The Special Tahsildar (ADW) vs Lakshmiammal

G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1995 of the learned Subordinate Judge of

Thirupattur made in LAOP No. 36 of 1990. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before

the trial Court.

Heard both sides.

The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this LAOP would run thus:

The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 0.83.0 hectares

in S. No. 112/1B in Madhanancheri Village, for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with the

procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award assessing a sum of Rs. 8,848/- per acre towards compensation. Being aggrieved by

such awarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the Sub Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimant C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the

respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as court exhibits.

The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs. 8,448/- per acre to Rs. 4/- per square foot.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist

and kernel of them would run thus:

The Sub Court simply relied on Ex.A5 the sale deed dated 07.11.1987 which emerged just one month anterior to publication of Section 4(1)

Notification on 16.12.1987 and such an approach is antithetical to the well settled proposition of law; only 20% deduction was taken into account

instead of 1/3rd; the Land Acquisition Officer correctly for assessing the compensation took into account the nature of the land viz., agricultural

land based on Ex.B1 dated 29.04.1985. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the Sub Court.

The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing compensation from Rs. 8,448/- per acre to Rs. 4/- per

square foot.

The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) placing reliance of the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that the Sub

Court mainly relied on Ex.A4 which emerged only a month before publication of Section 4(1) Notification and it is quite obvious that such a

document was brought about purely for the purpose of inflating the value of the land in that locality and to get more compensation.

The learned Counsel for the land owner would invite the attention of this Court to Ex.A5 dated 07.11.1987 and advance his argument that the

land covered under Ex.A5 is very near to the land acquired and it reflected the true market value; considering the value as contemplated in Ex.A4

dated 11.07.1986, the value as contemplated in Ex.A5 by no stretch of imagination could be termed or labelled as excessive. Accordingly, he

prayed for the disposal of the appeal.

At the outset itself I would like to observe that even though there is some amount of proximity between Exs.A4 and A5 in specifying the value

of the land in that locality, nevertheless Ex.A5 emerged only a month anterior to Section 4(1) Notification and hence it is not safe to rely on it. On

the other hand, Ex.A4 the sale deed emerged on 11.07.1986 more than a year anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification which was made

on 16.12.1987 and the Sub Court could have very much relied on Ex.A4 instead of Ex.A5. Whereas I could see no rhyme or reason on the part

of the respondent in placing reliance on Ex.B1 the sale deed dated 29.04.1985 which emerged almost two years anterior to publication of Section

4(1) Notification with regard to agricultural land. It is a trite proposition of law that the purpose of acquisition should be taken into account. Here

indubitably and unassailably the land acquired is for providing house sites to Adi Dravidar community people and in such a case, the plot value

should be taken into consideration. Ex.A4 reflects the plot value of the land as the land acquired and the land conteplated in Ex.A4 are situated on

either side of the road.

A bare perusal of the sketch available on record would evince that the land acquired in survey No. 112, whereas Ex.A4 relates to the land

situated in survey No. 103. Both those lands are situated on the either side of the road and nearer to each other. Hence Ex.A4 would be the

proper document to be relied on. Accordingly if viewed, Ex.A4 would contemplate an extent of 504 sq.ft. having been sold for a sum of Rs.

1963/- which means per square foot was sold in a sum of Rs. 3.90 and it could be rounded to Rs. 4/-. Since there did exist more than one year

gap between Ex.A4 and publication of Section 4(1) Notification, 10% increase could be given. Accordingly if viewed, it would come to Rs. 4.40.

However, the learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) would submit that 1/3rd has to be deducted. In my considered opinion, in all cases

1/3rd deduction need not be effected and it could differ from case to case. Here the land acquired is situated in S. No. 103 measuring an extent of

2.05 acres and it is very nearer to the main road and Ex.A4 would also show that the property there is more or less in developing vicinity.

R.W.1 the Special Tahsildar concerned during cross examination would candidly and categorically state that the land acquired is near to

School, Palvadi and also nearer to the road; there are also houses nearby the land acquired. Hence I am of the view that 20% deduction would

meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following formula emerges:

Rate per sq.ft. - Rs. 4.40

20% deduction towards

development charges - Rs. 0.88

Net - Rs. 3.52

Rounded off to - Rs. 3.50

Accordingly the judgment of the Sub Court shall stand modified to the effect that per square foot compensation has to be awarded at the rate

of Rs. 3.50 and I make it clear that the claimant is also entitled to other statutory benefits as per law including interest. Accordingly, the appeal is

allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs.