IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.Nos.873 and 874 of 1998 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram .. Appellant in both appeals -vs- 1. Uthrapathi 2. Pandian .. Respondents in A.S.No.873/1998 Uthrapathi .. Respondent in A.S.No.874/1998 These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram dated 1.4.1998. For appellant : : Mr. V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader For respondents : : Mr.J.Antony Jesus, Advocate COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals have been directed against the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.Nos. 21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The Government have acquired 0.03.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.20/2D1 ( L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1994) and 0.01.5 hectares of land in R.S.No.20/5(L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1994) in Bhoodangudi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, for the purpose of forming Road access to the Bridge which was constructed across the river Vellar at Bhoodangudi Village. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities and after publication in the gazette on 7.1.1992 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 2/92 dated 31.12.1992 fixing the compensation for the acquired land as Rs.300/- per cent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants have preferred their objection which were referred under Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Before the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal, the first claimant in L.A.O.P.No.21 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1994, who is the only claimant in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1994 was examined as C.W.2 and the second claimant in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1994 was examined as C.W.2 and Exs C1 to C10 were marked on the side of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.Sugavanam was examined as R.W.1. Exs R1 and R2 were 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 appeals have been preferred by the claimants. 3. Now the point for determination in these appeals is whether the award passed by the land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the respective memorandum of appeals? 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) for the appellant in both the appeals and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and considered their respective submission. 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 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 claimants as Ex C4 dated 24.4.1991. But the said Ex C4 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 C4 are situate far away from the lands acquired on the south. Out of ten documents produced on the side of the claimants, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected Ex C1 dated 31.10.1988 on the ground that the same was executed three years before 4(1) Notification which was published in the gazette on 7.1.1991 in this case. Ex C2 sale deed is dated 18.6.1990 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 C3, 1 ½ cents of land was sold for Rs.9,500/- on 12.2.1991 in Survey No.26/11. Ex C4 dated 24.4.1991 was rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that the land sold under Ex C4 is situated far away from the land acquired. Ex C5, 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 C6 sale deed dated 11.12.1985 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex C7 sale deed dated 24.6.1988 was also rejected on the ground that the land sold under Ex C7 is situate within Sethiya Thoppu Town. Under Ex C8 sale deed dated 22.12.1989, 1 ¾ cents was sold for Rs.35,000/- since a small area was sold under Ex C8, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected the same for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired. Under Ex C9 dated 24.2.1990, 6 2/5 cents was sold for Rs.1,80,000/- and the said land was also situate within Sethiya Thoppu Panchayat Union. Out of Ex C2 and Ex C3, the lands which are situate near the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected only Ex C3 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 C2,five cents of land was sold for Rs.19,620/- ie., at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Since the lands acquired under Ex C2 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 based on by the learned Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the compensation for the acquired as Rs.300/- per cent is situate 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 C4 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.21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively. 6. In fine, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively on the file of learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. As per order passed by this Court in C.M.P.Nos.19664 and 19665 of 1998, the entire award amount has already been deposited to the credit of L.A.O.P.Nos.21 of 1994 and 23 of 1994 respectively on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram and the claimants were 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 claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance of award amount with accrued interest without furnishing any security. No costs. Sg Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Subordinate Judge,Chidambaram 2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras • 2 ccs to Mr. J. Antony Jesus, Advocate SR No. 37588, 37589 • 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.37585 A.S.NOs.873 & 874/1998 SSV(CO) SR/24.7.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/