The Special Tahsildar(LA),Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirupathur v. T.S.Mohan Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 03.01.2008CORAM:The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.850 of 1996The Special Tahsildar(LA),Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirupathur.... Appellant/Referring Officer-vs-1.T.S.Mohan Rao2.The Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirupattur, North Arcot District. (R2 impleaded as 2nd respondent vide order of Court in CMP.No.10996/97 dt: 14.10.1997)... Respondents/Claimants This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land AcquisitionAct against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1987dated 14.02.1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) For R1 : M/s.S.Subbiah, Mr.D.RajaFor R2 : Mr.N.Muthusami for E.B.JUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment anddecree dated 14.02.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1987 on the file ofthe Land Acquisition Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruppathur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The referring officer, Special Tahsildar(LA), Tiruppathur haspreferred this appeal against the award of compensation by the LandAcquisition Tribunal. It is not in dispute that 2.37 acres of landin S.No.39/2A, Minnur village, Vaniyuur, was acquired for the purposeof establishing 116/11 K.V.sub-station. For the said acquisition ofthe land notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act waspublished, on 02.06.1992. The award was passed in award No.1/84 and1/85 dated 30.06.1984, whereby the land Acquisition Officer fixed themarket value of the acquired land at Rs.5,347/-per acre. Therespondent/claimant, received the amount under protest and at hisrequest the matter was referred under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. On the side of the respondent/claimant C.Ws.1 to 4were examined and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. The Land AcquisitionOfficer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on theside of the appellant. 3.The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidencehas decided the market value at Rs.1,040/-per cent and accordinglydirected the appellant herein to pay the compensation with 12%additional amount, 30% solatium and interest as per Section 23 of theLand Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which the appeal has beenpreferred.4.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader contended thatthe Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.1,040/- per cent whichis exorbitant. According to the learned counsel for the appellantfor enhancing the compensation there was no legal basis for theTribunal and for fixing the market value of the acquired land, theLand Acquisition Tribunal, ought not to have considered the sale of asimilar extent of land.5.Per contra, Mr.S.Subbiah learned counsel appearing for thefirst respondent would contend that the Tribunal has considered onlythe sale that had taken place prior to the date of issuance of 4(1)notification and further considering the extent of land, the Tribunaldeducted 20% of the value while computing the compensation for theacquired land. According to the learned counsel for the respondent,the Tribunal could not have deducted 20% of the value of the landtowards developmental expenses.6.It is seen that Ex.A1 is a certified copy of the sale deeddated 07.09.1981 whereby 2,180sq.ft. of land has been sold for a sumof Rs.6,540/- in S.No.151/2. Based on which, the Court below hasfixed the compensation at Rs.1,040/-per cent. The Land AcquisitionOfficer had decided the market value of the land at Rs.5,347/- peracre based on the sale deed dated 24.01.1981. It is seen from Ex.R3,topographic sketch that the land relating to Ex.R1 is notcomparatively similar to the acquired land. Whereas, the land in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.151/2 is a similarly situated nearby land, on the eastern sideof the road. The Land Acquisition Officer who was examined as R.W.1had admitted in his cross examination that there are number offactories in and around Ambur and Vaniyambadi areas and that the landwas acquired for the establishment of sub station for Tamil NaduElectricity Board, on Chennai-Kallikottai national highways. He hasfurther admitted that immediately on the northern of the acquiredland, there are factories and also one tourists taxies in the nameSaravana Takies. It is not in dispute that the acquired land issituated very nearer to Chennai-Jolarpet Railway track, nearVinnamangalam Railway Station. Further he has admitted that the landrelating to the sale deed, Ex.R1 is located nearly one furlong awayfrom the acquired land, whereas the land relating to Exs.C1 to C3 arenearby the acquired land. Though the land described in Ex.C1 isnearer to the acquired land and the sale had taken place prior to thedate of 4(1) notification, it could not have been considered fordeciding the market value of the acquired land. Merely because it isa lesser extent, the sale deed cannot be ignored by the authorities,since the claimant is entitled to just and fair compensation for theacquired land. Ex.R2 is the certified copy of the sale statisticsregister. It is not in dispute that the sale relating to Ex.C1 a landin S.No.151/2, is for a similarly placed, but smaller extent of land,considering the said fact, the land Acquisition Tribunal has deducted20% of the value, while computing the market value of the acquiredland. There is no justifiable reason available in the evidence ofR.W.1 for rejecting the sale under of Ex.C1, since, the sale hadtaken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification. Admittedly,there is no evidence to hold that the sale had taken place prior tothe date of 4(1) notification with malafide intention of claimingmore compensation. 7.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that thereis no error in considering Ex.C1, Sale deed for fixing the marketvalue of the acquired land. Accordingly, the Tribunal has computedthe market value of the data land at Rs.1,300/-per cent and afterdeducting 1/5th of the amount towards developmental charges, thevalue of the acquired land has been fixed at Rs.1,040/- per cent bythe Tribunal and as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 12%additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till 02.06.1994the date of taking over possession was ordered, apart from 30%solatium and subsequent interest. Considering the oral anddocumentary evidence available on record and the arguments advancedby both the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no erroror infirmity in the impugned Judgment, so as to interfered with thesame. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.In the result, confirming the judgment and decree passed bythe Land Acquisition Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed. However,there is no order as to cost.SmiSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo,1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+1 cc to Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate Sr.No.536.+1 cc to Mr.N.Muthusami, Advocate Sr.No.391.+1 cc to The Government pleader Sr.No.318.KSJ(CO)DCP/25.2.08A.S.No.850 of 1996