SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. M A THIRUNARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and Mr.K.Shakespeare for Mr.S.Subramani, learned counsel for Respondents 2, 6 and 7. Respondents 1 and 5 died and notice was not served on third respondent. Though no LRs were brought on record for respondents 1 and 5 and the third respondent was not served, it is unnecessary to serve those respondents, since the trial court did not grant any relief to them and no cross appeal was filed either by those respondents or by the LRs and hence they need not be heard.

(2.) The appellant is the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Land Acquisition Officer, Chennai City. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.30 of 1990, dated 1.12.1995 on the file of the learned 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The land of the claimants to an extent of 2 grounds and 2256 sq.ft. was acquired at the rate of Rs.22240/- per ground for the purpose of widening of the Kilpauk Garden Road coming within the Corporation of Chennai. The claimants objection to the acquisition and claimed that Rs.50000/- was the market value on the date of notification under Section 4(1) made in G.O.Ms.No.1306, (Rural Development and Land Acquisition Department), dated 29.6.1978. After following due procedure, an Award was passed on 15.7.1986. On claimants' objection regarding lower compensation, the matter was referred to the Reference Court. The reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) was taken on file as LAOP No.19 of 1989. The reference court held that respondents 1,3,4 and 5 have no claim for compensation and compensation was eligible only for respondents 2 and 7.

(3.) The said Reference under Section 18(1) was registered as LAOP No.30 of 1990. Before the Reference court on behalf of claimants, respondent No.7, C.V.Ramamurthi was examined as C.W.1 and on their side, five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.5. On the side of the appellant, one P.V.Krishnamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were were filed and they were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The reference court held that respondent 2,6 and 7 were entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,92,187/-. This was on the basis that the market value in that area per ground was Rs.75,000/-. On the Award amount, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and 12% interest and 5% additional compensation. Since the land of the claimants in the front side was affected from public access and they suffered for eight years from the date of notification till date, Rs.25000/- compensation and for delay in payment, another Rs.10000/- was ordered. Apart from that the normal interest was also directed to be paid. With reference to damages to the trees, no compensation was ordered. It is as against the judgment and decree, this appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.