The Revenue Divisional Officer vs E. Bagavathiammal @ Vijayalakshmi and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—This appeal is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge,

Nagercoil made in L.A.O.P. No. 24 of 1990 and reference was made u/s 18 of the Act.

Land in T.S. Nos. H4-38 and H4-39 measuring an extent of 2.72.404 acres situate in the village of Agastheeswaram, Nagercoil Taluk was

acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters and office building for Special Bureau, Government of India, Nagercoil, under 4(1) notification

dated 08.04.1987. After complying with the legal formalities the Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs. 1600/- per Cent for the acquired

land. The claimants not being satisfied with the same sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P. No. 24 of 1990 on

the file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil, and the learned Sub Judge enhanced the market value at Rs. 2,500/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the

enhancement this appeal is filed by the appellant.

Before the lower Court, on the side of the claimants one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 5 documents were marked and on the side of the

appellant one witness was examined and 2 documents were marked.

The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation made by the lower Court is justified or not?

The lower Court while fixing the compensation at Rs. 2,500/- per Cent mainly based on the judgment of this Honourable Court made in A.S.

No. 256 of 1984 in respect of land in T.S. No. H3/17-1 of an extent of 1.57 acres in the same village, wherein this Honourable Court has fixed

the market value at Rs. 2,200/- per Cent. In that appeal A.S. No. 256 of 1984, 4(1) notification was dated 02.04.1980 and in this case, 4(1)

notification was dated 08.04.1987. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that having regard to the

lapse of more than 7 years the lower Court ought to have considered the higher value but the lower Court fixed the market value only at Rs.

2,500/- per Cent and hence, it should not be interfered with.

It is seen from the topography sketch that the acquired land in this appeal and the land which was acquired in the subject matter of A.S. No.

256 of 1984 are adjacent lands. The appellant while fixing the market value for the acquired land considered nearly 84 sale deeds and selected the

land in T.S. No. H3/15-4 as data land, which was sold on 04.06.1986 at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- for 20 Cents and fixed the market value at Rs.

1,600/- per Cent.

It is seen from the topography sketch that the appellant has considered number of sale deeds in respect of T.S. No. H4 and without giving any

details about the sale consideration rejected those sale deeds on the ground that those lands were classified as ''manai'' and the acquired land was

classified as ''dry land'' and therefore, they cannot be compared. In my opinion, the dry lands also can be converted into house sites and the

purpose for which the lands were acquired in this appeal was for the purpose of constructing office building.

Further, in respect of 4(1) notification in the year 1980 for the adjacent land this Honourable Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 2,200/-

per Cent. Further, the lower Court has elaborately considered the location advantage of the acquired land and after taking into account the

judgment of this Honourable Court made in A.S. No. 256 of 1984 and having regard to the date of 4(1) notification in respect of this acquired

land, the lower Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 2,500/- per Cent. In my opinion, the lower Court has correctly fixed the market value and

therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Court.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the lower Court is confirmed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed. No

costs.