(1.) This matter is taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing. This Appeal is at the instance of the land owners whose lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978. Notice under Sec. 4(2) of the said Act was published on 30/11/1998. It was followed by a notification under Sec. 4(1) on 2/1/1999. An extent of 1.96.5 hectares equivalent to 4 acres and 84 cents situate in Survey No.144 of Thandalacherry Village, of Gummidipoondi Taluk was sought to be acquired for provision of free house sites to Adi Dravidars of Thandaalacherry Village. By an award dtd. 19/3/1999, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.298.50 per cent along with all attendant statutory benefits, viz. 15% solatium and interest at 6%. The Land Acquisition Officer took a Sale Deed dtd. 8/1/1998 under which the land in Survey No.189/15 of the said Village measuring about 2 acres and 11 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.63,000.00. On the strength of the said document, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the compensation as stated above.
(2.) Complaining that the compensation was low, the land owner preferred an Appeal in CMA No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri. Before the Sub Court, the land owner produced at least five Sale Deeds relating to lands situate in various Survey Numbers in the said Village. Apart from examining himself, the land Owner examined one Palani, an independent witness also to prove the Sale Deeds. There was no oral or documentary evidence let in by the acquiring Authorities.
(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge upon examination of the evidence on record faulted the Land Acquisition Tahsildar for adopting the value in the Sale Deed dtd. 8/1/1988, which was with reference to Survey No.189/15, since the land in Survey No.189/15 was situate inside and it was a land locked property, whereas, the land in Survey No.144, viz., the acquired land was abutting the road and there was a direct access from the Sathyavedu - Kavaraipettai Road to the land in Survey No.144. The Court also took note of the fact that the award Officer had in his award itself observed that the land acquired is ready for being occupied as house sites without any further improvement and the beneficiaries have also sought for allotment of this land only.