S BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the common judgment rendered under the Land Acquisition Act, have filed the above appeals.

(2.) AN extent of 11.38.0 hectares of dry lands in Survey No.918/3 Part etc. of Mutliur Village, Palayankottai Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District were acquired for the formation of a new Water Tank. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 30.5.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, by Award No.1 of 1993 dated 30.4.1993, determined the compensation for the various claimants. The lands in question that were acquired are confined to 2.23.0 hectares in S.No.926/1 etc. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, one Thiru Gomathinayagam, General Power of Attorney of the claimant S. Balasubramanian is said to have given a statement on his behalf stating that he has no objection to the proposed acquisition, but requested to make early payment of compensation for the proposed acquisition of the lands. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer, as far as these lands are concerned, fixed a total compensation of Rs.2,36,072 including 30% solatium and 12% interest on the land value, from 20.6.1990 to 30.4.1993. The market value was determined at the rate of Rs.18,000 per acre by the Officer. Aggrieved by this, the claimant filed a statement dated 22.8.1994 for a reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking to determine the market value at Rs.30,000 per acre and also claiming that possession of the lands was taken long prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. on 1.5.1975. On reference, the learned Sub Judge, in L.A.O.P. No. 85 of 1994, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 25, 000 per acre ( Rs. 61,750 per hectare). He has also awarded 9% interest from 1.7.1976, the alleged date of taking possession of the land, for a period of one year and 15% interest thereafter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimant Mr.S. Jayaraman made two submissions. As far as the merits in fixation of the market value are concerned, according to him, the disallowance of the claim of Rs.30,000 per acre instead of Rs.25,000 is erroneous. According to him, the learned Judge having accepted Ex.A.1, erred in deducting Rs.6,000 towards expenses for the formation of the water tank. On the second point, it is submitted that the learned Judge foiled to give the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of taking possession of the land till realisation of the entire amount, but has given only from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.