THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. A.K. JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the counsels the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The appellant herein acquired an extent of 73 cents in Kolumadai Village for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars. The Respondents are the owners of the land. A necessary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 4.4.90. However the appellant took possession of the Land on 17.8.89. There is nothing on record to show that the possession had been taken with the consent of the Respondents. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award in Award No. 1/1991 dt. 18.9.90 wherein he has fixed the compensation for the land at Rs. 20/ - per cent. The respondents preferred a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Sub -Court, Cheranmahadevi had enhanced the compensation for the land from Rs. 20/ - per cent to Rs. 300/ - per cent. The appellant did not produce any documents. Only the respondents produced four documents. On both the sides oral evidence was let in. After considering the oral evidence as well as the documents produced by the respondents the lower Court has fixed the compensation at Rs. 300/ - per cent by the judgment dt. 18.1.1996 in L.A.O.P. No. 18/92. As against the same the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The only question argued before this court is the lower Court has relied upon two documents A.2 and A.3 dt. 2.4.85 and 25.5.91 Ex.A.2 is prior to 4(1) notification and Ex.A.3 is subsequent to 4(1) notification. The lower Court is not correct in taking into consideration Ex.A.3 for fixing the value of the land since the same is subsequent to 4(1) notification. Further it is contended by the learned Govt. Pleader that since no one connected with the documents have been examined the same cannot be accepted in view of the recent Supreme Court judgment.

(3.) The counsel for the respondents however contended that the documents relied upon by the lower Court are 5 years prior to the date of 4(1) notification and one year subsequent to the date of 4(1) notification. There is no hard and fast rule that the documents subsequent to 4(1) notification should not be considered at all. If there is no document available of recent origin, very close to the date of 4(1) notification then the lower Court can consider the nearest proximate document and ascertain the market value of the land. Now that the lower Court has passed the award by accepting the documents. The objection now raised by the Govt. Pleader with regard to the non -examination of the parties cannot be entertained as the same is belated one. The Appellant did not raise any objection with regard to the marking of the documents, before the lower Court.