1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.(MD) Nos. 13 to 16 of 2011 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur. ... Appellant/ Referring Officer in all the appeals Vs. 1. Natarajan 2. Paulraj 3. Ramakrishnan .. Respondents/ Claimants in all the appeals Prayer: Appeal Suits are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivakasi in L.A.O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 of 2004 dated 18.3.2005. For Appellant : Mr. D. Gandhirajan Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P. Murugappan C O M M O N J U D G M E N T The Referring Officer before the court below is the appellant in all these appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, in L.A.O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 of 2004, dated 18.3.2005. These appeals have been preferred challenging the correctness of the market value fixed by the court below and consequently, the amount awarded by the court below as enhanced compensation in each one of the L.A.O.P.s concerned in these appeals. 2. The point that commonly arises for consideration in all these appeals is as follows: "Whether the amount fixed by the court below as the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) is unreasonably high and whether the consequent fixation of the enhanced compensation in each one of the L.A.O.P.s requires downward revision?" 3. The arguments advanced by Mr.D.Gandhirajan, learned Government Advocate and Mr.P.Murugappan, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, who is none other than the appellant in these appeals, fixed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification namely, 27.11.1997, at Rs.85/-(Rupees eighty five only) per cent and awarded compensation. Not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the respondents herein/the claimants in all the L.A.O.P.s concerned in these appeals received the amount under protest and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 made request for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that is how the references were made to the court below, which were taken on file as L.A.O.P.Nos. 2 to 5 of 2004. 5. In the enquiry that was conducted before the court below, which lead to a common order and the awards in each one of the L.A.O.P.s that are impugned in these appeals, no witness was examined on either side. Three documents were marked on the side of the claimants as Ex.C1 to C3 and four documents were marked on the side of the Referring Officer as Exs.R1 to R4. Ex.R1 is the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.R2 is the Sales Statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.R3 is the Topo Sketch showing the location of the acquired lands. Those three documents will not be clinching issue regarding the correct valuation of the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a Sale Deed dated 19.05.1995, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.R4. But no evidence has been adduced on the side of the Referring Officer to the effect that the said sale transaction was genuine and the amount quoted therein was the real consideration for which the sale had taken place. 6. Among the documents produced by the claimants as Exs. C1 to C3. Exs.C1 is one of the document relied on in the Ex.C2. Exs. C2 and C3 are the awards passed in L.A.O.P.Nos. No. 14 to 30 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi, and L.A.O.P. No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the said Court respectively. Admittedly, the sale concerned in Ex.C1 was the one relied on by the court for fixing the market value of the land concerned in L.A.O.P. Nos. 14 of 2001 to 30 of 2001.As per Ex.C.1 three cents of land comprised in Survey No. 70/3 of Alampatti Village was sold for a sum of Rs.3,615/-(Rupees three thousand six hundred and fifteen only) on 03.05.1994, which works out to Rs.1,205/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred and five only). The said document was relied on by the court below in L.A.O.P. Nos. 14 of 2001 to 30 of 2001 which were disposed of by a common judgment, dated 09.01.2004, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.C.2. The same was also relied on by the same court in L.A.O.P. No. 16 of 2001. The certified copy of the decreetal order passed in L.A.O.P. No. 16 of 2001 of the Sub-Court, Sivakasi has been produced and marked as Ex.C.3. 7. A consideration of the above said documents will show that in connected land acquisition proceedings, the court below has fixed the market value of the neighbouring lands at the rate of Rs.1,200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent. It is not disputed that the land concerned in the present appeals are comparable to the lands concerned in those L.A.O.P.s relating to Exs.C2 and C3. The said lands were also acquired under the very same scheme. Similarly, the land comprised in Survey Nos. 131/5 and 131/3 in Alampatti Village was acquired for the very same scheme under which the land concerned in these appeals were acquired namely, Irukkankudi Reservoir Scheme. For the said lands comprised in Survey Nos. 131/5 and 131/3 in Alampatti Village, regarding which references were made to the court in L.A.O.P. Nos.200 and 201 of 2002. For the said lands also, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at Rs.85/-(Rupees eighty five only) per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on the earlier batch of appeals fixed the market value for the said lands at the rate of Rs.1,200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent. The same was challenged by the Referring Officer in A.S.(MD) Nos. 278 and 279 of 2009 in this Court. This Court referring to its earlier judgment dated 28.10.2010 in respect of the other acquired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 lands concerned in A.S. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 69 to 73 of 2006 held that the fixation of the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,200/-(Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent was proper and no interference with the same was warranted. A copy of the said judgment of this Court made in A.S.Nos. 278 and 279 of 2009, dated 11.11.2010 has also been placed before this Court for its perusal. In view of the same also, this Court comes to the conclusion that no interference is warranted with the fixation of the market value of the acquired land made by the court below in respect of the lands concerned in the appeals on hand. The learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents have also conceded that it shall be just and proper to fix the very same rate as the market value of the acquired land in the case on hands. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the order of the court below fixing the market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification at Rs.1,200/-(Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) per cent does not warrant interference and the same deserves to be confirmed. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly allowed the statutory benefits namely, the additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier, under Section 23(1)(A) and 30% of the market value as solatium as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Subordinate Judge has also rightly awarded interest for the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and for the subsequent period at the rate of 15% till the date of payment. There cannot be any grievance over the award of such statutory benefits. In fact, such contention has not been raised in these appeals by the appellant. Therefore, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed, confirming the awards passed by the court below. 9. In the result, the appeals in A.S.(MD) Nos. 13 to 16 of 2006 are dismissed. The awards dated 18.3.2005 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi, are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader , SR.No.9630 ses A.S.(MD) Nos. 13 to 16 of 2011 22.02.2011 TR : 18.05.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/