The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar Welfare),Kangeyam v. Subburaya Gounder

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.12.2007CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.248 of 1996 andA.S.No.647 of 1997A.S.No.248/1996:The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar Welfare),Kangeyam. ... Appellant/Referring Officervs.Subburaya Gounder ... Respondent/ClaimantA.S.No.647/1997:Subburaya Gounder... Appellant/Claimantvs.The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar Welfare),Kangeyam. ... Respondent/ReferringOfficerAppeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree dated01.02.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1992 on the file of theSubordinate Judge, Dharapuram. In A.S.No.248/1996:For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader (AS)For Respondent : Mr. B.Eswaran for M/s. B.Bagyalakshmi- - - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In A.S.No.647/1997:For Appellant : Mr. B.Eswaran for M/s. B.BagyalakshmiFor Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader (AS)- - - - - COMMON JUDGMENTThe Appeal in A.S.No.248 of 1996 has been preferred by theappellant/ Special Tahsildar against the Judgment and Decree dated01.02.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1992 on the file of the LandAcquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. 2.The Appeal in A.S.No.647 of 1997 has been preferred by theappellant/claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.1994made in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1992 on the file of the Land AcquisitionTribunal/Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. 3. It is not in dispute that the land in question is 0.51.0hectares, bearing S.No.1314/7-B, situated in Kangeyam village, whichwas acquired by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) (AdiDravidar Welfare), Kangeyam for the purpose of constructingresidential houses for the people belonged to Adi Dravidar community.4.The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation atRs.60,000/- per acre for the acquired land and awarded compensationof Rs.13,099/-. As the respondent/claimant in A.S.No.248/1996received the amount under protest stating that the compensationawarded was inadequate, hence it was referred by the appellant inA.S.No.248/1996-the Referring Officer under Section 18(1) of the LandAcquisition Act.5.It is seen from the impugned judgment that before theTrial Court, the respondent/claimant in A.S.No.248/1996 was examinedas C.W.1 apart from examining C.W.2. On the side of the claimant,copy of the sale deeds Exs.C.1 and C.2 dated 10.02.1988 and05.09.1991 respectively were also marked. The Land AcquisitionOfficer (Special Tahsildar), Kangeyam was examined as R.W.1. Theaward dated 26.11.1991 passed by R.W.1 was marked as Ex.R.1.According to the said witness, 4(1) notification was issued on04.12.1989 and the possession of the acquired land was also takenover on the said date. The sales statistics relating to the villagebetween 02.02.1989 and 01.02.1990 given by the Sub Registrar,Chennimalai has been marked as Ex.R.2. The Village sketch showing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquired land, data land and the adjacent properties has been markedas Ex.R.3. 6.The Trial Court in the impugned judgment has discussed thedetails for fixing the market value for the acquired land. It is seenthat C.W.2 has deposed that on 10.02.1988, for the purpose ofconstructing Textile Shed, he approached the respondent/claimant inA.S.No.248/1996 for purchasing the land and asked Rs.60,000/- peracre but the witness C.W.2 offered only for Rs.45,000/- per acre,which was not accepted by the respondent/claimant. As per Ex.C.1 copyof the sale deed dated 10.02.1988, a land in S.No.798 has been soldat Rs.45,000/- per acre. The said sale has been shown in Sl.No.37 ofthe sales statistics Ex.R.2. But the Land Acquisition Officerrejected the aforesaid sale deed stating that the price wasexorbitant. Admittedly, 1 acre out of 10.74 acres of land waspurchased at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre as per the document.It is not in dispute that the acquired land is located very nearer tothe main road. 7.The Land Acquisition Officer, considering the data saledeed relating to S.No.51 in Ex.R.2, has fixed the compensation,whereby, 2.18 1/2 acres of land had been sold at Rs.15,000/- peracre, the market value for the acquired land was fixed at Rs.68.65/-per cent. But it is seen from Ex.R.3 sketch that the above said dataland is located far away from the main road whereas, the acquiredland is abutting the main road and that the land in Sl.No.37 is asimilarly situated land, that had been sold at Rs.45,000/- per acre.Admittedly, the sale has taken place prior to the date of 4(1)notification and the extent was also 1 acre out of 10.74 acres ofland. Further, considering the developmental activities, the Tribunalhas fixed the marked value of the acquired land of 0.51.0 hectares(1.26) acres at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per acre and accordingly forthe acquired land, Rs.47,250/- was ordered to be paid with 30%solatium and 12% Additional amount from the date of 4(1) notificationdated 04.12.1989 till the date of award dated 26.11.1991 withsubsequent interest and costs as per Section 23 of the LandAcquisition Act. 8.The Land Acquisition Tribunal, considering the sale deedEx.C.1 dated 10.02.1988, has decided the market value of the acquiredland at Rs.45,000/- per acre. It relates to the land in S.No.798/3,which was sold at Rs.45,000/- per acre. The sale deed Ex.C.1 had beenexecuted nearly two years prior to the date of 4(1) notificationunder the Land Acquisition Act. Further, the acquired land isabutting the North-West main road shown in Ex.R.3, sketch. Both theland relating to Ex.C1 and the acquired land are similarly placedlands, whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the land inS.No.807, which is admittedly far away from the main road. Hence, itcould not be construed as a similarly placed lands for deciding themarket value of the acquired land. While computing the market value https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the property, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has deductedRs.7,500/- and fixed the acquired value at Rs.37,500/- per acre. 9.Mr. B.Eswaran, learned counsel appearing for theappellant/claimant in A.S.No.647 of 1997 submits that the sale deedEx.C.1 was two years prior to the date of 4(1) notification.Therefore, considering the same, the value of the property has to beenhanced as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court invarious cases, the normal appreciation of market value of 10% perannum which could reasonably be added while computing the marketvalue, as per Ex.C.1. Considering the aforesaid facts andcircumstances, this Court is of the view to fix the market value ofthe acquired land at Rs.45,000/- per acre only on par with the landdescribed in Ex.C.1 without any deduction in the market value of theproperty. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the ReferringOfficer/Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangeyam is to bedirected to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre with30% solatium, 12% additional amount, interest and proportionate costas per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.10.In the result, the appeal in A.S.No.647 of 1997 preferredby the claimant is partly allowed on the above terms and the appealin A.S.No.248 of 1996 preferred by the Referring Officer/SpecialTahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangeyam is dismissed. However, inthis appeals, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.jrlTo1. The Subordinate Judge,Dharapuram.2. The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr.B.Bagyalakshmi, Advocate SR NO.72028 A.S.No.248 of 1996andA.S.No.647 of 1997akr[co]gp/26.3.