AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Sundresh, J.—The appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree made in L.A.O.P. No. 53/1994, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, wherein a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per cent has been fixed as against the sum of Rs. 550/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent/claimant has also filed a Cross Appeal seeking a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per cent as against the sum of Rs. 2,000/- fixed by the reference Court.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
An extent of 1.83.992 acres of land in S. No. 6-5/2 of Vadiveeswaram village was acquired, by the Government for the purpose of construction of the houses to the Adi-Dravida people. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 was published on 27.08.1990. An award has been passed in Award No. 7/93-94 on 04.08.1993 fixing the valuation at Rs. 550/- per cent based upon Ex.B1 sale deed dated 12.10.1987. The reference Court has enhanced the said amount to Rs. 2,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the appeal and seeking more enhancement.
The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that after accepting Ex.B1 without any basis the reference Court has fixed the value at Rs. 2,000/- per cent. He further submitted that no deductions have been made towards the development charges and also for relying upon a sale deed which contains a smaller extent of land.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that without any basis, the reference Court rejected Exs.A1 and A2. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant, Exs.A1 and A2 have been sold for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per cent. He further submitted that the sale deeds covered under Exs.A1 and A2 pertaining to the same survey number and the mere fact that there are sub-divisions cannot be a factor for rejecting the documents. It is seen from the records, the reference Court has rejected both Exs.A1 and A2 as well as Ex.B1. Insofar as Exs.A1 and A2 are concerned, the reference Court has held that the claim has not proved by the said lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2 are of the same nature and they are nearer. Similarly, while considering Ex.B1, the reference Court has held that the appellant has not proved about the similarity of the lands acquired with that of the lands covered under Ex.B1 as well as the nearness of the land. However, the reference Court has taken into consideration the Ex.B1 and made enhancement on the same on the ground that Ex.B1 was sold in earlier point of time and the lands acquired are having better potential than the one mentioned in Ex.B1.
On consideration of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning given by the Court below is not proper. The Court below should have considered either the documents relied upon by the appellant or that of the respondent. The Court below has held that the lands acquired are having potential and on that basis, fixed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per cent. Of course, the Court below has taken into consideration of the duration of the period between the sale deed covered under Ex.B1 and the notification issued u/s 4(1). This Court is of the opinion that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration of the fact that the lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2 also should have taken into account when Ex.B1 was taken into account. Therefore, the Court below ought to have been fixed the valuation by taking into consideration of both the documents relied upon by the appellant as well as the respondent.
In the case on hand, as held by the reference Court that there was an admission by RW1 that the land acquired comes within Nagercoil Municipality limit. Further, a perusal of Ex.B2 sketch shown that lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2 are nearer to the acquired land. The acquired land is shown in the blue marked portion and the patta land shown in the red marked portion.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent brought to the knowledge of this Court that the lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2 are in S. No. L6-15/4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration of the sale deeds relied upon by both appellant as well as respondent. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- ought to have been fixed as a value since an elegant of guess work is always involved. However, the reference Court has not taken into consideration of the deductions to be made. In this connection, it is to be noted that a Division Bench of this Court in The Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District v. Ramayammal and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) CTC 467, wherein it has been held that suitable deductions to be made while relying upon sale deed which contains smaller extent of land and also towards development charges. However, what is the percentage of deductions has to be seen on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, in view of the admitted position that the area around the acquired land is well-developed, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice is required that a deduction of 1/3 will have to be made. By making such deductions, the sum of Rs. 2000/- as fixed by the Court below is confirmed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even though the reasoning given by the Court below may not be correct, but the judgment and decree of the Court below need not be modified.
In the result, the judgment and decree of the reference Court is confirmed and both the appeal as well as the Cross appeal are dismissed. It is made clear that the respondent/claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits given under the Act. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.