SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION Vs. C MOHANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .S.No.879 of 1996 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1995 made in LAOP.No.31 of 1989 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode by the Referring Officer, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Neighbourhood scheme, Erode and A.S.No.399 of 1996 has been preferred by the claimant. At request, both the appeals have been taken up together for disposal.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that 0.39. 0hectares of land in S.No.504/2 at Periyakulam village, Erode Taluk was acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was published on 15.07.1981. After enquiry, as per award No.2/06 dated 11.08.1986, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.33,984/ - per acre, in other words Rs.83,940/ -per hectare. The respondent/claimant received the compensation amount under protest and at the request of the respondent, it was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both sides, fixed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.6,000/ -per are. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered to pay Rs.2,34,000/ - as market value of the land to be paid with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession, 30% solatium and also interest as per Section 23(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by which, the referring officer has preferred this appeal. The respondent/claimant herein has also preferred a Cross Appeal in A.S.No.399 of 1997 for enhancement of compensation at Rs.12/ -per sq.ft.to be paid with other statutory benefits.

(3.) LEARNED Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has not disputed that Rs.6,534/ -per annum was the market value fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal.