The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) vs P. Vivekanandan

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

Land in Survey No. 53/2B in Malli village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, of an extent of 1.30.5 hectare was acquired for the purpose of allotting house

sites to Adi-Dravidars and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the market value at Rs. 4500/- per acre. Not

being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant/respondent sought for reference u/s 18 of the Act and

reference was made in L.A.O.P. No. 26 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the compensation

from Rs. 45/- per Cent to Rs. 1200/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

Before the lower Court, the respondent/claimant marked 3 sale deeds as Exs.A1 to A3 and the appellant marked the award proceedings,

topography, data land deed and the details of the sale deeds.

The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation fixing the market value at Rs. 1200/- per Cent is justified

or not?

It is argued by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, Additional Government Pleader, that the learned Sub Judge

without any basis arbitrarily fixed the market value at Rs. 1200/- per Cent and on the other-hand, the Acquisition Officer has considered various

sale deeds and has chosen the data land and on that basis fixed the market value at Rs. 45/- per Cent and the same cannot be faulted.

On the other-hand, Mr. R. Ashokan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the acquired land is abutting

Srivilliputhur-Sivakasi road and it is a potential commercial site and Srivilliputhur and Sivakasi are commercial towns and therefore, the market

value fixed by the learned Sub Judge need not be interfered with.

It is submitted by Mr. R. Ashokan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the lower Court has not properly awarded the additional

amount to be added to the market value of the land u/s 23(1)(A) of the Act, and the learned Sub Judge has mentioned the same as 12% interest.

According to me, as per Section 23(1)(A) in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall, in every case, award an amount at the rate of

12% per annum of the market value, on and from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) to the date of award by the Collector.

Therefore, it should not be termed as 12% interest and it must be added as amount calculated at 12% per annum, on such market value and

shall be added as per Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. In my opinion, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. R.Ashokan is right in his

submission and it has to be stated that the amount calculated @ 12% per annum on market value u/s 23(1)(A) shall be added and it is not an

interest.

It is true that the acquired land is situate abutting the Srivilliputhur-Sivakasi road and it is also proved that Srivilliputhur is a religious town having

textile mills and Sivakasi is a commercial town having fire factories and having regard to the location of the acquired land, it is a potential house site,

the Land Acquisition Officer considered 63 documents and has taken into consideration lands in Survey No. 56/2B viz., Item No. 27 and 28 in his

reference for fixing the market value. The lands in Survey No. 56/2B, though situate nearer to the acquired land, it is seen from the topography

sketch Ex.C2, those lands are not abutting the Srivilliputhur-Sivakasi road. They are situate at a distance of 2 furlongs.

On the other hand, the sale deeds referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, viz. Exs.A1 and A2, those lands are situate

in Survey No. 55, which is also situate at a distance of 3 furlongs from the acquired land and those lands were sold as house sites and the sale

consideration varies between Rs. 1000/- and 1200/- per cent. As a matter of fact the land covered under Ex.C2, was also considered by the Land

Acquisition Officer and he mentioned that land as Item No. 57 and the land covered under Ex.A1 was also considered by him in his reference as

Item No. 25 and according to him, those lands were sold as house sites and therefore, they should not be taken as representing the correct market

value of the acquired land.

Admittedly, the acquired land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-Dravidars and it is abutting Srivilliputhur-Sivakasi

road. Therefore, it has got a potential of converting into a commercial sites. When lands in Survey No. 55/2 covered under Exs.A1 and A2 were

sold at house sites at Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,200/- per Cent, definitely the acquired land can also be sold for the same amount and the acquired land

has got road frontage and is abutting Srivilliputhur-Sivakasi road. But the lands in Survey No. 55/2 were developed house sites and therefore, that

value cannot be taken for fixing the market value for the acquired land because the acquired land was not developed. The land in Survey No.

56/2B, which was taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer was sold at the rate of Rs. 45/- per Cent and in my opinion, that sale

deed will not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that while considering the

market value of developed house sites, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is not developed 1/4th deduction can be made from

the value of the house sites for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. If that principle is adopted, the land in Survey No. 55/2 covered

under Exs.A1 and A2 were sold at Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1,200/- per Cent and if we take an average, it will work out to Rs. 1100/- per Cent and

after deducting 1/4th from the market value towards development charges, the market value of the acquired land can be safely fixed at Rs. 800/-

per Cent. The acquired land has road advantage. Therefore, in my opinion, considering that an amount of Rs. 200/- per Cent can be added and

hence, I am fixing the market value at Rs. 1000/- per Cent.

The respondent has filed cross objection for getting enhanced compensation over and above the value fixed by the learned Sub Judge and

there was a delay of 313 days in filing the cross objection and filed C.M.P. No. 18299 of 1989 for condoning the delay in filing the cross

objection. As the main appeal is pending and this Court is to fix the market value of the acquired land, the delay in filing the cross objection can be

condoned and I condoned the delay and office is directed to number the cross objection.

Having regard to the discussions made above, I fix the market value at Rs. 1000/- per Cent and hence, the cross objection filed by the

respondent for enhancement, is liable to be dismissed and hence, it is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the value fixed by the learned Sub Judge at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per Cent is set aide and the

value at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per Cent is fixed in this appeal. In other aspects, the decree and judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. No

costs. Further the decree has to be amended as stated in para 7 & 8 of this judgment by stating that an amount calculated at 12% on the market

value shall be added u/s 23(1)(A).