Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Referring Officer vs Pushpa and The Executive Engineer and Admn. Officer, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board

K. Chandru, J.—This appeal is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Cuddalore against the judgment and decree in

LAOP No. 91 of 1996 dated 18.7.2003. The appeal is filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequent to the numbering of the appeal,

notice was given to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per the statutory requirement and the Standing Counsel appears.

Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned Counsel for the

Housing Board.

The land of the 1st respondent situated in Kilperumbattur Village at Villupuram was taken over for implementing the neighbourhood scheme in

constructing houses for the public. The 1st respondent claimant, who owned lands to the extent of 1720.5 Sq.ft in Survey No. 32/10B, was not

satisfied with the compensation ordered by the acquiring authority. It was Rs. 7.35p per Sq.ft. In view of the objection to the low compensation

paid, the matter was referred for determination of the market value by the jurisdictional reference court. The Second Additional Sub Court,

Villupuram to which the matter was allotted registered the same as LAOP No. 91 of 1996. Before the Reference court on behalf of the claimant,

her husband Rajamani was examined as P.W.1 and on their side 4 documents were marked, which are Ex.P.1 to P.4. On the side of the appellant,

one Duraikumar was examined as R.W.1. Surprisingly, no documents were produced by the acquiring authority. The Reference Court on the basis

of these materials found that the Document No. 867/90 dated 30.5.1990 alone was considered as a data land and the same reflected the value of

Rs. 4 per Sq.ft. Though Rs. 7.35 per Sq.ft was fixed, the amounts were deducted towards development charges. The Reference Court found

Exs.P.1 to P.4 are more reliable. Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 4.8.1988 in R.S. No. 163/2B is situated in the same village. Likewise Ex.P.2 Sale Deed

dated 10.7.1991 is also in the same village in R.S. No. 168/3B to the extent of 1875 Sq.ft vacant site. Ex.P.3 Sale Deed dated 7.9.1989 is also

situated in the same Village to the extent of 1000 Sq.ft in Survey No. 38/, which is also a vacant site. Likewise, Ex.P.4 Sale Deed dated

28.2.1990 is situated in the same Village in Survey No. 157/4B to the extent of 900 Sq.ft, which is also a vacant site. The Reference Court also

found that Ex.P.4 correctly reflects the market value of the acquired land. It related to the period before Section 4(1) Notification and the amount

fixed by the acquiring officer was very low and therefore the reference court held that the claimant was entitled to for higher compensation. On the

said basis, the court below came to the conclusion that if the market value of Ex.P.4, which was to the extent of 900 Sq.ft was Rs. 22,500/-, then

the Square Feet costs worked out to Rs. 25/-. It is on that basis, the court below came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for additional

compensation. It also provided for solatium and other statutory payment. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended that the court below ought not

to have accepted Ex.P.1 to P.4 and the lands were situated far away from the lands which are acquired and more acceptable rate than what is

found in the data land. It is also contended that Ex.P.4 is also the extent of 2 Cents, which cannot reflect the correct market value. But, this

argument overlooks the fact that the claimant''s land is only 1720.5 Sq.ft Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition was to the larger extent of

land and the exemplaries in Ex.P.1 to P.3 can be taken into account. In the present case, the land has been acquired for house sites. Therefore, no

further development is required in the land in all other heads. What was sold is only is a vacant site. Further, it must be stated that on the side of the

appellant, no documents were filed and relying upon statistical data alone cannot be a true indicator for determination of the market value. It must

be understood that the reference u/s 18(1) is not an appeal and the court below is not obliged to go into the statistical data though it could form the

basis for the acquiring authority.

The Supreme Court, in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, , at page 754 held as follows:

The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:

(1) A reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied

upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.

(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material

produced before it.

Even otherwise, the court below did not take into account the exemplaries in Ex.P.1 to P.3 but only took note of Ex.P.4, which was admittedly

before the 4(1) Notification. When the court below was conscious about the guideline prescribed u/s 23 and applied the guidelines correctly with

reference to the materials available, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered judgment. Even otherwise, the 1st respondent is

not being served in this case, it is an additional factor to reject the appeal. Hence, the appeal suit stands dismissed. Since the contesting respondent

is not before this Court, no cost is ordered.