RAMUAMMAL Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR HARIJAN WELFARE COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the award of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after an award enquiry, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,600 per acre with the usual solatium of 15 per cent and interest. The appellants are the claimants and they were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the matter was agitated before the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, on a reference under section 18 of the Act. The lands concerned are as follows:

(2.) They are situated in Perurchettipalayam Village which is stated to be in the periphery of Coimbatore city and is situated in Coimbatore Taluk itself. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the matter and found no warrant for countenancing the claim for enhancement of the compensation made by the claimants. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the claimants who wanted compensation at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per acre, have come forward with this appeal. In this appeal, apart from the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which has been confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge at the rate of Rs. 2,600 per acre the claimants have asked for enhanced compensation at Rs. 27,400 per acrel. Certain factual fostures present in the case cannot be omitted to be taken note of. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was made on 16th August, 1972. The acquistion was for the purpose of providing house sites to the Harijans of the village. The claimants, appellants herein, relied on a sale deed Exhibit A-5, amongst other documents, in support of their claim for enhanced compensation. It would be in order for the purpose of this case, if reference is made to Exhibit A-5 which is dated 30th June, 1971. There, we find that an extent of 6 cents of land in survey number 114/2 has been sold at the rate of Rs. 350 per cent. The village karnam was examined in the case as R. W. 1 and has stated in his evidence that the adjoining lands, survey numbers 111/1 and 114/3 have been divided into house-sites by the owners and they were sold as house sites. He has further deposed that the acquired lands are of the same level and if they are divided into various sites and sold as such, they would have fetched Rs. 250 per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge has brushed aside this evidence of R. W. 1 stating that it is hypothetical. We are not able to appreciate this reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge because R. W. 1 is the village Karnam examined on behalf of the respondent and there is no reason to eschew his evidence for the purpose of assessing the potential value of the lands in question. His evidence clearly indicates that the lands in question could be converted into house-sites and sold as such. His further evidence is that the lands acquired are adjoining Oornatham, and there are large number of built up houses nearby. It is well-settled that in deciding whether a land is or is not a potential building site, its situation, location, proximity to existing buildings and existence of road or roads would be determining factors, The evidence in this case discloses that the lands acquired adjoin roads already laid and used. Hence, we can take it. that the lands acquired have all potentialities of being used as building-sites, and the very purpose of the acquisition is only that.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge puts against the claimants Exhibit B-4, which is only an objection statement made by the claimants to the acquisition itself and that is dated 20th December, 1973. We find that the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was held on 21st October, 1973 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 30th July, 1975 and obviously, the award enquiry was conducted subsequently and under such circumstances, any statement made by the claimants while objecting to the acquisition itself need not be counted against them on the question of the value of the land which would legitimately arise only in the course of the award enquiry. Even in Exhibit R-4, the claimants have valued the lands at Rs. 1,00,000 per acre.