The Special Tahsildar (L.A) vs Irulappan Achary

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aruppukkotai, is the appellant herein.

2.Land in Survey No. 75/4 of an extent of 1.19 acres and 73 Cents in Survey No. 75/11, in Valukkalotti village, Aruppukottai Taluk, was

acquired under 4(1) notification dated 21.10.1985 and after complying with the legal formalities the appellant considered 26 sale deeds and

selected the land in Survey Nos. 75/4 & 75/11 as data land and fixed the market value at Rs. 130/- per Cent. Not being satisfied with the same,

the claimant sought for reference under 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivaganga

and the learned Sub Judge enhanced the market value to Rs. 250/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

3.Before the trial Court, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and on the side of the appellant, the statement of the claimant and notice sent by

the District Collect, Virudhu Nagar, was marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

4.Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Sub Judge

without any basis arbitrarily enhanced the market value from Rs. 130/- to Rs. 250/-per Cent and therefore, it has to be reduced.

5.The point for determination in this appeal is whether the enhancement of market value by the lower Court is justified or not?

6.The acquired land is in Survey Nos. 75/4 and 11. It is seen from the award proceedings that the land in Survey No. 75/4 of an extent of 40

Cents was sold at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Cent in the year 1985 and that was rejected by the appellant on the ground that higher market value

has been stated in that sale deed. It has been held by our Honourable Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Division Officer)

Nalgonda (A.P.) v. Morisetty Satyanarayana and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 570 and in Ranvir Singh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), the sale

deed in respect of the same survey number of the acquired land shall be preferred to other evidence and in this case, if we apply that principle, land

in Survey No. 75/4, which is a part of the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Cent and therefore, the market value fixed by the

lower Court is correct, even though the learned Sub Judge did not give any reason for fixing the market value at Rs. 250/- per Cent. As I fixed the

market value on the basis of the sale deed in respect of the same survey number, the market value can be fixed at Rs. 250/- per Cent and

therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the fixation of compensation by the lower Court.

7.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the decree and judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.