UNION OF INDIA Vs. K. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory of Puducherry is on Appeal aggrieved by the Award made in a Reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, in L.A.O.P. No.46/2017 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikal.

(2.) An extent of about 57/53/87 hectares of land in Thirunallar town of Karaikal region of the Union Territory of Puducherry, was acquired for the development of the Temple Town particularly, for providing Ring Road and facility node. A Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 6/8/2007. A Declaration under Sec. 6 was made on 22/7/2009 and an Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29/9/2010 granting a sum of Rs.50,000.00 per Are. Claiming that the said Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low, the Landowners/Claimants sought for a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon the reference having been made, the Landowners filed a Claim Statement seeking a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 per Are. Apart from contending that the properties in question are situate within the town in the vicinity of Sri Dharbaranyeswara Swamy Temple, a famous Temple in south India and an Abode of Lord Sani (saturn), it was also pointed out that the very project was for development of the Temple Town for providing facilities to lakhs of pilgrims who visit the Temple. Reliance was also placed on various transactions of sale, where, the land in the vicinity was sold for more than a lakh and fifty thousand per Are. The claim was resisted by the Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer contending that the Respondent had collected Sale statistics from the office of the Sub Registrars and has gone by the Sale statistics to fix the Compensation at Rs.50,000.00 per Are. In the trial, before the learned Additional District Judge, the Claimant examined herself as CW1 and also examined one Marie Camala Ryan as CW2. Exs.C1 to C8 were marked. One K.P. Sreejith was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. While Exs.R1 & R2 are the Award proceedings and Award respectively, Ex.R3 is the Sale Data and Ex.R4 is the Topo Sketch. On the consideration of the above evidence on record as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in matters relating to fixation of Compensation, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the Compensation at Rs.1,50,000.00 per Are. It is this Award which is under challenge before us in this Appeal. The Government has also filed C.M.P. No.11919 of 2024 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to produce certain documents, which were relied upon by the Award Officer for fixation of the Compensation.

(3.) We have heard Mr. P.S. Kothandaraman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.