IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 07.03.2008 CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.247 of 1997 1.Mohammed Saifuddin 2.Tmt.Ameena Begum 3.Mohammed Nooruddin 4.Mohammed Shamusudeen 5.Mohammed Jalaluddin 6.Tmt.Mymuna Begum 7.Tmt.Sameena Begum ... Appellants/Claimants -vs- The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare)Department, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.221 of 1992 dated 18.01.1996 on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. For Appellants : Mr.T.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi, Special G.P. JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.221 of 1992 dated 04.01.1994, on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.It is an admitted fact that a total extent of 1.51 acres of land, in S.No.118/2B Byanapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars. It is seen from the records that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published in the Official Gazattee on 06.09.1989. After enquiry, the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer, had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,660/-per acre. The appellants/claimants had received the amount under protest and at their request, the matter was referred to, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3.The first appellant being the first claimant was examined as C.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A4. On the side of the respondent no witnesses was examined. However, Exs.R1 to R4 were marked by consent of the claimants. The Court below considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both sides decided the market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/-per acre and accordingly, directed the respondent to pay the compensation with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which, the claimants have preferred this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 4.Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the acquired land is situated abutting the Hosur-Krishnagiri Main Road, in a developed area nearby, residential houses whereas the land acquisition officer considered the data land which is far away from the acquired land for deciding the market value. According to the learned counsel, even the Land Acquisition Tribunal, has not considered the document available on record to fix proper market value of the property. It is not in dispute that as per Ex.A1, dated 29.04.1988 one Munir Ahmed had sold the land in S.No.39/1, an extent of 4700 sq.ft. at Rs.1,05,000/- per acre as per Ex.A2 dated 10.07.1989, Mohammed Saifuddin, the first appellant had sold his land, an extent of 50 cents in R.S.No.118/2, for Rs.75,000/-. As the sale had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification relating to a similarly placed land according to the learned counsel for the appellants the market value could have been fixed as per Ex.A2. It is seen that Ex.A3 is an un-registered sale agreement, therefore, the same is rightly rejected by the Trial Court. As per Ex.A4, on 20.02.1991, an extent of five cents of land had been sold by the first appellant to one Elambarudhi for Rs.31,500/-. Based on Ex.A4, the appellants herein have claimed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 5.Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent strenously resisted the aforesaid contention that the sale deed marked as Ex.A4, relates to a smaller extent of land and further the sale had taken place only subsequent to the date of 4 (1) notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 06.09.1989. But, Ex.A4, Sale has taken place only on 20.02.1991 much latter to the date of 4 (1) notification and further a minimum extent of five cents of land was sold by the first appellant as per the sale deed and therefore, Ex.A4 cannot be considered for deciding the market value of the acquired land. 7.The Honourable Apex Court in a decision in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1989 SC 2051 it has been held that whether the sale of land adjacent to the acquired land was cited as instance for determination of market value, the same could not be altogether rejected, merely because it was a post-acquisition sale, when there was no other evidence, indicating that there was sharp or speculative rise of the land after acquisition. 8.In the instant case, to decide the market value of the acquired land apart from Ex.A1 and A2, B2 Sales Statistics relating to Bynapalli Village for the period from 29.09.1987 to 28.08.1988 has been marked as Ex.B3, apart from the topo-sketch of the village showing the acquired land and the other lands and further, as per Ex.A4 nearly two years after the date of 4(1) notification, only a minimum extent of five cents of land was sold by the first appellant for Rs.31,500/-. Therefore, I am of the view that the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Under Ex.A2, an extent of 50 cents of land had been sold for Rs.75,000/- prior to the date of 4(1) notification by the first appellant herein. It cannot be said that an minimum extent of land had been sold with an intention to claim exorbitant compensation for the acquired land. As per Ex.A1 one year prior to the date of Ex.A2 a similar land had been sold at the rate of Rs.1,08,869/-per acre. The sales statistics register marked by the respondent as Ex.B3, also shows that there was reasonable increase in the market value of the lands in the area of the acquired land and therefore, I am of the view that the Court below, could have considered Ex.A2, Sale Deed, for fixing the market value of the acquired land. While expressing the view in the open Court, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that reasonable deduction to be made in fixing the market value, if it is fixed as per Ex.A2. 10.It is seen from the topo-sketch, Ex.B3, that the land described in Ex.A2 and the acquired land are similarly placed lands abutting the Hosur-Krishnagiri Main Road. The acquired land is an extent of 1 acre and 51 cents whereas the land sold under Ex.A2 was 50 cents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.Considering the same, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the view to deduct 20% of the market value of the land referred in Ex.A2 while fixing the value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. The appellants are also entitled to get 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification, till the date of taking over possession of the acquired land by the respondent, 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year and also subsequent interest at 15% as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent is directed to pay the compensation accordingly after deducting the amount already received by the appellants. This appeal is disposed of accordingly, as per the aforesaid terms. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Smi To, 1.The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.13206 A.S.No.247 of 1997 ASM {CO} TP/31.7.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/