Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2958 (MAD)

The Special Tahsildar v. Seenappa & Another

2006-11-03

P.D.DINAKARAN, P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2006
Judgment :- (Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2001 made in L.A.O.P.No.516 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hosur.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The referring officer is the appellant herein. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired the land belonging the claimant/1st respondent herein of an extent of 2.41.0 Hectares in Survey No.3/1, Rangapanditha Agraharam village, Hosur taluk for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to construct houses. By award No.11/94 dated 3.7.1994, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.1,60,870/- per hectare. The claimant filed an objection stating that the land should be valued at Rs.40 lakhs per acre and requested to make a reference. 3. Accordingly, the matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.516 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hosur. Before the learned Sub Judge, the claimant alleged that the value of land should be fixed at Rs.40 lakhs per acre. The claimant also sought to fix the amount of compensation at Rs.3 lakhs for poultry-shed, Rs.50,000/- for Mangalore-tiled house and Rs.40,000/- for water tank. According to the claimant, the acquired land is situated near the Hosur Municipality and other offices and the land is suitable for constructing buildings and establishing industries. 4. Learned Sub Judge, considering the evidence on record, fixed the compensation at Rs.4,25,000/- per acre, besides awarding solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% p.a. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, the referring officer has preferred this appeal. 5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the claimant brings to our notice that in a similar matter, a Division Bench of this Court fixed the market value at Rs.3,400/- per cent, and prays that the same amount may be fixed in the case of claimant also. Learned Special Government Pleader also agrees for the same. 6. It is seen that a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.50 of 1999, etc. batch, by judgment dated 17.9.2003, after taking into consideration the locational advantages as well as disadvantages and the benefits which the land commands and also on the basis of evidence, reduced the market value of the land of similar nature from Rs.4,250/- to Rs.3,400/- per cent. 7. batch, by judgment dated 17.9.2003, after taking into consideration the locational advantages as well as disadvantages and the benefits which the land commands and also on the basis of evidence, reduced the market value of the land of similar nature from Rs.4,250/- to Rs.3,400/- per cent. 7. In view of the same, we hold that the claimant/first respondent herein will be entitled to the market value of Rs.3,400/-, instead of Rs.4,250/- per cent for the land acquired along with usual solatium of 30%, interest on solatium and other amounts as payable in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. Further, the claimant/first respondent had already withdrawn a sum of Rs.17 lakhs as directed by this Court, by order dated 7.4.2006 in C.M.P.No.1209 of 2006. Now, the claimant has filed C.M.P.No.9324 of 2006 for the withdrawal of Rs.18,00,000/- lying in deposit. It is not disputed that the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,400/- per cent along with solatium and interest would cross Rs.35,00,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.18 lakhs lying in deposit, and is at liberty to work out his right to recover the balance as per the decree. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.P.No.9324 of 2006 is ordered as above. C.M.P.No.9325 of 2006 is closed.