UNION OF INDIA Vs. B KANNAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Referring Officer in L.A.O.P.No.19/1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry seeking reduction of the enhanced compensation awarded by the said court in its award dated 26.02.1999. Among other properties, an extent of 0.10.00 hectare classified as dry land comprised in survey No.1702/2 in Oulgaret village, Pondicherry (now Puducherry) was acquired for the purpose of widening the Pondicherry-Tindivanam main road. After award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer, namely the Deputy Collector (Revenue) passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification at Rs.8,547/- per hectare = Rs.854.70 per Are. 25 coconut trees found in the said land acquired by the government was valued at Rs.250/- @ Rs.10/- per tree. The learned Deputy Collector (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer also awarded a sum of Rs.1319.55P as solatium calculated @ 15% on the market value and thus fixed the total amount of compensation payable to the person interested in the above said land comprised in survey No.1702/2, which was acquired for the above said purpose. As there was a problem for the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the person entitled to receive the compensation, he made a reference to the court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 showing some other persons including the husband of the respondent herein/claimant as the persons interested in the said reference. The same was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.9/1978. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer was passed in award No.9/78 dated 31.03.1978. Diderot Anandan, Diderot Easwaran Gnanayutham, Diderot Jagadeeswaran, Diderot Sivanandam, Diderot Paramasivam, Diderot Parameswaran and Diderot Parameswarani were shown to be the respondents/interested persons in the said reference. Meanwhile, the respondent herein/claimant sent a petition to the Land Acquisition Officer contending that it was she, who was the person solely entitled to the acquired land and thus entitled to receive the compensation in its entirety and that she wanted a higher compensation than what was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As such, the reference concerned in this appeal was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the court under section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894. The same was initially taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.136/1978 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. Subsequently, the same was re-numbered as L.A.O.P.No.19/1993 and was disposed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry by his award dated 26.02.1999, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) In the court below, the power agent of the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the claimant. The Deputy Collector (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the Referring Officer. The learned Principal District Judge, at the conclusion of the trial, upon considering the materials placed before him, chose to fix the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5,604/- per Are. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was added as the value of trees. The learned Principal District Judge also awarded a solatium @ 30% of the market value and additional value calculated @ 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award and thus arrived at a figure Rs.89,647/- as the total amount of compensation to which the claimant was entitled. The learned Principal District Judge also allowed an interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rates specified under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the period subsequent to 02.11.1993. Interest for the period prior to 02.11.1993 was disallowed on the premise that the LAOP, which was initially taken on file as LAOP No.136/1978 in December 1978 was dismissed for default on 11.04.1979, which came to be restored and re-numbered as LAOP No.19/1993 only on 02.11.1993.

(3.) Contending that the amount fixed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry as the market value is highly excessive and exorbitant and praying for the reduction of compensation to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/Referring Officer has brought forth this appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.