VENKATACHALA NAIDU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and award (decree) dated 16. 07. 1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in L. A. O. P. No. 59/1994. The Government has acquired an extent of one acre out of the total extent of 4. 56 acres comprised in old Survey No. 13/3B1 (new Survey No. 13/13B/1D) in Thukkapettai village, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District (formerly part of North Arcot District) for the purpose of constructing a Telephone Exchange. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 14. 03. 1984. Out of the one acre land acquired by the Government for the above said purpose, 5" cents was the property belonging to the Appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer, during the award enquiry collected particulars of as many as 143 sales that took place within three years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, but relied on the sale deed bearing document no. 1867/82 dated 26. 07. 1982 pertaining to Survey No. 9/4A1 as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property, fixed the market value at Rs. 300/- per cent (which comes about 69 Paise per square foot) and awarded a total compensation to the appellant herein as follows:-

(2.) AS the appellant herein was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed more amount as compensation, a reference was made to the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same was taken on file as L. A. O. P. No. 59/1994. Before the Referring officer as well as the Court to which the reference was made, the appellant herein put forward a claim for the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 175/- per square foot. The appellant/claimant had also made a claim of Rs. 31,400/- as compensation for the superstructure, namely, a building built up-to the basement level. The claim was resisted by the respondent contending that the correct market value was adopted for awarding compensation for the land acquired by the Government and hence no revision of the compensation could be made. It was also contended therein that though there was a building up-to the basement level on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subsequent to the said Notification, the appellant/claimant dismantled the structure and when the award enquiry was conducted and the date on which the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, there was no structure present in the land concerned in this appeal and hence the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of compensation for the superstructure.

(3.) THIS Court heard the submissions made by Mr. H. Sriram, learned counsel for the Appellants and the rival submissions made by Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. Points 1 to 3: