The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare vs Hyder Ali

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The above appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30.9.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1993 on the

file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.30/- per cent to a sum of Rs.600/- per

cent for the dry land of an extent of 1.66.0 hectares located in S.No.206/1B in Kallikudi village, Paramakudi taluk, Ramanathapuram District

acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to adidravidars, pursuant to the notification dated 22.5.1991 made u/s 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

Aggrieved by the award dated 23.3.1992 at the rate of Rs.30/- per cent, the land owner (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), made a

reference u/s 18(1) of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent. The claimant placed reliance on,

Ex.A1-copy of sale deed dated 28.3.1990

Ex.A2-copy of sale deed dated 31.7.1989

Ex.A3-copy of sale deed dated 12.4.1989

Ex.A4-copy of sale deed dated 14.2.1991

Ex.A5-copy of sale deed dated 19.4.1991

Ex.A6-copy of sale deed dated 16.1.1992.

Per contra, the appellant, placing reliance on the award made by the land acquisition officer, which is based on the value of the adjacent lands

assigned to the harijans, resisted the enhancement of compensation. Concededly, the appellant/land acquisition authority has not placed reliance on

any other registered document on their part.

The learned Subordinate Judge, while considering the documents relied upon by the claimant, refused to place reliance on Ex.A-2, A-3 and A-

4, as the same were related to the lands far away from the impugned lands. Similarly, reliance placed on Ex.A-5 and A-6, was also rejected as the

said exhibits related to 480 and 375 sq.ft. But, the learned subordinate Judge, without assigning any reason, refused to rely upon Ex.A.1, sale deed

dated 28.3.1990 and awarded the compensation at Rs.600/- per cent in random. Hence the above appeal.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated their respective

claim that were agitated before the learned Subordinate Judge based on the documents referred to above.

We have given our careful consideration to the same. Concededly, Ex.A-1 relates to the land located in S.No.220 of Kallukudi village itself and

Exs.A-2 and A-3 are related to S.No.277 of a different village viz., revenue village No.2, Melaparthibanur, which is located in the centre of the

developed township. Exs.A-5 and A-6 also admittedly relates to an extent of 480 and 375 sq.ft dated 19.4.1991 and 16.1.1992 relating to a very

small extent of land, which, in our opinion, cannot be relied upon for fixing the compensation for the impugned lands viz., an extent of 1.66.0

hectares acquired for providing house sites to adidravidars, for which purpose a minimum of 20% is liable to be deducted towards developmental

charges.

A bare reading of the order of the learned subordinate Judge makes it clear that there is absolutely no discussion for the refusal to accept

Ex.A1, sale deed dated 28.3.1990 as the basis for fixing the compensation, though there is no dispute that the land sold under the sale deed

marked as Ex.A-1 dated 28.3.1990 is located in the very same village viz., village No.1, Kallukudi, Paramakudi taluk, Ramanathapuram District,

and adjacent to the impugned lands, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to reject Ex.A1 for the purpose of fixing the award amount. Therefore, taking Ex.A1 as the

basis, for which there cannot be any valid objection on behalf of the appellant, and deducting 20% of the value towards developmental charges,

we are obliged to fix the rate of compensation at Rs.1200/- per cent for the impugned lands, because the said document Ex.A-1 was registered

much earlier to the date of Section 4(1) notification made u/s 4(1) of the Act and the reliance on the said document by the petitioner, is in our

opinion, bonafide. In which event, the learned subordinate Judge has committed an error in refusing to place reliance on Ex.A1, as it is settled law

that where documentary evidence are available for arriving at the market rate of the land acquired, it is improper to award the compensation in

random.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge at Rs.600/- per cent, in

random is without any rhyme or reason, arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, we are inclined to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.1200/-per

cent as arrived at, along with statutory benefits viz., 12% additional compensation u/s 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of

Section 4(1) notification till the date of award or taking possession, whichever is earlier and 30% solatium on the same with additional interest at

9% per annum for a period of one year from the sasi date of taking possession and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of payment.

The above appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.