by using the deductions method. Therefore, in such circumstances , the lower court ought to have adopted the value mentioned in Ex.C.1. According to the Ex.C.1, one cent of land was sold in the year 30.12.1985 for Rs.667/-. The said extent of land was a house site and it is a smaller extent when compared with the acquired lands. The date of sale deed was two years prior to 4(1) notification viz., 23.12.1987. If we constrain to adopt the said valuation, suitable hike should be given for fixing the value as on the date of 4(1) notification. If it is considered to be 10% per year, 20% hike has to be ordered towards the value as an 4(1) notification date. As regards, the deduction of value towards the developmental charges of Punja land into house site, it could be fixed at 40%. Since proper area has to be left out for further development of Punja land into house site such 40% deduction is required. When the increase in respect of price and the deduction towards developmental charges are compromised and over all deduction of 20% should be made from its original value. When it is reduced by 20%, it comes to Rs.133.4 and when it is deducted out of Rs.667/-, the actual value per one cent would be at Rs.533/-. However, the lower court had fixed the value at Rs.400 per cent only. The respondents/claimants have not filed any cross objection for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, this Court cannot enhance the compensation from 400 per one cent to Rs.533 per one cent. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other way except to confirm the order passed by the lower court even though it was not properly arrived at by the lower court. Much less, it is below the market value arrived at in this appeal. Accordingly, the Judgment and award passed by the lower court are confirmed and all the appeals are dismissed.
V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH,J.
kua In fine, the Judgment and decree passed by the lower court are confirmed and the appeals preferred by the appellants are dismissed. There is no orders as to costs.