SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADW CHENGAM Vs. ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1996 made in L.A.O.P. No. 19 of 1993 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) THE Referring Officer/Special Tahsildar (ADW) Chengam has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the lands belong to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adidravidars. For which, notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.11.1982. It is not in dispute that the lands in S. No. 60/2, to an extent of 5.21 acres belongs to the first and sixth respondents, to an extent of 0.89 cents in S. No. 61/2Cl belongs to the second respondent and to an extent of 0.78 cents in S. No. 60/3 belongs to respondents 3 to 5 were acquired by the appellant herein. After the enquiry as per the Land Acquisition Act, the Referring Officer/appellant has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 30/- per cent for the lands acquired in S. No. 60/2 and 60/3 and at Rs. 50/- per cent for the land acquired in S. No. 61/2Cl. THE respondents/claimants received the amounts under- protest and at their request, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) MR. M.Sarfuddin Ali Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there need not be any deduction for development expenses, since the acquired land is situated abutting the main road and fit for converting into house sites. On a perusal of the document and recorded evidence available on record, it is clear that the land in S. No. 66/1, an extent of 2244 sq.ft. in the same village had been sold on 21.10.1988 and that the sale transaction had taken place between one Jagathambal and one Raja. Therefore, merely because of the aforesaid land is the smallar extent of 2244 sq.ft., the same cannot be rejected for deciding the market value of the acquired land as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Even a small extent of land can be considered while computing the value of larger extent of acquired land, in the absence of any other sale of smaller extent of land sold prior to the date of 4(1) notification.