SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. PAHNJALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer viz., the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vellore against the judgment and decree dated 05.2.2002 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet made in L.A.O.P.No.44 of 1997, complaining that the amount awarded as compensation by the Court below is highly excessive and praying for the reduction of the same.

(2.) A total extent of 2.07 acre comprised in various survey numbers at Melnethambakkam Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District was acquired by the Government for a public purpose viz., for providing house sites to the members of Adi Dravidar Community. Out of the above said extent of 2.07 acres of land acquired by the Government for the said purpose, 0.50 acres of dry land comprised in S.Nos.51/4 belonged to the respondent here in /claimant. The Land Acquisition Officer viz., Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore conducted the award enquiry and passed an award on 18.2.1993 in his award No.17 of 1992-93, fixing the market value of the said property at Rs.6,940/- per acre (Rs.69.40 per cent). The Court below calculated an additional market value from the date of Section 4(1) Notification till the date of award at 12%p.a, allowed Solatium at 30% of the market value, added a sum of Rs.4,941/- towards the value of the claimant's share in the Well and awarded a total sum of Rs.13,541/- as compensation for the land of the respondent/claimant acquired by the Government. Since the respond/claimant was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he received the amount under protest and requested for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court for determining a reasonable amount as compensation. Thus a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer (the appellant herein) to the Sub-Court, Ranipet under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.44 of 1997. After giving opportunity to the respondent/claimant to put in his claim statement, the learned Subordinate Judge conducted trial of the L.A.O.P without a counter being filed by the appellant herein/the Referring Officer as the same was not filed in time.

(3.) In the trial, two witnesses were examined as CW1 and CW2 and two documents were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 on the side of the respondent herein/claimant. On the side of the appellant herein / Referring Officer, one witness was examined as RW1 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R6.