The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) vs Samsalkabeer through his Power Agent

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Referring Officer is the appellant herein. The land in survey No. 339/1 of an extent of 1.10.0 Hectares in the

village Surakottai was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravida u/s 4(1) Notification, published in the Government

Gazette 16A, dated 12.02.1992. Along with aforesaid land, land survey No. 338/2A1/A1 of an extent of 0.97.0 Hectares was also acquired

under the same Notification and the Referring Officer after complying with the legal formalities, passed the award in No. 7/92-93 dated

23.02.1993 fixed the compensation @ Rs. 34,146/- per hectare. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant sought for reference and the reference was

made in L.A.O.P. No. 20/93 and the the Lower Court after considering all the oral and documentary evidence filed before it, enhanced the

Market value @1,300/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal is filed by the Referring Officer.

2.The point for consideration in Appeal is whether the enhancement of the compensation by the Referring Officer is justified.

3.The learned Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice, a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court wherein the market value

of the land in S. No. 338/2A1A1 was fixed at Rs. 1800/- per cent and therefore submitted that the same value can be fixed for the acquired land

in this case. It is seen from the award proceedings from this case that land in survey No. 338/2A1A1 of an extent of 0.97.0 hectare and land in

survey No. 339/1 of an extent of 1.10.0 hectare in the village of Surakottai were acquired under same 4(1) notification and in respect of those

lands award in No. 7/92-93,dated 29.02.1993 was passed and the land owner of survey No. 338/2A1A1 preferred reference in L.A.O.P. No.

15/1993 before the Additional Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram and not satisfied with the award fixing the market value at Rs. 1300/- per cent

passed in that petition, she filed A.S. No. 46/1995 before this Hon''ble Court. A Perusal of the judgments also reveals that the lands covered

under A.S.46/95 was survey No. 338/2A/1A1, measuring to an extent of 0.97.0 hectares in Surakottai Village, Ramanathapuram and in respect

of that survey No. , Hon''ble Division Bench has fixed the market value @1800/- per cent. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Counsel for

the respondent that the same value can be fixed in this Appeal also.

4.The Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. S.C. Herold Singh contended that in this case, the Appeal is filed by the Referring Officer

against the compensation of Rs. 1,300/- per cent and there is no cross-objection or appeal filed by the claimant and therefore, the Court is

satisfied with the findings of the Lower Court and Appeal can be dismissed and market price can''t be enhanced. In my view, the submissions of

the learned Government Advocate cannot be considered and as already pointed out, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court has fixed the

correct market value for the acquired land at Rs. 1800/- per cent and that has become final. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the market

value of Rs. 1800/- per cent fixed by the Division Bench has to be followed and the same benefit has to be given to the adjacent land covered

under same notification and the award, even though no appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation by the claimants. As a matter of

fact, the judgment reported by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (10) SCC 797 (Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and

Anr.) , Hon''ble Supreme Court also held that even in the absence of cross-objection or appeal, higher compensation can be awarded. Therefore,

I hold that the Claimant/Respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1800/- per cent in respect of the land acquired.

In the result, appeal is dismissed and the decree of the lower Court is modified to the extent of compensation for the acquired land is enhanced

from Rs. 1,300/- to Rs. 1800/- per cent. In all other aspects, the Lower Court decree is confirmed.