LAWS(MAD)-1986-2-40

MOULVI ABUN NASER KHUTHUBUDDIN SYED SHAH MOHAMMED RAKHER KHADIRI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION N H SCHEME SATHUVACHARI

Decided On February 11, 1986
MOULVI ABUN NASER KHUTHUBUDDIN SYED SHAH MOHAMMED RAKHER KHADIRI Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the Claimant against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. No.10 of 1974, Sub-Court, Vellore, on a reference made under S.18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An extent of 5.98 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 541/2, 549/3A, 560/2A and 560/2C in Sathuvacheri Village and belonging to the claimant/appellant herein was acquired under the provisions of the Act on behalf of the Housing Board for Neighbourhood Scheme near Vellore. The notification under S.4(1) of the Act was on 27-12-1967. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant prayed that the compensation in respect of the lands acquired should be fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000.00 per cent. However, the Land Acquisition Officer, on a consideration of the sales statistics of similar lands in the village fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.24.40 per cent. Estimating the value of the standing trees and allowing solatium at 15%, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.17,170.50 as compensation. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant prayed for referring the question of compensation to court and on a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the court fixed Rs.75.00 per cent as market value of the land acquired with solatium of 15% and interest at 4 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment. It is against this, the claimant has preferred the appeal praying that the compensation should be fixed at Rs.365.00 per cent instead of Rs.75.00 as done by the court below.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the court below ought to have proceeded to determine the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of Exs.A1 to A.3 and that its failure to do so vitiated the fixation of market value in the manner done. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that these documents cannot provide the real basis for ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands as they relate to very small extents or include superstructures and that, therefore, no case for enhanced fixation of the market value at all is made out.

(3.) Chronologically, the three sale deeds upon which the appellant has relied are Ex.A.3-dated 27-3-1967, Ex.A.1 dated 9-7-1970 and Ex. A.2 dated 7-10-1977. Ex.A3 relates to Survey No. 428 which is not anywhere near the vicinity of the lands acquired from the claimant, as could be seen from Ex.B.6. Besides, the sale under Ex.A.3 is a composite one in that it takes in the trees, fencing as well as a superstructure. There is no evidence on record indicating the value of the superstructure or the trees and in the absence of evidence on those subjects, it is difficult to accept Ex.A.3 as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation in respect of the lands acquired from the appellant. Apart from this the land dealt with under Ex.A.3 is nearer Vellore town and closer to the Highway and the tharam of the land is also different. Considering these aspects, Ex.A. 3 cannot be accepted as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation for the lands in question. Ex.A.1 relates to Survey No. 495 which abuts the Highway and which is located far away from the lands acquired in this case. That sale is in respect of a developed house plot. The sale includes a superstructure and other movables. Here again, there is nothing to indicate the value of the superstructure and movables. The extent of the property dealt with under Ex.A.1 is very small, when compared to the extent of the lands under acquisition. The composite nature of the sale and the absence of evidence indicating the value of the superstructure and other movables and the smallness of the extent render Ex. A.1 unacceptable. Ex.A2 relates to Survey No.497 which again abuts the Highway. That sale is in respect of a very small extent of 2-.00cents inclusive of several trees. From the description of the property, the sale appears to be of a developed plot south of the Trunk Road. That bears no comparison at all to Survey Nos.541/2, 549/3A, 560/2A and 560/2C with which we are concerned in this appeal. Therefore, none of the documents relied on by the appellant supports or justifies the enhancement and fixation of the compensation at the rates claimed by the appellant. No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon the documents Exs.A1 to A. 3.