K. NATARAJAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore in LAOP No.461 of 2013 dated 06.10.2017.

(2.) A reference was made under Section 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 read with Section 30(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine the ownership with regard to the land acquired for the purpose of forming a bye-pass road concerned in Award No.17/2008 dated 12.02.2009 to the Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore. It is seen from the claim statement filed by the claimant that the property in T.S.No.71/3B to the extent of 0.10.95 Hectares and other properties belong to Pavunammal, W/o.Thiyagarajan pillai were acquired for the purpose of forming bye-pass road in Chidambaram. That was inherited by her son Kuppusamy pillai and he executed a Power of Attorney on 11.10.1989 in favour of one Sakunthala, W/o.Balakrishnan in respect of property in T.S.No.71/1 to the extent of 10924 sq.ft out of 13080 sq.ft and the property in T.S.No.71/3 to the extent of 15787 sq.ft, in which 0.10.95 Hectares had been acquired. On 05.05.1993 Sakunthala, W/o.Balakrishnan executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of claimant to make encumbrances of any kind and to receive the amount etc., regarding the aforesaid properties. The claimant has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. The Government had classified the property in T.S.No.71/1 and 71/3 as house sites in G.O.No.664 dated 16.03.1974. Therefore, the compensation should have been given on square feet basis and not on the basis of Hectares as done by the Acquisition Officer. The compensation amount of Rs.1,42,755/- as per Award No.17/2008 is very meagre and the acquired property is situated in an important location surrounded by Temples, Government Offices, Court Complex, Registration of Sub-Registry, Treasury, Schools and Markets. Therefore, the claimant sought to enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq.ft.

(3.) As already stated, this claim petition was referred to determine the ownership with regard to the land acquired. The learned Special Subordinate Judge, on considering the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court, found that the claimant had not established his title to the lands acquired and dismissed the claim and ordered that