SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. ALAMELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal suit is filed, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur in L. A. O. P. No. 32 of 2000 dated 10. 02. 2017.

(2.) The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Special Tahsildar in order to establish a Government cement factory for the public purposes. Acquisition of 300 acres were done in that particular area and the Land Acquisition Officer relying on three documents in respect of the sale of adjacent lands, fixed the compensation as Rs. 300/- per cent. Those three sale deeds referred by the Land Acquisition Officer were pertains to the private sale between two private persons and the sale occurred without having any knowledge about the acquisition or the establishment of a Government cement factory in that locality. Thus, it is to be construed that the sale was executed without understanding the fact regarding the possible hike in cost in respect of the lands acquired. Subsequently, the lands were acquired and the cement factory is established and it is an admitted fact that the Government cement factory is situated adjacent to the Ramco Cements and under those circumstances, the LAOP Court relied on two sale deeds registered by the Management of Ramco Cements, wherein the sale consideration was Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,363/- respectively. These two documents were relied on by the claimants. Ramco Cements situated adjacent to the cement factory, executed a sale in favour of the some private lands owners. Those two documents were marked by the claimants before the trial Court and accordingly Rs. 1,500/- per cent in one document and Rs. 1,363/- in another document is found. The Trial Court weighed the nature of the documents and the sale executed between these properties in respect of the documents marked as documents by both the parties. On one hand, three documents were relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer and those three documents are in relation to private sale and occurred without having any knowledge about the development of Government cement factory or otherwise. As far as the other two documents are concerned, the adjacent cement factory Management namely Ramco Cements, executed a sale deed and purchased the portion of the land from Private persons and the Ramco Cements paid Rs. 1,500/- per cent and Rs. 1,363/- per cent respectively. Taking note of these documents, LAOP Court arrived a conclusion that Rs. 1,200/- would be the just compensation for the claimants to be paid by the Government. The trial Court considered the nature of the documents as well as the locational advantages and also the character of the land, which was acquired. The trial Court in clear terms, arrived a conclusion that the compensation of Rs. 300/- per cent is very less and absolutely inadequate. Rs. 300/- per cent is not only unacceptable. It is not a fair fixation by the Land Acquisition Officer. After arrived such a conclusion, the LAOP Court further proceeded in considering two documents filed by the claimants and three documents filed by the LAOP officer. While considering these documents, the trial Court made a finding that the three documents relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, where the private transactions between the Private persons and those persons were unaware of the fact regarding the establishment of a Government Cement factory. Therefore, such a sale cannot be considered as a bench mark for the purpose of fixing a just compensation for the claimants. However, the genunity of the transactions made by the Management of Ramco Cements can be relied upon as the Ramco Cements company is situated adjacent to the Government cement factory and the nature of the establishment is also one and the same. Thus, the trial Court had taken a decision to rely on these two documents filed by the claimants, one stating that Rs. 1,500/- per cent is the sale consideration and another Rs. 1,363/- per cent as sale consideration. Taking note of these two documents, the trial Court arrived a conclusion that Rs. 1,200/- per cent, would be the just compensation.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated that there is no reason to consider those two documents as the distance between the acquired lands as well as the purchased lands by the Ramco Cements is far away and therefore, the enhancement of compensation is perverse. The Land Acquisition Officer produced three documents in respect of the sale took place in the adjacent lands and those documents are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation.