1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:22.06.2011 C o r a m The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM A.S.(md).Nos.42 & 43 of 2011 The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition), Sivakasi. ... Appellant/Referring Officer in both A.Ss Vs. Durairaj Naicker ... Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.42/2011 Pushpalakshmi ... Respondent/Claimant in A.S.No.43/2011 Common Prayer:These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the common judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 and 7 of 2007 dated 16.04.2010. For appellant in both A.Ss :Mr.S.Kumar,Additional Govt. Pleader(CS) For respondents in both A.Ss :Mr.D.Sakaravarthy COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals have been preferred against the common award passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 and 7 of 2007 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Court, Sivakasi. 2.The appellant herein as Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the lands comprised in S.Nos.73/4A and 77/1A situate in Pethureddipatti village, Sathur Taluk, Virudhunagar District and awarded a compensation of Rs.59.45 per cent paise per cent. Against the quantum of award fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, references have been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the same have been taken on file in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 & 7 of 2007. 3.The Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Court, Sivakasi, after considering the available evidence on record, has awarded Rs.1,932/- per cent by way of compensation. Against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub-Court, Sivakasi, these first appeals have been preferred at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer as appellant. 4.It is an admitted fact that the appellant as Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the lands mentioned supra for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Project and awarded a compensation of Rs.59.45 per cent paise per cent. 5.The Land Acquisition Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,932/- per cent by way of compensation. 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) has contended that the lands in question have been acquired for the purpose of irrigation project. Under the said circumstances, the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has rightly fixed Rs.59.45 paise per cent by way of compensation. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal without considering the available evidence on record has exorbitantly fixed Rs.1,932/- per cent by way of compensation on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 basis of Ex.C.4 and therefore the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be modified. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that under Ex.C.4, the property which is comprised in S.No.74/3A has been dealt with and in the year 1995, 1 cent of land has been sold for a sum of Rs.2,000/- and in the present case, 4(1) notification has been published on 12.01.1998 and the Land Acquisition Tribunal without considering the above factual aspect has erroneously fixed Rs.1,932/- per cent by way of compensation and further the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal cannot be questioned in the present appeals and therefore the same are liable to be dismissed. 8.As stated earlier, the lands in question have been acquired for the purpose of irrigation projects. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed only Rs.59.45 per cent paise per cent. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed Rs.1,932/- per cent as compensation on the basis of Ex.C.4. Ex.C.4 has come into existence in the year 1993. Under Ex.C.4 only house site has been dealt with. The lands in question are nothing but nanja lands. 9.The Land Acquisition Tribunal has considered the classification of the lands in question as well as the nature of the land which has been dealt with under Ex.C.4 and ultimately has given deduction of 33.3% towards development charges. 10.Considering the fact that the lands in question are nothing but nanja lands and only house site has been dealt with in Ex.C.4, the deduction given by the Land Acquisition Tribunal towards development charges is perfectly correct and further the quantum of amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is also equally correct and the same does not require any interference. Therefore viewing from any angle, the contention urged on the side of the appellant cannot be accepted. 11.In fine, these appeal suits deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 & 2 of 2011 are also dismissed and the common award passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 and 7 of 2007 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub- Court, Sivakasi is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To. The Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Sivakasi. +1cc to Mr.D.Sakaravarthy Advocate, Sr.No.19822 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 19652 A.S.(md).Nos.42 & 43 of 2011 VS/SMA/5.7.2011/4C/2P 22.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/