Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRASDATED: 14.08.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAA.S.No.936 of 2001 The Land Acquisition Officer(Special Tahsildar)Adi Dravidar WelfareKrishnagiri... Appellant/Respondentvs1.Thekkiammal @ Thiruppathiammal2.Periyappan @ Lakshmana Gounder3.Chandran4.Natesan5.Indirani.. Respondents/ClaimantsAppeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1996 inL.A.O.P.No.93 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judgeof Krishnagiri. For appellant :: Mr.V.Ravi Additional Government Pleader (AS) For respondents :: Mr.V.Raghavachari JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decreedated 20.11.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in L.A.O.P. No.93 of 1993. For convenience sake, theparties are referred to here under according to their litigativestatus before the Trial Court.

Heard both sides.

The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary andgermane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of0.51.5 hectares (1.27 acres) in S.No.171/4A1 B4A in SavalurVillage, Krishnagiri Taluk, for the purpose of providing housing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sites to Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with theprocedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land andassessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.238.10p per cent. Beingaggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner gotthe matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act.4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of theclaimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A2 were marked. Onthe side of the respondent, no witness was examined and Ex.B1 wasmarked.

The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation fromRs.238.10p to Rs.800/- per cent.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the SubCourt, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal onvarious grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: Without any basis, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader wouldpray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the ReferenceCourt.

The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courtwas justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.238.10p toRs.800/- per cent.

The learned Additional Government Pleader placing relianceon the grounds of appeal would contend that the Sub court was notjustified in enhancing the compensation without any objectivestandard.

A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court wouldclearly demonstrate that the Reference Court after narrating thefacts, simply jumped to the conclusion that the land acquired washaving the potentiality of becoming a plot area and that it was afruitful land etc., and simply awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/-per acre, which means Rs.800/- per cent, whereas, the LandAcquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.238.10p per cent, whichmeans, per acre he awarded a sum of Rs.23,810/-.

On the side of the land owner, Exs.C1 and C2 were filed. Ex.C1 is the sale deed dated 15.03.1990 which emerged subsequent tothe publication of Section 4(1) notification dated 16.10.1989. Assuch, it cannot be taken into consideration, whereas, Ex.C2 is thesale deed that emerged on 25.10.1988, which is anterior to Section4(1) notification and the fact also remains that the land relatingto Ex.C2 is situated in S.No.149/1A measuring an extent of 1886 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sq.ft. of plot area, which means, per cent of land was sold for asum of 95p. per sq.ft. The land acquired is situated in S.No.171/4which is nearer to the land contemplated under Ex.C2. As such, there is nothing to indicate that Ex.C2 is a cooked up document orpurely brought out for boosting up the valuation. As such, Ex.C2can be relied upon for assessing the compensation.

At this junction, my mind in redolent with the followingdecisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu](2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India](3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others](4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others](5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. SpecialLand Acquisition Officer and others]

As per the aforesaid decisions, while taking intoconsideration a smaller extent of plot area for assessing a largerarea of agricultural land, necessary deduction should be madetowards development charges and normally it should be one-third. No contrary decision could be cited on the side of the land owner. Accordingly1.Per square foot 95p and it could be taken as Re.1.2.For one cent of land or 436 sq.ft., it comes to Rs.436/-.