1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 22.6.2015 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.MATHIVANAN A.S.No.190 of 2001 and C.M.P.No.2189 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode. ...Appellant Vs 1.K.A.S.Khadar Sahib (deceased) 2.K.A.S.Mohamed Abibullah 3.K.A.S.Amanullah 4.K.A.S.Baathmuthu Jhohaara Beebe 5.K.A.S.Mumtaj Beebi 6.K.A.S.Shayed Rabiya Beebi 7.K.A.S.Khairunnisha Beebi 8.K.A.S.Alahutheen Sahib (died) 9.Jubaida Bibi (died) 10.K.Noorjahaan 11.K.Mumtaj 12.K.Harunnisa 13.Fathima Bathullah 14.K.A.S.K.Jaffar Ali 15.K.A.S.K.Hussain Ali (R9 to R15 brought on record as the legal heirs of the first respondent vide order of court dated 12.3.2014 made in C.M.P.Nos.612 to 614 of 2009) 16.Ashrafunnisa (died) 17.S.A.Mohbammed Ali 18.K.A.S.A.Mohamooda Bibi 19.S.A.Abuthahir (brought on record vide memo dated 22.6.2015 as the legal heirs of 8th respondent) ...Respondents APPEAL under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the 2 judgment and decree dated 2.8.1999 made in L.A.O.P.No.28 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. For Appellant : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, AGP (AS) For Respondents 2 to 7, 10 to 15 & 17 to 19 : Mr.N.Manokaran for Mr.Guruprasad R1, R8, R9 and R16 : died JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J This regular appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the enhancement of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Tribunal namely the Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. 2. It is stated that the 8th respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below. Further, his legal heirs were brought on record even before the Court below. However, at the time of filing the appeal, due to inadvertence, the legal heirs of the 8th respondent were not shown in the cause title. Further, pending appeal, the 9th and 16th respondents died. Their legal heirs were already on record as the respondents 10 to 15 and 17 to 19 respectively. The learned counsel for the respondents today filed a memo for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased 8th respondent (who were already on record before the Court below) and also for recording the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased 9th and 16th respondents were already on record. Therefore, the memo is taken on record. 3 3. Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. By a Notification dated 3.3.1988 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government sought to acquire the lands of an extent of about 15,551 sq.ft in T.S.No.2/2, Surampatti Village, Erode District for the purpose of a neighbourhood scheme. It is relevant to note that even eight years before the issue of the Notification under Section 4(1), the Government forcibly took possession of the lands on 30.3.1980 itself. 5. After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.1.1990 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., on the basis of a sale deed dated 21.3.1988, which was found at S.No.12 among the list of data sale deeds. Under the said document, the land of an extent of about 2,400 sq.ft had been sold for Rs.48,000/-. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on the basis of the said data sale deed and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.20/- per sq.ft.. 6. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18. The District Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Court), Erode in L.A.O.P.No.28 of 1991. After enquiry, the Tribunal passed an award dated 2.8.1999 enhancing the compensation to Rs.150/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has come up with the above appeal. 7. The main contention of Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional 4 Government Pleader (AS) is that the data sale deed found at S.No.12 dated 21.3.1988 reflected that the land of an extent of 2,400 sq.ft was sold for Rs.48,000/-. Since the Notification under Section 4(1) was dated 3.3.1988, the Land Acquisition Officer was right in taking this as the basis for fixation. 8. The next contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that in any case, there was a sale by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11.4.1985 where the market value of even a developed land was fixed at Rs.90.63 Ps per sq.ft. Hence, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the fixation of Rs.150/- per sq.ft was exorbitant. 9. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 10. It must be pointed out that before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, 12 documents were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.12 on the side of the respondents/land owners. Two witnesses were examined on their side. On the side of the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and the party to the data sale deed dated 21.3.1988 was examined as R.W.2. 11. It was found from Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 dated 17.9.1986 that the lands in T.S.No.1597 were sold at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq.ft., even on 17.9.1986. The fact that the lands of the respondents were located on the way from the Government General Hospital at Erode and the Railway Junction, is not disputed. On the contrary, the Land Acquisition Officer, in his cross examination as R.W.1, admitted that the land was in Mettur Road and that it was a road, which goes from the Central Bus Stand to the Railway Station. The deposition of R.W.1, in entirety, shows that the land was well 5 developed. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong with the Tribunal arriving at the compensation of Rs.150/- per sq.ft by taking into account the fact that the lands in the nearby area were sold for Rs.125/- per sq.ft. in September 1986 itself. 12. In so far as the second contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is concerned, the facts, around which the second contention devolves, go to support the case of the respondents. If the lands of the Slum Clearance Board could be sold for Rs.90.63 Ps per sq.ft. on 11.4.1985, the fixation of the market rate at Rs.150/- per sq.ft for the lands in question, cannot be said to be high. We do not know as to how the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.ft in 1988, when even the Slum Clearance Board had sold its property at Rs.90.63 Ps per sq.ft on 11.4.1985 itself. 13. The contention that the Slum Clearance Board land is a developed land, can hardly be accepted. If one goes through the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act and the manner, in which, declaration of slum areas is made and notified, it will be clear that the above contention is without any basis. 14. In view of the above, we find that the fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Tribunal was fair and proper. The only thing that the Tribunal failed to do was to award interest on solatium, which it ought to have done as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme 6 V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J AND T.MATHIVANAN,J RS Court. 15. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dismissed. The compensation as fixed by the Tribunal shall be paid to the respondents together with interest on solatium within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the above C.M.P. is also dismissed. The fees of the Additional Government Pleader (AS) is fixed at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only). 22.6.2015 Internet : Yes To The Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. AS.No.190 of 2001 &CMP.2189 of 2007