The Special Tahsildar (LA),Double Way Railway Scheme,Tambaram, Madras 45 v. B.Radhakrishna Reddy (died)2.R.Kasthuri3.R.Ram Mohan4.R.Krishnamurthy5.R.Sukumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.11.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.617 of 1996andC.M.P.No.3038 of 1998inCross Objection SR.16212 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar (LA),Double Way Railway Scheme, Tambaram, Madras 45. .. Appellant in Appeal 617/96 and Respondent in Cross Objection (Referring Officer)Vs.

B.Radhakrishna Reddy (died)

R.Kasthuri3.R.Ram Mohan4.R.Krishnamurthy5.R.Sukumar .. Respondents in Appeal 617/96 and Cross Objectors in Cross Objection/Claimants(RR 2 to 5 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent as per order of this Court in C.M.P.Nos.9329 and 9330 of 1999 dated 17.09.2001).Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the SubordinateJudge, Poonamallee in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 1989, dated 30.06.1995.For Appellant in Appeal and for the Respondent in Cross Objection : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government PleaderFor Respondents in Appeal and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection: Mr.G.Kathirvelu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred by the Special Tahsildar (LandAcquisition), Double Way Railway Scheme, Tambaram, Chennai-45, against thejudgment and decree dated 30.06.1995 made in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 1989, on thefile of the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Court, Poonamallee. 2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent owned theproperty in question, house site measuring 11 cents in SurveyNo.50-B/4, situated in Irumbuliyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, which wasacquired by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Double Way RailwayScheme, Tambaram, Chennai-45 for the purpose of doubling the Railway Trackbetween Tambaram and Chengalpattu. After the demise of the firstrespondent, his legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents 2to 5. It is seen that notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, was issued on 22.07.1987 as per award No.2/86-87 dated22.09.1986 (A7.22143/82/LA). The Referring Officer had fixed thecompensation at Rs.833/- per cent for the acquired land of 11 cents. Aggrieved by which, the first respondent herein had preferred referenceunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. On the side of the respondents/claimants, C.W.1 was examinedapart from marking Exs.A.1 to A.7. On the side of the appellant/SpecialTahsildar, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Exs.B.1 to B.3.

The Land Acquisition Tribunal considering the evidence bothoral and documentary and also the arguments advanced by both the learnedcounsel, has held that the claimant was entitled to the compensation atthe rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by which, the appellant/SpecialTahsildar has preferred this appeal stating that the compensation awardedby the Tribunal is exorbitant.

On the other hand, the respondents/claimants have filed crossappeal for enhancement of compensation stating that the Tribunal hasawarded inadequate compensation.

Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearingfor the appellant would contend that the Land Acquisition Officer hadawarded compensation based on Ex.B.2, the Sale deed dated 08.08.1986whereby, one S.K.Ranga Rao sold his agricultural land to one Ms.JyotsnaKalyanasundaram, but admittedly, it is an agricultural land. It is seenthat the Land Acquisition Tribunal has considered all the sale deeds whichwere executed prior to the date of 4(1) notification and marked asexhibits on the side of the claimants as well as the respondent whilefixing the compensation for the acquired land.

It is not in dispute that the acquired land is situated, verynearer to Tambaram, outskirts of Chennai City. Ex.A.1 is a sale deed dated03.02.1988 executed by one G.Gopal in favour of one Nithyanandam at therate of Rs.7,000/- per cent. As the sale deed being a subsequent document https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the date of 4(1) notification under the Act, the same was notconsidered by the Tribunal for fixing the value of the acquired land. Similarly, the sale deed marked as Ex.A.6, dated 20.07.1987 executed byone Vengai Ammal in favour of Parvathi at the rate of 2,396 per cent, wasalso not considered by the Tribunal. Since as per the sale deed, only awet land of 5 cents had been conveyed and in the document, the same hasbeen stated as Nanja land used for cultivation, and hence the Tribunal hasconsidered Exs.A.3, A.4 and A.5 for fixing the market value of theacquired land. Under Ex.A3 Sale deed dated 10.07.1987, Plot No.92-B,Survey No.170, T.T.K.Nagar, Irumbuliyur Village, has been sold at the rateof Rs.5,633/- per cent and the total consideration of the said property isRs.20,000/-. Ex.A.3, Sale deed has been executed by one Smt.

On the facts and circumstances, this Court is of theconsidered view that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has properly consideredthe facts and circumstances, which deciding compensation to therespondents/claimants by referring the sale considerations relating to thesale deeds executed prior to the date of 4(1) notification. As per thetopographical sketch it is seen that under the sale deeds, similarlyplaced lands have been sold prior to the date of 4(1) notification andtherefore, I am of the view that the appeal deserves no meritconsideration and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

In the Cross Appeal, though the respondents/claimants hereinhave claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per cent, there is noevidence available on record to decide the compensation at Rs.7,000/-percent. The oral testimony of C.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents/claimants are entitled to claim the compensation at the rateof Rs.7,000/- per cent and therefore, I am of the view that the CrossAppeal is also liable to be dismissed.

In the result, confirming the judgment and decree passed bythe Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Court, Poonamallee, both the appeal andthe Cross Appeal are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarjrlTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.2. The Record Keeper,V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.G.Kathirvelu, Advocate, SR.68381.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.68592.A.S.No.617 of 1996 NG(CO)RVL 10.01.2008