The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vellore vs Smt. Krishnaveni Ammal

G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000, in LAOP No.93 of 1994 passed by the

learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial

Court. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The Government vide Notification dated 14.12.1989 made u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent

of 0.04.0 cents in Survey No.95/4B; an extent of 0.01.0 in Survey No.99/2 and an extent of 0.03.5 cents in Survey No.99/9; an extent of 0.06.5

in Survey No.98/3B; an extent of 0.02.5 in Survey No.98/4; and an extent of 0.13.5 in Survey No.98/6, totalling to an extent of 0.75 acres in

Aanaimallur Village, Arcot Taluk for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravida community people. After complying with the

procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 16.4.92 assessing the compensation in a sum of Re.

96.56/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court u/s 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act.

During enquiry, before the trial Court, the claimant one Krishnaveni Ammal examined herself as CW1 and Ex.C1 was marked. On the side of

the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one A. Jeyakumar was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court

enhanced the compensation from Re. 96.56/- per cent to Rs. 500/- per cent.

Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and

marrow of them would run thus:

The Sub Court erroneously placed reliance on Ex.P1 the Sale Deed, which did not reflect the true market value prevailing in that area and

accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgement and decree of the Sub Court.

The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 96.56/- per cent to Rs. 500/-

per cent?

At the outset, Mr. V. Ravi, the learned Government Advocate, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would advance his argument to the

effect that Ex.P1 is relating to a small extent of land and that cannot be applied to the larger extent now acquired and further no deduction was

effected towards development charges.

The learned counsel for the landowner would advance his argument to the effect that Ex.P1 reflected the correct market value prevailing in that

vicinity, as it emerged anterior to Section 4(1) Notification and there was nothing wrong in the enhanced award passed by the Sub Court.

A perusal of Ex.P1 would reveal that it emerged on 5.10.1988, whereas Section 4(1) Notification concerned was published on 14.12.1989.

Hence, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 is a reliable piece of document, which reflected the market value prevailing in the vicinity and there is nothing to

indicate that it is a cooked up document brought about for boosting the value of the land in that area. Ex.P1 is relating to 15� cents of land in

Survey No.98/3, which cannot be taken as far away from the land acquired in Survey Nos. 95/4B, 99/2, 99/9, 98/3B, 98/4 and 98/3B. The

learned counsel for the land-owner would correctly and convincingly argue that taking into account the potential value of the land that it would

become an habitation area, the sale consideration was found incorporated in the sale Deed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per cent.

I see no reason to disagree with this argument, however there is one defect in the judgement of the Sub Court, as no deduction was effected

towards development charges. At this juncture my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Apex Court:

(1) The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition Vs. Malla Atchinaidu and Others,

(2) Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI),

(3) Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others,

(4) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others,

(5) Smt. Basavva and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others,

As such a mere perusal of those judgements would reveal that if the land acquired is already a developed land no development charges need

be deducted from the market value. However, if the land acquired itself is not a developed land, then necessarily there should be deduction

towards development charges the rate of which would be depending upon the circumstances of each and every case.

The 15� cents land sold as per Ex.P1 had the potential of becoming plots. Here the land acquired is 75 acres, for the purpose of carving out

plots for allotting house sites to the land less Adi Dravida community people, there is nothing to show that huge amount has to be spent for

development activities. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that 20% towards the development charges would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the point is decided to the effect that 20% towards development charges should be deducted from Rs. 500/- per cent as

assessed by the Sub Court. As such, the compensation awarded by the Sub Court at Rs. 500/- per cent is reduced to Rs. 400/- per cent. The

claimant/land owner is entitled to solatium and interest on the solatium, in accordance with law. With the above modification, this appeal is partly

allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.