Murugaiah and Others vs Special Tahildar (L.A) Athi Dravidar Welfare

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—These two appeals are filed against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P. No. 79 of 1993, on the file of Sub Court, Tenkasi.

A.S. No. 88 of 1997 was filed by the claimants claiming enhancement of compensation from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 2,000/-.

A.S. No. 1026 of 1997 was filed by the Special Thasildhar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Tenkasi, challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by Sub Court, Tenkasi from Rs. 400/- per Cent to Rs. 600/- per Cent.

As both the appeals are against the same judgment, the appeals were heard together and common judgment is pronounced.

Lands in Survey No. 436/1,2A, 2B, 3 & 4 in Naduvayal village, Tenkasi Taluk, of an extent of 0.99.5 hectare equivalent to 2.46 acres were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-Dravidars under 4(1) notification dated 10.02.1993 and possession was taken on 10.09.1993. The Acquisition Officer after complying with the legal formalities passed an award in award No. 2/93-94 dated 28.08.1993, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 400/- per Cent. Not being satisfied with the fixation of market value by the Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of compensation at Rs. 3,750/- per Cent and accordingly, that was referred to in L.A.O.P. No. 79 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi and the learned Sub Judge after perusing the documents enhanced the market value from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 600/-per Cent. Aggrieved over the enhancement, these appeals were filed by the respective parties.

Before the learned Sub Judge, the claimants examined one witness and marked a sale deed as Ex.C1 and on the side of the Acquisition Officer, the various pages in the file relating to the Land Acquisition Proceedings were marked.

The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation by the lower Court is correct or it has to be reduced or further enhancement has to be ordered as claimed by the claimants/appellants?

A perusal of the acquisition proceedings, would reveal that the acquired land is a patta punjai lands and the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-Dravidars. It is further stated in the award that there is no other suitable poromboke lands available for allotment as house sites to Adi-Dravidars and hence, the patta lands belonging to the claimants were acquired. The Acquisition Officer considered 28 sale deeds and found that lands in Survey No. 362/1 of an extent of 12 cents sold under sale deed dated 05.02.1992 for a sum of Rs. 3,480/- can be taken into consideration and fixed the market value at Rs. 290/- per Cent and after awarding the solatuim and additional interest @ 12% per annum passed the award. Therefore, it is seen from the acquisition proceedings the market value was fixed at Rs. 290/- per Cent and not Rs. 400/- as claimed by both the parties in the above appeals. As a matter of fact, before the trial Court also the parties proceeded on the basis that the Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 400/- per Cent. According to me, the assumption by the parties as well as the lower Court that the Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs. 400/- per Cent is not correct and a perusal of the award would make it clear that the Acquisition Officer fixed Rs. 290/- per Cent.

The learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that the learned Sub Judge arbitrarily fixed the market value at Rs. 600/- per Cent and no reason has been stated for fixing the market value at Rs. 600/- per Cent. On the other-hand Mr. P.T.S.Narendravasan, the learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the land covered under Ex.C1 is in respect of Survey No. 442 and it is situate nearer to the acquired land and it was sold at the rate of Rs. 3530/- per Cent on 04.11.1991 and the data land considered by the Acquisition Officer is situate in Survey No. 362/2 and it is far away from the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.C1 has got the same advantages as that of the acquired land and therefore, the market value must be enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- per Cent as per Ex.C1.

Admittedly, the land which was acquired is capable of being converted into house sites. The land in Survey No. 442 covered under Ex.C1 though not situate nearer to the acquired land, it is situate nearer to the acquired land than the data land considered by the lower Court and the Acquisition Officer. Unfortunately, in these appeals, the topography sketch was not marked and it is also not available in the records and therefore, having regard to the survey number we have to presume that survey No. 442 covered under Ex.C1 must be nearer to the acquired land than the data land, which is Survey No. 362.

No-doubt the land sold under Ex.C1 is a small extent and it was sold for Rs. 3,530/- per Cent. Having regard to the nature of the land, which is not nearer to the acquired land, in my opinion, the value of the acquired land can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2000/- per Cent and having regard to the nature of acquired land, which is undeveloped 1/4th has to be deducted from the acquired land and if so, the value of the market value of the acquired land can be fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per Cent.

In these appeals, as stated by me, I am handicapped due to the non-availability of the topography sketch and therefore, I fix the market value on the basis of the same guess work and assumption, which is also permissible in such cases. Therefore, I fix the market value at Rs. 1,500/- per Cent and hence, the appeal filed by the State A.S. No. 1026 of 1996 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants in A.S. No. 88 of 1997 is allowed in part and the market value is enhanced from Rs. 600/- to 1,500/- per Cent. In other aspects, the order of the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.