F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. - (1.) ALL these appeals have been preferred by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Unit-4, Katarambakkam village, challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2005 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1123 of 2002 etc. batch, covering 224 cases. ALL the lands were situated in a village called Katarambakkam in different survey numbers between 575 and 582. The Acquisition Officer took into account 98 sale deeds which were gathered from the Sub-Registrar's office of Sriperumbudur Taluk, for the period from 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997. After discarding 95 of such sale deeds, he considered the sales involved in respect of Survey No,203/2 for an extent of 0.13 acres out of 0.38 acres and the sale deed in respect of Survey No,599 for an extent of 4.56 acres and another sale deed in respect of Survey No,580/1 for an extent of 0.47.0 hectares. As far as the land in respect of Survey No,599 was concerned the same was discarded by the Acquisition Officer on the ground that the soil, sort and thraram differ from the acquired lands. As far as the land in respect of Survey No,580/1 was concerned, the same was also discarded by the Acquisition Officer on the ground that it was on the shores of Peria Eri of Katrambakkam village and that during rainy season water stagnation used to be high in the field and that no cultivation was being made. Ultimately, the Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale in respect of Survey No,203/2 in an extent of 0.13 acres for a sale consideration of Rs.3,250/- which works out to Rs.250/- per cent. The said land was stated to be dry land. On that basis, the Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable for all the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition and covered by the impugned judgment of the Court below.
(2.) THE Court below after examining the various contentions of the parties stated before it, both on the side of the appellant as well as the respondents/claimants has noted that the total acquisition in respect of all the lands covered by the different survey numbers 576 to 737 in Katrambakkam 'A' and 'B' block villages was 117.05.05 hectares. THE lands were all stated to be "Manavari" dry . THE acquisition came to be made by invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. THE acquisitions were therefore, made within one month from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. THE Court below has also noted various award numbers, date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and other details which were mentioned in the judgment in paragraph No.15 and the same read as under: "Village Katrambakkam Acquisition. TABLE THE notifications issued under Section 4(1) were of the year 1996-97. After considering the respective submissions of the counsel who appeared for the appellant and respondents/ claimants, the Court below noted that the Acquisition Officer himself discarded the sale in respect of Survey No,580/1 - wrongly mentioned as 580/2. As far as the sale covered in respect of Survey No,203/2 was concerned the Court below held that the same was not comparable inasmuch as the survey number was in respect of the land which is not located near the vicinity of the acquired lands. Apparently, the Court below was not inclined to accept the land value in respect of Survey No,203/2 as the acquired lands were all in Survey Nos.575 to 737. On behalf of the claimants five documents were placed before the Court below which were marked as Exs.C.4, C.6, C,5, C.2 and C.3. The sale consideration in those documents was ranging from Rs.4,600 to Rs.7,000/-. They were all in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.336/4, 353/4, 342/1, 336/1 and 328/2D. All the sales were of the year November, December, 1995, February and April, 1996. The extent of lands sold ranged from 1800 to 3600 sq. ft. The Court below while rejecting the stand of the Acquisition Officer in having relied upon the sale relating to the lands in Survey No,203/2 held that since the land in respect of Survey No,328/2D namely, covered by Exs.C.2 and C.3 were the lands which were located in the same Katrambakkam village and that the sales were in the month of April, 1996, ie. within six months prior to the acquisition the land value of the said documents can be applied. Since the extent of the land sold were less as compared to data lands, the Court below reduced the sale price to an extent of 30% apart from imposing further reduction of 25% towards development charges. On that basis the Court below fixed the value at Rs.3,150/- per cent and directed the appellant to work out the compensation on that basis.
(3.) ASSAILING the said judgment and decree of the Court below, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, contended that the reasons assigned by the Court below for discarding the data land relied upon by the Acquisition Officer were not justified. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that the lands were all barren lands and that every other development was made by the appellant in order to make the lands fit for use, as an industrial park and in the circumstances, the Court below ought to have affirmed the award of the Acquisition Officer who relied upon the sale in respect of Survey No,203/2 which was located adjacent to the acquired lands. As against the above submissions Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ claimant contended that the Court below rightly relied upon a sale deed which was in respect of the lands situated in the very same village namely, Katrambakkam village and such sale deeds were also during the six months of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the reliance placed upon Exs.C.2 and C.3 by the Courts below was justified. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in RAVINDER NARAIN v. UNION OF INDIA (2003 (4) SCC, 481) THAKARSIBHAI DEVJIBHAI v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (2001 (9) SCC, 584) and UNION OF INDIA v. HARINDER PAL SINGH (2005 (12) SCC, 564) in support of his submissions.;