SARITHA MUTHURAJAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant in A.S.No.329 of 1998 and the Special Tasildhar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Scheme, Nagercoil, is the appellant in A.S.No.686 of 1998. A.S.No.686 of 1998:

(2.) LANDS in T.S. No.L5-1/4 of an extent of 0.35.265 acres along with larger extent of lands in Vediveeswaran village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil, belonged to the 2nd respondent/claimant were acquired by the appellant, for the formation of Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under 4(1) notification dated 27.08.1990. The appellant after complying with the legal formalities passed an award, by his award proceedings No.8/93-94 dated 24.08.1993 and fixed the market value at Rs.1,050/- per Cent and also valued the trees. Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the appellant, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil and the learned Sub Judge after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market value to Rs.3,500/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant. A.S.No.329 of 1998:

(3.) THE Land Acquisition Officer has considered nearly 610 sale deeds for fixing the market value and after discarding 609 sale deeds, selected the land in T.S.No.L5-4/3, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,050/- per Cent and fixed the market value. THE data land is in T.S.No.L5-4/3 of an extent of 17 Cents was sold for Rs.17,850/- under Ex.B1 on 26.07.1989. Ex.B2 is a topography sketch and from the topography sketch, it can be seen that the data land is situate nearer to acquired land. THErefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader, vehemently contended that the lower Court should not have taken into consideration the Ex.A1 for fixing the market value and erroneously enhanced the market value from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per Cent.