SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR, LAND ACQUISITION, UNIT-1 Vs. THAINEESRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .S. No. 97 of 2005 has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1997 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and accordingly, other appeals have also been filed with the prayers respectively. A.S(MD) Nos. 164 to 169 of 2007 have been filed for enhancement of compensation as the Sub Court rejected the prayer for enhancement in toto.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run thus: The publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were made as under:

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgments dated 23.03.2001, in A.S. Nos. 519 and 520 of 1999 and in A.S. Nos. 416 to 418 of 1999, confirmed the judgment of the learned Sub Judge in assessing the value of the land at Rs. 1,176/ - per cent ultimately. The Government preferred Special Leave Petitions vide Nos. 24578 -24579 of 2004 before the Honourable Apex Court and in that the Honourable Apex Court passed order as under:.Mr. N.N. Goswamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge the statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make it apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by consent, there are large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum awarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court. Those matters are still pending before the High court and if the same principle of valuation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. His contention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before the High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which sale deed had been produced as Annexure A -9, as an exemplar as well as the lands subject matter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the Court must value the land acquired having regard to its value applying the statutory guidelines. Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed is produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value. The value of such lands may be more or less depending upon their potentiality and location and having regard to other relevant considerations which the court has to keep in mind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. We appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the Award of the Reference Court of such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned judgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent.