SARANGAPANI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADHI DRAVIDAR WELFARE GUDIYATHAM TALUK NORTH ARCOT AMBEDKAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree (award) dated 31.07.1996 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore made in L.A.O.P.No.6/1993.

(2.) THE land owners whose land was acquired by the Government for a public purpose for providing house sites to the Adhi Dravidas, at whose instance a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the court below are the Appellants herein. An extent of 0.81.0 hectare land belonging to them and comprised in Survey No.56/3B2A of Mudinampattu Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot Ambedkar District (now Vellore district) was acquired by the Government for the above said public purpose. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 27.11.1990 and was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 26.12.1990. THE same was published in the area on 05.01.1991. After necessary enquiry under Section 5A, the proposal to acquire the land was confirmed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in G.O.3D.No.1204 A.D. & T.W.Dept. Dt.27.12.1991 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government official Gazette on 28.12.1991. THEreafter award enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer in which the Land Acquisition Officer considered particulars of six sales that had taken place in and around acquired land within 3 years prior to the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Discarding five sale deeds included in the sales statistics as not reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property for various reasons cited in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, a sale deed dated 13.12.1998 bearing document No.3999/1998 of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Katpadi under which an extent of 0.08.0 hectare of well irrigated dry land comprised in Survey No.56/5B including 1/6th share in the well, pump-set and channel had been sold for a sum of Rs.11,500/- was taken as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the property acquired. THE said sale deed had been shown as item 4 in the sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. THE Land Acquisition Officer deducted a sum of Rs.1,500/- noted as the value of the 1/6th share in the well, pump-set and channel from the above said amount and took the value of 0.08.0 hectares (20 cents) of land as Rs.10,000/- and fixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs.50,000/- per acre (Rs.500/- per cent). Accordingly, for the above said acquired land of 0.81.0 hectare, which is equivalent to 2 acres, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- A sum of Rs.30,000/- representing 30% solatium and a sum of Rs.18,295/- representing the increase in the market value from the date of publication of 4(1) notification till the date of award was also added and in all, a sum of Rs.1,48,495/- was awarded as compensation.

(3.) BASED on the said pleadings, the court below conducted trial in which two witnesses including the first appellant/first claimant were examined as CW1 and CW2 and Ex.C1 was marked on the side of the appellants herein/claimants. On the side of the respondent/referring officer, only one witness was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore considered the evidence and allowed the claim for enhancement of compensation in part. While rejecting the claim of the appellants herein/claimants for awarding of compensation taking the market value of the property at Rs.2,000/- per cent, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the market value reflected in the sale deed relied by the Land Acquisition Officer as the data sale would be taken as the basis on which the market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification could be ascertained. At the same time, the learned Subordinate Judge held that since the said sale took place 2 years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, it was appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired property as on the date of 4(1) notification by allowing an increase of 10% from the value reflected in the data sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs.550/- per cent (Rs.55,000/- per acre) and on that basis awarded enhanced compensation. As against the disallowed portion of the claim and claiming further enhancement of compensation, the appellants herein/ claimants have approached this court by way of the present appeal.