REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) AND DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS AND RURAL WORKS Vs. KARUPPASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise against the judgment passed on 27.09.2001 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 235 of 1992, 236 of 1992, 242 of 1992 and 243 of 1992, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the value of the smaller extent of the land namely Ex.P-1 was relied upon to determine vast extent of land. The learned Counsel submitted that it is well settled law that sale of smaller extent of land cannot be the basis for determining the value of vast extent of land. The learned Counsel further submitted that only 50% was deducted towards development charges and needs to be enhanced to 65%. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, v. Smt. L. Kamalamma (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. and Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, v. K. Krishnamachari and Ors., 1998 AIR(SC) 781.