The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) vs Chinnappa Gounder, Chellammal, Kandasamy and The Superintending Engineer

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—As the issue involved, and the relief sought for, in these Appeals are one and the same, a common judgement is being

passed to dispose of all the Appeals. These Appeals were filed by the appellant/Referring Officer against the common order dated 12.04.1996,

passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 15 to 21 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem/Reference Court.

The lands belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired by the appellant for establishment of 400 K.V. Sub-Station, Thoppur. After

complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by making paper publication and conducting enquiry, an award was passed in Award

Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 of 1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, viz., the appellant herein, fixing the value of the land at Rs. 9,517/-

per acre. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the appellant, the owners/claimants raised objections and the cases were referred

for determination of compensation u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Principal Sub Court, Salem/Reference Court and the cases were

numbered as L.A.O.P. Nos. 15 to 21 of 1992. The learned Principal Sub Judge enhanced the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq.ft.,

Aggrieved by the same, these Appeals were filed.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court erred in treating the acquired lands as

house sites and fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq.ft., Admittedly, the lands are Manavari Dry Lands, as per the Government

Records, and therefore, they cannot be equated with house sites and treating the same as house sites and fixing the value as such, is erroneous. The

learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that admittedly 4(1) Notification was made on 30.05.1984 and the Reference Court

considered the sale deed dated 08.06.1984, which was executed after the publication of 4(1) Notification. Therefore, the Reference Court erred

in relying upon the sale deed-Ex. C. 1, for fixing the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq.ft., It is his further submission that, having regard to

the date on which Ex. C. 1 was executed, viz., after the issuance of 4(1) Notification, the Reference Court ought to have given some reduction in

fixing the value of the land and therefore, the enhancement of compensation, granted by the Reference Court has to be set aside and the

compensation awarded by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has to be confirmed.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that though the date of execution of the sale deed-Ex. C. 1 was after the

date of publication of 4(1) Notification, the same was rightly considered by the Reference Court, as there was not much time gap between the date

of issuance of 4(1) Notification and the date of execution of the sale deed-Ex. C. 1. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the

evidence of R.W. 1, the Reference Court rightly held that the properties acquired are to be treated as housing plots and arrived at the value of Rs.

4/- per sq.ft., after giving suitable reduction, considering the date of execution of the sale deed-Ex. C. 1 Therefore, the learned counsel submitted

that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court.

Considering the submissions on either side, the following point arises for consideration in these Appeals:-

Whether the enhancement of compensation, awarded by the Reference Court is right or not?

It is an admitted fact that the lands, comprised in S. Nos. 154/1, 166/1, 166/2, 167, 181/1, 181/2B, 181/3B and 165/2 of Karukkalvadi

Village, and S. Nos. 1/1, 3/2A, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/3A, 26/6, 22/1, 2, 8, 11A, 28/1, 2, 4, 5 and 28/6 of Alagusamudram Village and 30/2A, 30/1

and 30/2C1 belonged to the claimants/respondents. Though the lands were denoted as ''Manavari Dry Lands'' in the Government Records, as per

Ex. R. 1, considering the evidence of R.W. 1, in my opinion, the Reference Court has rightly treated the lands as house sites. The Reference Court

also extracted the evidence of R.W. 1, in its order and a perusal of the evidence deposed by R.W. 1, would make it clear that the acquired lands

are abutting the roads and they are having high potential building value and the Reference Court, after considering R. 1-Adangal Extract and R. 2

and R. 3-Sketches has rightly held that the acquired lands are to be treated as housing plots.

Further, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Reference Court by taking into consideration of the sale deed-Ex. C. 1, dated 08.06.1984,

for arriving at the market value. Though Ex. C. 1, is dated 08.06.1984, considering the date of 4(1) Notification, i.e., 30.05.1984, there is nothing

wrong in taking into consideration the sale deed, dated 08.06.1984 in respect of the land, comprised in S. No. 139/6 of Karukkalvadi Village,

which is also admittedly appurtenant to the acquired lands. Further, the Reference Court, considering the value mentioned in Ex. C. 1, reduced the

value by giving some deductions towards development and fixed Rs. 4/- per sq.ft., It is seen from Ex. C. 1, that the sale consideration was fixed at

6.50 per sq.ft., and after making some deduction regarding development, Rs. 4/- per sq.ft. was fixed by the Reference Court. Hence, I do not find

any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Reference Court in fixing the value of the compensation at Rs. 4/- per sq.ft. in respect of the

acquired lands. In the result, all the Appeals are dismissed by confirming the common order, dated 12.04.1996, passed by the Principal Sub

Court, Salem in L.A.O.P. Nos. 15 to 21 of 1992. No costs.