SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree (award) dated 31.10.1995 made by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1992.

(2.) AN extent of 1.25 acres comprised in S.No.3/2E, 3/2F, 3/2G, 3/4A, 3/4B, 3/5A and 3/5B in Ariyagoundampatti village, Salem Taluk, Salem District was acquired by the Government for allotment of house sites to the needy members of Adidravidar community. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was lastly published on 8.8.1990. After hearing the objections, the decision to acquire the land was confirmed and necessary declaration (under Section 6) was published. The Special Tahsildar, ADW, Salem in his capacity as Land Acquisition Officer, conducted award enquiry and passed an award on 30.3.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value on the basis of a sale deed dated 27.2.1989, which was included as item No.9 in the sales statistics prepared by him. The same was relating to an extent of 31 cents of dry land in SF.No.7/16B of the same village. Taking the said sale as the data sale reflecting the correct market value as on the date of 4(1) notification, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.41,935/- per acre. After calculating the market value, the additional market value was calculated from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award as possession was admittedly taken subsequent to the award as per Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The respondents herein/claimants, who were the owners of the lands acquired by the Government for the said public purpose, did not have any objection for the manner in which total compensation was arrived at. But at the same time, they are aggrieved by the fixing of market value of Rs.41,935/- per acre. Therefore, they received the amount under protest and gave statements to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the court under Section 18 of the Act for fixing the reasonable amount of compensation.

(3.) THE point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the compensation awarded by the court below is excessive requiring reduction""