LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-29

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. MUTHIAH

Decided On August 22, 2017
The Special Tahsildar Appellant
V/S
MUTHIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.11.2000, passed in Ramanathapuram.

(2.) It is found that the lands of the respondent were acquired by the Government for the welfare of the harijans after following the procedures contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and subsequently, after taking into consideration the value of the lands nearby, it is found that the Referring Officer had fixed the value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.17,700/- per Acre and thereby in toto, fixed the value of the lands acquired at Rs.63,508/-. As the respondent is one of the co-owners of the lands acquired, it is found that as regards his share, the value had been fixed at Rs.21,169/-. On raising a dispute by the respondent over the quantum of compensation fixed by the Referring Officer, the matter was referred to by way of an appeal and it is found that the claimant has put forth a case that Paramakudi Mudhukulathur main road is situated just nearby to the lands acquired and further plots are also located and other facilities such as State Bank, Schools, Telephone facilities etc., are located nearby the lands acquired and therefore, it is stated that the potential value of the lands acquired is on the higher side and further according to the respondent, the lands nearby to the lands acquired had been alienated for higher value and without taking the same into consideration, the Referring Officer had fixed the value at a very low level and hence, prayed for the enhanced compensation. According to the respondent, the value of the lands should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per Cent. Per contra, it is the case of the Referring Officer that the value of the lands has been correctly determined taking into account the value of the adjacent lands and therefore, the value fixed in the award should be confirmed.

(3.) It is found that in support of the respondent's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked and on the side of the Referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.