IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :06.02.2008 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.627 of 1996 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Revenue Divisional Officer Office Tirupattur, North Arcot Ambedhkar District. .... Appellant vs. Kumaraswamy .... Respondent Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.05.1993 made in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P (AS) For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.05.1993 made in L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1990 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Sub-court, Tirupattur. 2. It is an admitted fact that an extent of 0.36.0 hectare of land in S.No.117/9 at Sundarampalli village, Tirupattur was acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Tirupattur, for the purpose of constructing quarters for Tamil Nadu Special Police, VI Battalion and for the aforesaid land acquisition, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette on 29.02.1984. After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation, as per Award No.2/86- 87, dated 22.09.1986 at Rs.1.50/- per sq.foot. The respondent / claimant received the amount under protest and request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent / claimant was examined as P.W.2, apart from the other claimant, who was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the respondent / claimant, a copy of the sale deed, dated 26.05.1969, executed by one Uthirammal in favour of one Sambasiva Chettiar was marked as Ex.A.1. As per the said document, an extent of 523.6 sq.feet of land was sold for the consideration at Rs.2,000/-. On the side of the respondent, the then Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5.60/- per sq.foot. Aggrieved by which, the appeal has been preferred by the Referring Officer. 4. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant would contend that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is exorbitant, since it has enhanced the market value to Rs.5.60/- per sq.foot from Rs.1.50/- per sq.foot, fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that though some other lands were also acquired for the purpose of constructing quarters for Tamil Nadu Special Police, VI Battalion, the respondent / claimant herein is entitled to claim compensation comparatively more than other claimants, since the acquired land, relating to the L.A.O.P is situated in a prime locality abutting the National Highways with more potentiality than the other lands acquired by the appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that the land described in the sale deed, Ex.A.1 is a similarly placed land nearby the acquired land, which was sold in the year 1969 at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. As per the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various decisions, while considering an earlier document of a similarly placed land, 10% may normally be added per year, while computing the market vale of the acquired land. In the instant case, even in the year 1969, the market value of the similarly placed land was at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. As the land in question was acquired in the year 1984, if 10% is added to the value per year, for 15 years, it would be Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Further, as per the evidence available on record, it is seen that the acquired land in the L.A.O.P is a developed land, abutting the National Highways and therefore, I am of the view that the market value fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5.60/- per cent is no way exorbitant and as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Tribunal has awarded to pay 12% additional amount from the date of 4 (1) Notification till taking over possession of the land, 30% solatium, interest and costs, in addition to the market value. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned Judgment, so as to warrant any interference. 8. In the result, confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Tsvn Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.5897 + 1 cc to M/s. V. Raghavachari, Advocate SR No. 5998 A.S.No.627 of 1996 SKD(CO) SR/8.4.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/