The Special Tahsildar (LA) vs Kamayiammal and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Usilampatti, is the appellant herein.

Lands in Survey No. 298/1 of an extent of 2.28 acres and lands in Survey No. 299 of an extent of 2.46 acres in Muduvarpatti village, Nilakottai Taluk, were acquired under 4(1) notification dated 07.12.1983 for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the legal formalities fixed the market value at Rs. 75/- per Cent and passed an award, by his Award Proceedings No. 4/83-84 dated 03.03.1984. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the appellant, the claimants sought for reference u/s 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P. No. 85 of 1985, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and the learned Sub Judge enhanced the market value at Rs. 500/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhanced compensation by the lower Court is justified or not?

Before the lower Court, the claimants examined two witnesses and marked two sale deeds and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the acquired land and he also submitted his report and plan, which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Acquisition Officer has considered 14 sale deeds for fixing the market value and selected the land in Survey No. 291 of an extent of 12 Cents for fixing the market value and accordingly, fixed the market value at Rs. 75/- per Cent and therefore, the learned Sub Judge ought to have accepted the same and should not have enhanced the market value fixed by the Acquisition Officer.

On the other-hand, the claimants/respondents relying heavily on the Exs.C1 and C2, contended that the enhancement is justified and the same should not be interfered with.

In the Award Proceedings, it was stated by the appellant that the acquired lands were classified as ''Government Natham'' in the revenue records and they are situate on the eastern side of the existing habitation at a distance of 100 meters and they were considered suitable for building purpose from the healthy point of view. Therefore, it is seen from the above observations that the acquired land has got all potentialities of converting into a house site, without any work to be done on the land such as levelling the ground etc. No-doubt, the data land selected by the appellant is situate in Survey No. 291 and there is no proof that it is similar to the acquired land or it has got the same potentiality of that of the acquired land.

On the other-hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier to the issuance of 4(1) notification the land in Survey No. 347 of an extent of 5 Cents was sold for Rs. 4,000/- on 10.01.1983 and on 23.07.1980 land in Survey No. 223/7B of an extent of 3-1/4 cents was sold for Rs. 1,300/-.

According to the evidence of P.W.1 that the lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2 are house sites and they are having the same potentialities of the acquired land and those lands are also nearer to the acquired land and having regard to the oral evidence of P.W.2 and the document Exs.A1 and A2, in my opinion, the lower Court has correctly fixed the market value at Rs. 500/- per Cent and passed an award and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the lower Court.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the lower Court is confirmed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed. There is no order as to costs.