IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 05.02.2008 CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.601 of 1995 The Special Tahsildar (LA) Revenue Divisional Officer Office, Tirupathur, North Arcot District. ... Appellant/ Referring Officer -vs- Anandhan ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1990 dated 22.06.1994 on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tirupathur. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P. For Respondents : Mr.V.Ragavachari JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.1994 made in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1990 on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tirupathur. 2.It is seen that an extent of 36 cents of land in S.No.94/1 Sundarampalli village, Tiruppathur Taluk was acquired for the purpose of constructing residential quarters for the Tamil Nadu Special Police, VIIth Battalion. The Land Acquisition Officer/appellant had fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.2,600/-per acre. The compensation amount was received by the respondent under protest and at his request the matter was referred to under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the respondent claimant was examined as P.W.1, apart from another witness as P.W.2 and marking Ex.A1, copy of the sale deed, dated 26.05.1969 executed by one Uttarambal in favour of one Sambasiva Chettiar. On the side of the respondent the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tirupathur was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 to R3 were marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Land Acquisition Tribunal fixed the market value at Rs.3.20 to be paid with 12% additional amount 30% solatium, interest and proportionate costs, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the referring officer. 4.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, has not denied the fact that the acquired land is situated nearby Tirupathur-Dharmapuri Highways Road in a developed area. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the acquired land is situated nearby a Primary Health Center, Post Office, Co-operative Bank, State Bank of India, Veterinary Hospital and Higher Secondary School. As per Ex.A1, copy of the sale deed, dated 26.05.1969, an extent of 523.6 sq.ft. of land had been sold at Rs.2,000/-. Since 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published only on 20.04.1983, the respondent/claimant requested the appellant, to pay compensation at Rs.10/-per sq.ft. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Act, was examined as R.W.1, who has not disputed the prime locality of the land acquired but, according to him the compensation amount claimed by the respondent/claimant is exorbitant. 5.It is seen from the impugned order that Ex.A1, a similar land, an extent of 173/4 X 29 ½ feet of land had been sold at Rs.2,000/- in S.No.120 in the village. As per the verdict of the Honourable Apex Court, in the absence of any other sale deed, considering the sale that had taken place long back, prior to the date of 4(1) notification per year 10% may be added while computing the market value of the land. Ex.A2 is a certified copy of the sales statistics register for the acquired land and other lands. Considering Ex.A1 and other factors, the Tribunal has decided the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4/-per sq.ft. However, considering the fact that the land described in Ex.A1 is a smaller extent of a house site, the Tribunal, reduced 1/5th of the value towards developmental expenses and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3.20per sq.ft. and directed the appellant to pay compensation with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession 30% solatium with subsequent interest and proportionate costs. 6.During the course of argument, it was admitted by both the learned counsel that in a similar matter the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 24.06.2004 made in A.S.No.608 of 1995 has held the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3/-per sq.ft. instead of 3.20 per sq.ft. fixed by the Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal relates to LAOP.No.14 of 1990, on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Judge, Tirupathur. In the above LAOP No.9 of 1990, the Tribunal has passed the judgment and decree on 22.06.1994 whereby, fixed the market value at Rs.3.20. The same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount was fixed by the Tribunal in LAOP.No.14 of 1990 and therefore, the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.06.2004 is squarely applicable for the facts and circumstances of this appeal which is not disputed by both the learned counsel. 7.Accordingly, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.06.2004, this Court is of the view to reduce the value of compensation from Rs.3.20/-per sq.ft. to Rs.3.00/-per sq.ft. and also confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the Sub Court/Land Acquisition Tribunal, in all other aspects. Accordingly, this appeal is also allowed in part to the extent discussed above by fixing the market value of Rs.3.00 per sq.ft. The compensation shall be paid with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium, interest and proportionate costs. However, there is no order as to costs in the appeal. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Smi To, 1.The Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Tirupathur. 2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.5615 A.S.No.601 of 1995 vsv [co] gkg/23.7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/