11.The Referring Officer rejected the Item Nos.1,2 on the ground that the property is situate nearer to the road and sold for exorbitant price and the sale deeds did not reflect the correct market value and rejected the Item No.3 and 4 stating that the land is far away from the acquired land and rejected the Item No.5, which was sold at Rs.8.91/- per sq.ft. stating that the land was sold for commercial purpose and was sold for competent price and hence, the sale consideration cannot be taken into account and on the same ground Item No.7 was rejected and the land was not similar to the acquired land. The Referring Officer accepted the Item No.6 in Survey No.324/9 stating that the land was sold on 03.02.1992 at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. and it was nearer to the date of acquisition and hence, that can be considered for fixing the market value of the acquired land and fixed Rs.2/- per sq.ft. as compensation.
12.It is seen from Ex.R1,the topography sketch that the land in Survey No.324/9 is situate away from the road and it is also admitted by the Referring Officer in his award, whereas the acquired land is abutting the road. Further the land in Survey No.208 has been classified as natham poromboke and it is situate 200 mtrs from the acquired land and it is also abutting the road. Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.V.K.Vijayaragahavan that having regard to the identical nature of the land in Survey No.208 and the acquired land, the lower court correctly applied the value of the land sold under Ex.A2.
13.He further contended that though it is stated in the award proceedings that the land in Survey No.324/9, the data land, is stated to be the land nearer to the acquired land, it is not situate nearer to the acquired land and the distance was not given in the award and it does not have the same potential and advantages of the acquired land and the land in Survey No.208, which was considered by the lower court is having all the potential and advantages of the acquired land and therefore, the lower court has correctly taken that value for arriving at the market value to be awarded for the acquired land.
14.Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan further submitted that under Ex.A1, the land in Survey No.208 was sold at the rate of Rs.4/-per sq. ft. in the year 1989 and within two years, the value has increased and in the year 1991 the land in Survey No.208 was sold at the rate of Rs.8.91/- per sf.ft. and the sale can be considered for the purpose of enhancing the compensation as notification came into effect much latter and therefore, the lower court after considering all these aspects, accepted the sale consideration made in Ex.A2 in respect of of survey No.208 and passed award at the rate of Rs.4.5/- per sf.ft.
15.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, appearing for the appellants submitted that the data land, which has been selected by the Referring Officer is similar to the acquired land and it is also situate nearer to the acquired land and therefore, that land ought to have been taken into consideration by the lower court and hence, the enhancement of compensation is not justified.
16.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsels. As discussed above, the question to be decided in these appeals is whether the value of the land in survey No.208 and Ex.A2 has to be taken into consideration for arriving at the market value or value of the land in Survey No.324/9 as taken by the Referring Officer to be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land. No-doubt, the land in Survey No.324/9 was sold on 03.02.1992, which is very closer to the date of acquisition.
17.It is also seen from the topography sketch that it is situate nearer to the acquired land, though the distance is not stated. At the same time, the land in Survey No.208 covered under sale deed, dated 22.08.1991 is also situate at the distance of 200 metrs. and from the topography sketch, it is also situate nearer to the acquired land. But, the lower court has preferred the sale in respect of Survey No.208 and as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the land in survey No.208 has got potential and advantage of the acquired land. Further, the acquired land and the land in Survey No.208 are abutting the road and both are house sites and the land was acquired only for the purpose of providing house sites. Further, it is seen from Ex.A1 the value of the land in and around the acquired land is increasing every year and it is made clear from Ex.A1 and A2 and within a period 2 years, the value has doubled. Further, the claimants examined themselves and let in evidence that nearer to the acquired land, there is a factory, I.T.I and Schools and there is no effective cross examination and denial on the evidence given by the claimants. Therefore, taking into consideration of all these aspects, the lower court has correctly taken the Survey No.208 for fixing the market value of the acquired land. The lower further has taken into consideration, the smallness of the land sold in Survey No.208 and after deducting 40% toward development of lands as well as for the smaller in area fixed the market value at Rs.4.50/- per sq.ft. and in my opinion, the lower court has correctly fixed the market value and sufficient reasons have been given by the lower, which does not call for any interference.
18.Hence, I am in agreement with the finding of the lower court and the judgment and decree of the lower court are confirmed. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
er To, The Sub Judge, Thanjavur.