SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. KUPPUSWAMY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the award passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2005 whereby the award dated 10.01.2000 passed in Award No.5/B/1999-2000 by the Land Acquisition Officer has been enhanced from Rs.25,000/- per hectare to Rs.11,32,560/-.

(2.) A notification has been issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly "the Act") and the same was published in the Government Gazattee on 22.01.1998. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 03.02.1999. Notices have been issued to the land owners under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act to appear for the award enquiry.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the reference Court has correctly taken into consideration the valuation fixed under Ex.C-2 sale deed. The reference Court has given a factual finding that the lands covered under Ex.C-2 is nearer to the lands acquired. The reference Court has fixed the value at Rs.26/- per square feet, even though the valuation fixed for the lands covered under Ex.C-2 is Rs.70/- per square feet. The respondent/claimant has given evidence before the reference Court by examining four witnesses about the potential value of the land as well as the nearness of the lands acquired to the lands covered under Ex.C-2. Therefore, considering the above said facts, the reference Court has correctly fixed the valuation. The learned counsel also submitted that for the adjoining land covered by some other notification issued under Act 31 of 1978, an amount of Rs.47.82 per square feet has been fixed. It is further submitted that even though a notification was issued under section 4(2) and 4(1) of the Act in the year 1998, considering the fact that the lands which are the subject matter of the judgment dated 16.07.2009 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in S.A.Nos.496 and 499 of 2005 are nearer to the acquired lands, the amount fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable and therefore, no interference needs to be called for.