R MANI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. About 1 acre 64 cents in Koyambedu Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai-83 in S.No.175/2 alongwith a Well was acquired by the Government for Tamil Nadu State Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award No.2/82 dated 31.12.1982 has fixed the compensation for the land acquired from the claimant at the rate of Rs.99 per cent with 15% solatium and awarded Rs.1,664/- towards compensation for the Well. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was preferred and the learned Tribunal / VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after going through the relevant materials placed before him and after giving due deliberations to the counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate, has enhanced the compensation and fixed the same as Rs.300/- per cent along with solatium etc., and has confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,664/- awarded to the Well by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 this appeal has been preferred by the claimant.

(2.) NOW the point for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.300/- per cent to the land acquired in S.No.175/2 measuring 1 acre 64 cents in Koyambedu village and the award of compensation of Rs.1,664/- for the Well are to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal"

(3.) WITH regard to the compensation of the Well acquired along with the land in S.No.175/2 the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as against the claim of Rs.15,000/- both the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Tribunal have awarded only a sum of Rs.1,664/- which is too low. Referring to the award in LAOP.Nos.74, 75 & 77 of 1986 dated 9.4.1991 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which had also arisen out of the reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of S.No.190/6 belonging to Arunachala Naiyakar and S.No.191/2 belonging to one Kandasamy with Wells. S.No.191/2 & 190/4 in Koyambedu Village were also acquired along with S.No.175/2 (relating to the present appeal) and that the learned VI Assistant Judge, had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the Well acquired alongwith S.No.190/4. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the same Judge, who had disposed of LAOP.Nos.74, 75, & 77 of 1986, has disposed of the present LAOP.No.66 of 1986 (against which the present appeal has been preferred), has awarded only Rs.1,664/- towards compensation for the Well acquired alongwith S.No.175/2. S.No.191/2 is having an extent of 1 acre. S.No.175/2 is having an extent of 1 acre 64 cents. The Well in S.No.191/2 was awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and the Well in S.No.190/4 was awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- in LAOP.Nos.74, 75 & 77 of 1986 dated 09.04.1991 against which no appeal has been preferred as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. But the compensations for the above Wells were fixed by the Tribunal only on the basis of the value assessed by an Engineer. For the Well in S.No.190/4, the Engineer had fixed the value as Rs.2,191/-, but the same was enhanced by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- without any contrary evidence let in by the claimant for enhancement. Similarly in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 also the Engineer had fixed the value for the Well as Rs.1,664/-, which was accepted by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Tribunal. In the absence of any contra evidence to show that the Well in present S.No.175/2 will fetch more value than the value fixed by the Engineer, I am of the view that claim in respect of enhancement of compensation for the Well can not be entertained.