Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2404 (MAD)

M. Kallu v. The Land Acquisition Officer

2006-09-13

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 9.9.2005 made in I.A.No.353 of 2005 in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2005 on the file of Sub Judge, Mahe.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry). 2. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.353 of 2005 in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2005 on the file of Sub Court, Mahe. The said application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer for appointment of a Commissioner to determine the correct compensation payable to the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos. 10,11 and 12 of 2005 on the file of Sub Court, Mahe. The learned Subordinate Judge, after going through the rival contentions of the parties, has dismissed the application. Hence the revision petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that only to assist the Court, to arrive at a just conclusion in fixing the compensation payable to the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos 10, 11 and 12 of 2005, he had filed the application and that the Government have fixed the compensation amount on the basis of the value given for the land which is situated in a remote place whereas the lands relating to L.A.O.P.Nos.10,11 and 12 of 2005 are situated very nearer to the Government Hospital, Mahe and also in a posh locality. It is for the Court to decide in the L.A.O.P. the just compensation by referring to the relevant documents pertaining to the adjoining properties and also the guide line value for the relevant survey number of the properties. The learned Sub Judge has correctly observed in his order that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be used for fact finding purpose and for collecting the evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Sub Judge, which is in my opinion a well considered one. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would represent that this Court may direct the Sub Judge to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the properties. But there is no prayer in I.A.NO.353 of 2005 for the same. Further, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by noting down the physical features of the properties. But there is no prayer in I.A.NO.353 of 2005 for the same. Further, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by noting down the physical features of the properties. On the other hand, the survey number and guide line value will be available on record and on that basis, the learned Sub Judge can fix the compensation. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sub Judge which is neither illegal nor infirm. 5. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.2308 of 2006 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of L.A.O.P. No 11 of 2005 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.