SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA Vs. C JEYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2001, made in L.A.O.P.No. 9 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi-dravidar Welfare, Tiruchendur, has filed the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) According to the petitioner, an extent of 3.69.0 hectares (9.11 acres) of land was acquired in S.No. 6B/2 in Kayalpattinam South village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District by the Government for the purpose of providing houses for Adi-Dravidars residing in and around of the said village. The land has been acquired after following all formalities under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978). The said land belonged to the respondent herein. Award was passed by the then Special Tahsildar, Tiruchendur-vide Award No.2/99-2000 dated 10-2-2000. The said authority after holding an enquiry, determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.1,89,167.42 per hectare (Rs.76,500/- per acre). The land owner was not satisfied with the market value fixed by the prescribed Authority, instead of filing an appeal under Section 9 of Act XXXI of 1978 sent a request to the then Special Tahsildar, requesting him to make a reference. The then Tahsildar forwarded the award along with the other records to the Subordinate Judge on 8-7-2000 seeking for a reference under the Central Act. The Subordinate Judge, without returning the papers to the prescribed Authority has entertained the same as if it is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894) in L.A.O.P.No. 9/2000 and passed an award enhancing the market value from Rs.765/- to Rs.4680/- by an award dated 31-10-2001. The very seeking for reference by the then Tahsildar/Prescribed Authority as well as entertaining the same by the Sub Court is totally illegal and against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1978; hence the present Revision before this Court.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that at the instance of the petitioner namely Special Tahsildar, the learned Subordinate Judge conducted the enquiry in which the respondent produced various documents. The objection was not at all raised by the petitioner nor his counsel namely the Government Pleader. After considering all the materials, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an award enhancing the compensation at Rs.4,600/- per cent and also the solatium at 30 per cent besides interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, by judgment dated 31-10-2001, enhanced the compensation and in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to comply with the award, the respondent filed Execution Petition in E.P.No. 1/2002 for realization of the amount. In the said Execution Petition, the Special Tahsildar filed a counter contending that they are liable to pay only 15 per cent as solatium and pursuant to their request, the respondent has also executed necessary consent documents, agreeing to receive solatium at the rate of 15 per cent. Inasmuch as it is only at the instance of the petitioner/Special Tahsildar, the matter was referred to the Sub Court for fixation of compensation and now it is not open to the very same authority to blame the Subordinate Judge, who exercised the powers, and who is also the Appellate Authority constituted under Act XXXI of 1978. Further, inasmuch as the lands were acquired in 1998 and possession taken thereafter, the respondent is yet to get the just compensation, the present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.