This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.48 of 1992 dated 07.02.1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2.It is an admitted fact that an extent of 0.03.5 heactares of land in S.No.128/17A at Mambakkam village, Madurantakam Taluk was acquired for the purpose of forming a canal under the Krishna Water project. A notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the land acquisition proceedings was published on 17.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.109/-per cent. The respondent/claimant received the compensation under protest and at his request the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and also the arguments advanced by both sides and enhanced the market value of the land at Rs.1,250/-per cent. Aggrieved by which the Referring Officer, Special Tahsildar(LA) Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Unit 1, Maduranthakam Taluk has preferred this appeal.
3.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, since as per award No.3/91 dated 21.02.1991, the land acquisition officer has fixed the compensation only at Rs.109/-per cent. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to page No.6 of the typed set wherein the date of 4(1) notification has been stated as 17.08.1988 whereas, in the impugned judgment the Court below has stated the date of 4(1) notification as 02.09.1988. It is not in dispute that notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 17.08.1988 in TamilNadu Government Gazettee No.32A, Part-II at Page Nos.11 to 13. On 02.09.1988 the same was published by way of advertisement at Mampakkam Village, Madhurantakam Taluk. Prior to that date, on 16.08.1988, publication in "Daily Thanthi" and "Makkal Kural" was effected. Considering the fact, the date of 4(1) notification has to be legally presumed as 17.08.1988 as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, since it was Gazette publication on the earliest date. It is seen from the award and the impugned judgment that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the sale consideration relating to S.No.78/6 that had taken place on 09.02.1988 and decided the market value at Rs.109/-per cent.
4.In this appeal it is not in dispute that the respondent/claimant was the owner of the acquired land of 58 cents in S.No.128/1A. The Land acquisition officer has taken the sale deeds relating to the suit village for the period between 02.09.1985 and 01.09.1988. As per Ex.B1 on 05.02.1988, 94 cents of land in S.No.78/6 had been sold for Rs.10,250/-. A certified copy of the award in award No.3/91 has been marked as Ex.B2. Ex.B3 is the sketch showing the acquired land, data land and other lands of Mambakkam village, Madurathakam Taluk. It is seen that the respondent/claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and the original sale deed dated 30.05.1996 executed in favour of the Sundarammal, the respondent herein by one Raja Naicker and others, has been marked as Ex.A1 whereby 8 cents of land in S.No.128/1 was sold for Rs.5,400/- in the year 1986 itself. Ex.A2 is the certified Xerox copy of the sale deed dated 08.05.1987 whereby 30 cents of land in S.No.128/1B2 had been sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The land Acquisition Officer who was examined as R.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that on 09.02.1988 itself in S.No.98/6, the land was sold at Rs.1,091/-per cent. There is no justifiable reason on the side of the appellant/referring officer for not considering the sale deeds Exs.A1 and A2 for deciding the market value of the acquired land and further Ex.A1, Sale Deed was executed nearly two years prior to the date of 4(1) notification. As per the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the sale deeds one year prior to the date of 4(1) notification per year 10% value can be added towards escalation of market value of the land. If the same is considered, while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the value fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,250/-per cent would not be exorbitant. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has considered all these factual aspects and has reasonably fixed the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, apart from awarding 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession of the land, 30% solatium and interest for one year at 9% p.a. from the date of award and for subsequent period 15% p.a. interest and costs.
5.Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree to be interfered with by this Court. In the result, confirming the award passed by the Court below, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.
10.01.2008 Smi Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No S.TAMILVANAN,J.
Smi To,
1. The Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Record Keeper,V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
A.S.No.771 of 1996 10.01.2008