Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2753 (MAD)

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. P. Chelladurai

2008-07-30

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- 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. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities and after publication in the gazette on 1. 1992 of Section 4(1) Notification of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to "Act") and after taking into consideration, 30 sale deeds relating to the nearby acquired lands, had passed an award No.2/92 dated 312. 1992 fixing the compensation for the acquired land as Rs.300/-per cent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has preferred his objection which was referred under Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Before the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal, the claimant has examined himself as C.W.1 and exhibited Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.9. The Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. Sugavanam was examined as R.W.1. Ex.R.1 was exhibited on the side of the Referring Officer. After meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is insufficient and meagre has enhanced and fixed the compensation for the lands acquired from Rs.300/- per cent to Rs.4,000/-per cent and accordingly passed Judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Tribunal, these appeal and Cross Objection have been preferred before this Court. 3. Now the point for determination is whether the award passed by the land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.25 of 1994 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeals or whether the compensation is liable to be enhanced as per the claim in the Cross-Objection? 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and considered their respective submissions. .5. 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and considered their respective submissions. .5. 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. 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 310. 1988 on the ground that the same was executed three years before 4(1) Notification which was published in the gazette on 1. 1991, in this case. Ex.C2 sale deed is dated 16. 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 ½ cents of land was sold for Rs.9,500/- on 12. 1991 in Survey No.26/11. Ex.C.5 dated 24. 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 112. 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 212. 1989, 1 ¾ 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 22. 1990,6 2/5 cents was sold for Rs.1,80,000/- and the said land was also situated within Sethiya Thoppu Panchayat Union. 1989, 1 ¾ 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 22. 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 ½ 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. .6. The Cross-Objector in the Cross-Objection has claimed enhancement of compensation on the ground that that as per Ex.C.7 the Land Acquisition Tribunal ought to have fixed the compensation atleast as Rs.10,000/- per cent. But Ex.C.7-sale deed dated 212. 1989 is in respect of S.No.212/1 under which 1 ¾ cent was sold for Rs.35,000/-. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected the said sale deed on the ground that only an extent of 1 ¾ cent was sold for Rs.35,000/-, whereas the land acquired by the Government is more than 2 acres. Under such circumstance, on the basis of Ex.C.7 the claim of the cross-objector cannot be enhanced. 7. In fine, both the appeal and cross objection are dismissed confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.25 of 1994 on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. Under such circumstance, on the basis of Ex.C.7 the claim of the cross-objector cannot be enhanced. 7. In fine, both the appeal and cross objection are dismissed confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.25 of 1994 on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. As per order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.2486 of 1999, the entire award amount has already been deposited to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.25 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram and the claimant was allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount in deposit already and this Court has further ordered that the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank for two years. That period is also now over. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance of award amount with accrued interest without furnishing any security. No costs.