REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. VENKATARAMA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a batch of references to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, The lands acquired, 37 and odd acres in extent, form a block of territory between the South Indian Railway, and the river Cauvery near Trichinopoly, and have been acquired for the purpose of making a new bund in the place of the old flood bank which was washed away by the serious flood in 1924. The lands are of the same quality throughout, that is to say, single crop land. The notification under the Act was made on October 20, 1925, and that is the date for determining the market value of the land. The claimants put the value at Rs. 17-80 per cent. The Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 12 per cent, and the Court had given Rs. 16 per cent.

(2.) There is evidence of two sales of land within this block which occurred on February 12, 1919, a April, 7, 1923, when plots of 20 and 32 cents were sold at Rs. 15 and Rs. 15 10-0 per cent respectively. But these sales were prior to the flood, and undoubtedly that disaster has diminished the market value of the land. The Court has, therefore, rightly set off this drawback against the rise in value of the lands indicated by the difference in rates as between the two sale deeds already referred to.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has been principally guided by the Tahsildar's report made in 1925 with reference to the proposed acquisition of this land and of neighbouring land by the Municipal Council. The Tahsildar recommended a price of Rs. 17-8-0 per cent. But it appears that the Tahsildar regarded this as the extreme price, for, in para 6 of his report he suggests that the owners might be willing to accept something between Rs. 15 and Rs. 17-8-0. The Revenue Inspector put the value at Rs. 15. We think that this figure may be taken as the market value. The lands which were selling in 1923 for Rs. 15-100 per cent might have been expected to fetch something more in 1925, but allowance must be made for the depreciation in value by reason of the flood disaster. It is true that the Acquisition Officer in his award stated that the fertility of the acquired lands has not been much affected, but the evidence shows that the disaster had diminished the capacity of the people in the locality to purchase lands.