PARVATHAMMAL Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COLLECTOR REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For construction of Navodaya Vidyalaya, an extent of 2 Hectares 91 Ares comprised in survey No.308/2 in Kottuchery village, Karaikal Taluk was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry.

(2.) The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette No.10 dated 30.1.1987 (Extraordinary). The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal, who conducted the award enquiry, passed the award in reference No.6147/86-87/C4 dated 22.2.1988 fixing the compensation payable at Rs.2,26,916.20. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant/land owner sought for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, took the reference on file and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1989. Before the reference Court, though the parties let in oral evidence, only respondent/State let in documentary evidence. The reference Court, came to the conclusion that higher compensation need to be paid to the appellant and fixed it at Rs.4,36,500/-. The appellant/land owner being aggrieved by such fixation, which according to him is on the lower side, has filed the above appeal.

(3.) The settled legal position is that if the land owner claims that he is entitled for more compensation before the reference Court, the burden is solely on him to prove the same (AIR 1997 SC 1779 (Manipur Tea Co., Pvt. Ltd., v. Collector of Hailakandi); AIR 1997 SC 2625 (Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao). Now, the question is, whether the appellant/land owners have discharged their burden.