UNION OF INDIA Vs. K GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are the respondents in L.A.O.P.No.12 of 1996, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, have filed this appeal challenging the award enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.8,13,348/- to Rs.44,22,000/-.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows: i. An extent of 88 Ares and 25 Centaires of land situated in Survey No.120/1B in Madukarai Village, Bahour Taluk, Pondicherry has been acquired by the appellants for the purpose of construction of Fire Station and Fire Staff Quarters. THE Notification under Section 4(1) was issued in the Government Gazatte in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 08.02.1995 by invoking urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. THE declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was passed in G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 04.05.1995. ii. THEreafter an award was passed by the 2nd appellant fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs.8,491 per Are. In view of the fact that the acquired land was not a commercial and well developed land, 20% deduction was made towards the development charges and thereafter a sum of Rs.6,793/- per Are was fixed. Accordingly a compensation amount of Rs.8,13,348/- was arrived at based upon 4 sale deeds which were mentioned as item nos.18, 21, 23 and 26 in the Award No.3 of 196 dated 26.02.1996. iii. Challenging the said proceedings by claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- per Kuzhi, the respondent sought for a reference and approached the Reference Court. THE Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.12 of 1996 has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.8,13,348/- to 44,22,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said enhanced compensation made by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that it is factually incorrect to state that the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent in Ex.A-1 to A-6 are away from the acquired lands. The learned counsel submitted that the distance between the lands covered under Ex.A-1 to A-6, the acquired lands and the lands covered under Ex.B-1 to B-6 is very short and therefore the average value given under Ex.A-1 to A-6 being higher in nature has been rightly adopted by the reference Court. The learned senior counsel submitted that inasmuch as RW-1 was not the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing of the award his evidence cannot be accepted as against the evidence of PW-1 and 2. The learned counsel also contended that the developmental charges need not be deducted in the present case, since the acquired area is covered by developed lands and in view of the purpose of the acquisition which is for the construction of fire station and staff quarters such deduction is not required. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for the confirmation of the award passed by the reference Court.