IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.919 of 1995 The Special Tahsildar (LA-II) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme Madras-35. .. Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. 1. Alamelammal 2. Panchamirtham 3. Minor Dinagaran 4. Minor Anandan 5. Minor Parthipan 6. Minor Jothi 7. Ruth .. Respondents/Claimants (Minors 3 to 6 represented by guardian and second respondent Panchamirtham) Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee and made in LAOP No.67 of 1988 dated 30.11.1992. For appellant : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader (AS) along with Mr.K.Chelladurai for Tamil Nadu Housing Board For respondents : Mr.P.B.Ramanujam for RRs 2 to 7 JUDGMENT This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992, in LAOP No.67 of 1988 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 31.12.1975 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 1.01 acre in T.S.No.64/2 and an extent of 21 cents in T.S.No.64/3 in Nolambur Village, Saidapet Taluk for the purpose of providing house sites under Ambathur Neighbourhood Scheme. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 30.12.1985 assessing the compensation in a sum of Re.1/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act . 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the claimant one R.N.Narasimhan examined himself as CW1 and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one R.Thangavelu was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Re.1/- per cent to Rs.1,000/- per cent. 5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: The Sub Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per cent, which is quite an abnormal increase in awarding the compensation and it is not based on objective analysis of the facts before it. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court had awarded just and proper compensation or not ? 7. At the outset itself, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and Mr.K.Chelladurai, who took notice on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in unison would cite a decision of this Court dated 18.11.1998 passed in A.S.No.993 of 1988 and etc.batch. The last para of the said decision is extracted here under for ready reference. "16. In fine, the market value of the acquired lands is fixed at Rs.760/- per cent. The claimants are awarded interest on the market value of the acquired lands at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of deposit of excess amount in Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the Referring Officer, except A.S.Nos.1189, 1190 and 1192 of 1988 are allowed in part https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the common order of the reference Court shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. A.S.Nos.1189, 1190 and 1192 of 1988 are disposed of as abated. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs." 8. It is obvious from the perusal of the records, that the cited decision emerged relating to appeals concerning one and the same land acquisition matter. Hence, I can carve out no exception to it. 9. Accordingly, complying with the same, the compensation awarded by the Sub Court at Rs.1,000/- per cent is reduced to Rs.760/- per cent. The claimants/land owners are entitled to other Statutory entitlement as per law. 10. With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vj2 To The Subordinate Judge Poonamallee. Copy to The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.K.Chelladurai, Advocate, SR.34621. 1 cc To Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate, SR.34456. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34417. A.S.No.919 of 1995 SNN(CO) RVL 21.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/