BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 17.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.282 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.941 of 2008 R.Mani .. Appellant / Claimant Vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras. .. Respondent / Respondent Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and decree dated 05.11.1990 in L.A.O.P.No.66 of 1986 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.David Thiyagaraj, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Chelladurai, Standing counsel for TNHB JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the award in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. About 1 acre 64 cents in Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai-83 in S.No.175/2 alongwith a Well was acquired by the Government for Tamil Nadu State Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award No.2/82 dated 31.12.1982 has fixed the compensation for the land acquired from the claimant at the rate of Rs.99 per cent with 15% solatium and awarded Rs.1,664/- towards compensation for the Well. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was preferred and the learned Tribunal / VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after going through the relevant materials placed before him and after giving due deliberations to the counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate, has enhanced the compensation and fixed the same as Rs.300/- per cent along with solatium etc., and has confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,664/- awarded to the Well by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 this appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 2.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.300/- per cent to the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquired in S.No.175/2 measuring 1 acre 64 cents in Koyambedu village and the award of compensation of Rs.1,664/- for the Well are to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.David Thyagaraj relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.1275/94, 306/95 and 307/95 and Cross Objections Nos.41/95 and 144/95 dated 18.09.2003, which had arisen in respect of S.No.190/2 and S.No.190/6 of the same village viz. Koyambedu Village, would contend that in those cases the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation as Rs.99/- per cent and the Tribunal, on reference under Section 18 of the Act under LAOP.Nos.75, 74, 77 of 1986, had fixed the compensation for the acquired land in S.No.190/2 & 190/6, which were acquired along with the present S.No.175/2 which belong to the appellant/claimant as Rs.500/- per cent against the enhanced claim of Rs.700/- per cent by the claimants. Following an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.1073/86 dated 29.4.1992, the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.1275/94, 306/95 and 307/95 and Cross Objections Nos.41/95 and 144/95 dated 18.09.2003, has enhanced and fixed the compensation for the land acquired in S.No.190/2 & 190/6 as Rs.640/- per cent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.David Thygaraj would state that the same compensation of Rs.640/- per cent as fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of similar nature as above mentioned can be fixed for the present appeal in respect of S.No.175/2 also since S.No.175/2 also acquired alongwith S.No.190/2 & 190/6, which are the subject matter in A.S.No.1275/94, 306/95 and 307/95 and Cross Objections Nos.41/95 and 144/95. 4.The learned Government Advocate has no objection in following the same yardstick used by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.N.1275/94, 306/95 and 307/95 for the present appeal also. 5.With regard to the compensation of the Well acquired along with the land in S.No.175/2 the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as against the claim of Rs.15,000/- both the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Tribunal have awarded only a sum of Rs.1,664/- which is too low. Referring to the award in LAOP.Nos.74, 75 & 77 of 1986 dated 9.4.1991 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which had also arisen out of the reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of S.No.190/6 belonging to Arunachala Naiyakar and S.No.191/2 belonging to one Kandasamy with Wells. S.No.191/2 & 190/4 in Koyambedu Village were also acquired along with S.No.175/2 (relating to the present appeal) and that the learned VI Assistant Judge, had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the Well acquired alongwith S.No.190/4. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the same Judge, who had disposed of LAOP.Nos.74, 75, & 77 of 1986, has disposed of the present LAOP.No.66 of 1986 (against which the present appeal has been preferred), has awarded only Rs.1,664/- towards compensation for the Well acquired alongwith https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.175/2. S.No.191/2 is having an extent of 1 acre. S.No.175/2 is having an extent of 1 acre 64 cents. The Well in S.No.191/2 was awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and the Well in S.No.190/4 was awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- in LAOP.Nos.74, 75 & 77 of 1986 dated 09.04.1991 against which no appeal has been preferred as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. But the compensations for the above Wells were fixed by the Tribunal only on the basis of the value assessed by an Engineer. For the Well in S.No.190/4, the Engineer had fixed the value as Rs.2,191/-, but the same was enhanced by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- without any contrary evidence let in by the claimant for enhancement. Similarly in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 also the Engineer had fixed the value for the Well as Rs.1,664/-, which was accepted by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Tribunal. In the absence of any contra evidence to show that the Well in present S.No.175/2 will fetch more value than the value fixed by the Engineer, I am of the view that claim in respect of enhancement of compensation for the Well can not be entertained. 6.In fine, the appeal is allowed and the compensation for the land in S.No.175/2 is enhanced and fixed as Rs.640/- per cent with usual solatium, interest on solatium, and additional compensation as permissible under the Land Acquisition Act and the claim of enhancement of the compensation in respect of the Well in S.No.175/2 is hereby dismissed. In other respects, the judgment of the Tribunal in LAOP.No.66 of 1986 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is confirmed. Time for depositing the enhanced compensation amount is two month from this date. Connected Miscellaneous Petition No.941 of 2008 is allowed and the documents mentioned in CMP are ordered to be received. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssv To, 1.The Registrar,The VI Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court,Madras. 2 CC To Mr.David Thiyagaraj, Advocate, SR NO.30070 1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.30117 A.S.No.282 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.941 of 2008 MDR(CO) rvr 18/06/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/