SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE Vs. ABDUL REGUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is the appellant in the above appeal which is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in Land Acquisition Original Petition No.7 of 1984 dated 10-5-1985.

(2.) The extent of the land measuring 3 acre 60 cents situate in the village of Sivakasi in the Taluk of Sathur in the Registration Sub District of Sivakasi, in the District of Rama- nathapuram and registered in the name of respondents-claimants was declared by the Government Gazette dated 23-2-1983 as needed for the provision of house sites to the A,didravidars of Sengulam Kanmoi Poromboke etc. The Notification was issued by the Government on the representations made by Adidravidars residing in Sengulam Kanmoi Poromboke stating that their habitation is situate in Kanmoi bunds and they are living in small huts. The Special Tahsildar (Adidra- vidar Welfare) and Land Acquisition Officer inspected the habitation and found that 52 Adidravidars and 10 non-adidravidars families needed house-sites. They recommended for the acquisition of the lands belonging to Abdul Rahman and others to an extent of 3 acres 60 cents of dry land lying in Survey No.14 Sivakasi Village. The Government approved the proposal in G.O.Ms. No. 2815, S.W.D. dated 24-11-1982. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 8-12-1982 at page 24, and enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was, conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 17-1-1982 at Government Chavadi Sivakasi. Individual Notices were also sent on the pattadars as per rules. One of the Land owner Mr. Abdul Rahman appeared for enquiry and gave consent in writing on his behalf and on behalf of the legal heir of his deceasd brother. The Draft declaration under Section 6 and Draft Direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms. No. 611 SWD dated 18-2-1993 and notifications were published in the Government Gazette dated 25-2-1983. The Special Tahsildar, Sattur registered statistics for a period of three years from the Sub Registrar's Office, Sivakasi. It appears that he has taken the particulars about 1436 sales during the period of three years. The Special Tahsildar rejected 1100 sales covered by sale Items I, 2 to 1431 since they are situated at a distance of more than 6 to 8 furlongs from the lands under Acquisition. He has stated that the sales have not been taken for consideration as there are no sales within 2 furlongs from the lands under acquisition.

(3.) The lands covered by sale Items 418 etc. up to 1303 (32 sales) which relate to the sale of vacant sites, well rights and pathway rights, etc. have been left out from consideration since those sales were combined sales. The sale Item 1317 relates to sale of wet land and therefore, the said sale, according to the Special Tahsildar, cannot be compared with acquisition land as the land under acquisition is dry land. Hence, he has not taken this sale for comparison. The lands covered by sale Items 4, 31 etc. to 1422 (83 sales) relate to sale of lands with different 'tarams'. Since the soil fertility and character of these lands are different than the land under acquisition, the sales have not been taken for comparison. The lands covered by sale Items 23, 24 etc. up to 1434 (24 sales) relate to the sale of higher value. Therefore, the land acquisition officer discarded these sales since according to him, the sales cannot be compared with the prevailing market price of similar lands in the village'. Moreover it is stated that the market value of these lands are high as they are situated near the crowded locality. The lands covered by sale Items 22, 61, etc. up to 1433 (132 sales) were also not taken for comparison since according to the Special Tahsildar they have fetched lower rates than the prevailing market price of similar land in the village. However, sale Items 416 and 1432(2 sales) have also not been taken into consideration for comparison as the portion of lands are covered in three survey numbers. The sales of lands in Item Nos. 79,80 etc. up to 1390 (61 sales) were also not taken into account, as they were similar to the acquisition land. But are little far away from the acquisition lands. Since the sale which has taken place in the vicinity of the acquisition site i.e., in S. No. 146 has been taken for consideration, the Officer has not taken these items of sale for comparison.