This Appeal Suit has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer as against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal,(Subordinate Court), Periyakulam, in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1993, dated 11.11.1994.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The lands measuring an extent of 0.005 Hectares in Survey No.217/5A2, an extent of 0.28.5 Hectares in 217/5B2 and an extent of 0.17.0 Hectares in Survey No.315/2B (totally 0.46.0 Hectares) were acquired from the respondent/claimant in Mallingapuram Village in Uthamapalayam Taluk. The lands were acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of canal under Shanmugha Nadhi Reservoir Scheme. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued in the year 1990 and the same was also published in the Gazatte on 26.12.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 01.02.1993, fixing compensation by taking into consideration the market value at Rs.110/- per cent for the acquired land. Since the claimant sought for reference to get just compensation, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Tribunal by an award dated 11.11.1994 in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1993, enhanced the market value from Rs.110/- per cent to Rs.850/- per cent relying upon the Sale Deed, dated 07.01.1988. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the loss suffered by the claimant on account of failure of two crops due to acquisition and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for the pipelines, stones and wire mesh provided by the claimant for grape plants. As against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the present Appeal has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The Additional Government Pleader challenged the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal mainly on the ground that the document relied upon by the Tribunal was in respect of very small extent of 2 cents and that the Tribunal has not allowed any deduction either towards development charges or towards lumpsum payment. It was further contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the award of a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards failure of two crops on account of acquisition is unreasonable particularly when there is no evidence to substantiate the alleged claim of the land owner. The further contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages caused to the pipelines and other materials.
4. The first submission with regard to the market value is only on the basis that the Tribunal has failed to allow deduction which is normally expected when the Court fixes compensation on the basis of Sale Deed which are only in respect of small extent of land. Admittedly, in this case the Sale Deed relied upon by the Tribunal is only in Ex.C.7. It is pertinent to note that the land measuring an extent of 2 cents is involved in the Sale Deed. However, this Court find that the document is just two years prior to Notification under
Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act and that therefore normally the Court can add at least a certain percentage between 24% to 30% to the value shown in the document to fix the market value. The land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of canal under Shanmugha Nadhi Reservoir Scheme. The entire land is going to be utilised for that purpose and therefore, no deduction is normally permissible towards development. Taking into account, the allowance for appreciation of value at the rate of 12% per annum, this court find that the market value ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs.1,060/- per cent instead of Rs.850/- per cent. Even if a deduction of 25% is allowed, there is no much difference between the value arrived at by the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the calculation indicated above. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not allowed any addition towards appreciation of value, while relying upon Sale exemplar which is two years prior to the issuance of Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, no deduction need to be allowed for fixing compensation on the basis of Sale Deed in respect of smaller extent of land. Due to lapse of quarter century, a small difference if any can be ignored.
5. I do not find any justification for reducing the market value arrived at by the Tribunal as far as the award of a sum of Rs.40,000/- regarding the loss that was occasioned due to the acquisition. Since the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of the claimant which was not controverted by any competent witness on the side of the respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings, regarding the award of a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards failure of two crops on account of acquisition. The award of a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages caused to the pipelines and other works of the claimant is supported by oral evidence of C.W.1. Since the Land Acquisition Tribunal has given findings on the appreciation of evidence and materials, I do not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
6. For all the above reasons, the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Periyakulam, in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1993, dated 11.11.1994, is confirmed and accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.