REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. P CHELLADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeal and Cross Objection have been directed against the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.25 of 1994 on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.

(2.) THE Government have acquired 0.02.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.26/12A5 in Bhoodangudi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, for the purpose of forming access road to Bridge which was constructed across the river Vellar at Bhoodangudi Village.

(3.) ON the basis of the data land, the Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into consideration 30 sale deeds as data lands had based his reliance on the sale deed in serial Number 11 in respect of survey No.30/8 and 30/9 under which 67 cents of lands were sold for Rs.20,100/- has fixed the compensation for the acquired lands as Rs.300/- per cent. The same data land was also produced and exhibited on the side of the claimant as Ex.C.5 dated 24.4.1991. But the said Ex.C.5 was rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram on the ground that Survey Nos.30/8 and 30/9 which are the subject matter under Ex.C.5 are situated far away from the lands acquired on the south. Out of ten documents produced on the side of the claimant, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected Ex.C.1 dated 31.10.1988 on the ground that the same was executed three years before 4(1) Notification which was published in the gazette on 7.1.1991, in this case. Ex.C2 sale deed is dated 18.6.1990 under which five cents of land in Survey No.20/2 was sold for Rs.19,620/- ie., at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Under Ex.C.3, 1 - cents of land was sold for Rs.9,500/- on 12.2.1991 in Survey No.26/11. Ex.C.5 dated 24.4.1991 was rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that the land sold under Ex.C.5 is situated far away from the land acquired. Ex.C.5, sale deed was also rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that the said sale was effected subsequent to 4(1) Notification of the Act. Ex.C.6 sale deed dated 11.12.1985 was also rejected on the ground that a lessor extent of 2 cents was sold for Rs.45,000/- cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired. Under Ex.C.7 sale deed dated 22.12.1989, 1 - cent was sold for Rs.35,000/- since a small area was sold under Ex.C.7, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected the same for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired. Under Ex.C.8 dated 24.2.1990,6 2/5 cents was sold for Rs.1,80,000/- and the said land was also situated within Sethiya Thoppu Panchayat Union. Out of Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, the lands which are situated near the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected only Ex.C.3 sale deed on the ground that 1 - cents was sold for Rs.9,500/- ie., one cent at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. But under Ex.C.2, five cents of land was sold for Rs.19,620/- ie., at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Since the lands sold under Ex.C.2 and the lands acquired are similar in all aspects having the same potentiality, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced the compensation of Rs.300/- per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to that of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Since the data lands on which reliance was based on by the learned Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the compensation for the acquired land as Rs.300/- per cent is situated far away from the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram has rightly rejected the data lands which was marked as Ex.C.5 before him. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to set aside the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in L.A.O.P.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Jude, Chidambaram.