The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare vs Muthu Konar

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai

made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988, increasing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.23.40 per cent to Rs.650/- per

cent, for the land of an extent of 1.20 acres located in Survey No.255/4 in Rahinipattai Village, Sivagangai District, acquired pursuant to the

notification dated 27.8.1986 issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of providing housing sites to Adi Dravidars.

2.1. Mr. E. Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate challenges the enhancement of compensation made by learned Subordinate Judge,

Sivagangai in the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988, preferred u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the

respondent/claimant, on the ground that the enhancement was made without any basis and without taking into consideration any documentary

evidence.

2.2. Mr. E. Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate also invited our attention to the documents relied upon by the Land Acquisition

Officer in the award proceedings dated 15.12.1987, whereunder land of an extent of 41 cents located in the very same village, in the same survey

No.255/6 was sold under document No.1330, registered on 16.9.1984 at the rate of Rs.220/- per cent. Since the impugned lands are also in the

very same survey number, viz., S.No.255/4 in the same village, there cannot be any objection for taking into consideration the document relating to

sale of land pertaining to Survey No.255/6 of Rahinipattai Village, Sivagangai District, as referred to above, as a basis for arriving at the

compensation.

Per contra, Mr. A.S. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, reiterating the reasons that weighed the learned Subordinate

Judge, Sivagangai in enhancing the compensation from Rs.23.40 per cent to Rs.650/- per cent in the order dated 30.4.1992 under appeal,

contends that there is no necessity to interfere with the said compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai taking the

market value of one cent at Rs.300/- and awarding a compensation for the trees and better location and finally arriving at Rs.650/- per cent.

After careful consideration, we are unable to appreciate the reasons that weighed the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai. It is true, in the

fixation of rate of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, there is always some element of guesswork. But that has to be based on some

foundation. It must spring from the totality of evidence, the pattern of rate, the pattern of escalation and escalation of price in the years preceding

and succeeding the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the guesswork could reasonably be inferable from it. In the instant case,

the enhancement of the compensation under the judgment and decree under appeal from Rs.23.40 per cent to Rs.650/- per cent is without basis

or reasons. When documentary evidence is available with respect to sale of land located in the very same survey number, viz., Survey No.255/6,

registered as document No.1330 on 16.9.1984, there is no justification to ignore the same. The failure to consider the said document, in our

considered opinion, vitiates the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988 by the learned Subordinate Judge,

Sivagangai.

We are, therefore, inclined to take the document bearing No.1330, registered on 16.9.1984, with reference to the land located in Survey

No.255/6 in Rahinipattai Village, Sivagangai District of an extent of 41 cents at the rate of Rs.220/- per cent, as a basic document for arriving at

the compensation and propose to add 15% appreciation value per year on the same and thus, arrive at a rate of Rs.300/- per cent as a fair and

reasonable compensation to the respondent/claimant.

In the result, we allow the appeal in part. The market value is fixed at Rs.300/- per cent along with statutory benefits, viz., 12% additional

compensation u/s 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the notification made u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of

award or taking possession, whichever is earlier and 30% solatium on the same with additional interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of

one year from the the date of taking possession and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of payment. However, as there is no serious objection

as to the award of compensation to the trees and buildings fixed by judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988 by

the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, we do not propose to interfere with the same. No costs.