- (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment in LAOP.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.
(2.) THE Government of Pondicherry have acquired 12 acres 76 Ares 00 Ca of land in Kelaiyur Village of Karaikal Taluk comprised in S.Nos.56/1, 56/2, 56/3, 56/4, 56/5, 56/6, 57/1, 57/2, 57/3, 57/4, 57/5, 57/6, 57/7, 71/1, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 74, 75/2, 75/3, 76/4, 76/5 & 76/6 for the purpose of setting up a Gas Power Plant by Electricity Department, Kariakal, at Kelaiyur Village. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities, had published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the Gazette on 22.05.1991. On the basis of the data land, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.5,250/- per Are for the dry land and at Rs.3,200/- per Are for the wet land acquired by the Government for the purpose of setting up Gas Power Plant by electricity department at Kelaiyur Villat in Karaikal. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objections before him, which was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondents, the Special Tahsildar Mr.S.Nagarajan was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked. After scanning the evidence both oral and documentary and after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 - sale deeds taking into consideration the potentiality of the lands acquired and having come to the conclusion that the lands that were sold under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in the year 1990 i.e., before the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the lands acquired by the Government are similar in nature, has raised the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.3,200/- per Ares to Rs.4,000/- per Ares. Aggrieved by the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Government has preferred this appeal.
(3.) HEARD the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions. The learned Additional Government Pleader confined his argument only in respect of deduction regarding developmental charges. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that admittedly the lands acquired are not well developed one and are used for agricultural purposes and the Government had acquired the land for setting up Gas Power Plant for the Electricity Department and for that lot of improvements to be made in the lands by the Government and towards that some deduction ought to have been made by the Land Acquisition Tribunal while awarding the compensation. In support of this contention the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely on 2008(2) CTC 171 (The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vridhachalam Vs. Sornambal @ Sornasundari an another). The short facts of the above said ratio are that about 2.63 acres of land in R.S.No.24/3 and 1 acre 37 cents of land in R.S.No.24/6 in Budhamur Village, Vridhachalam, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of providing house sites for houseless dhobies and barbers. But the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.90/- per cent (9026 per Acre). On appeal the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced and fixed the compensation at Rs.700/- per cent. Both the Government as well as the claimants have preferred appeal and cross-objection respectively before this Court. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Government in that case would contend that atleast 25% deduction should be made from the compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- per acre (Rs.700/- per cent) towards development charges. Relying on a ration decidendi in AIR 2004 SC 2006 (Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another), this Court has allowed 20% deduction towards development charges.;