- (1.) Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on November 30, 2003 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1996. The learned District Judge held that the appellant in FAT No.002 of 2010 had made less payment of Rs.10,96,400/ -.The learned District Judge, upon relying on Ext. 10 tendered in evidence, opined that the market price of the relevant house site should be reasonably assessed at Rs.600/ - per square metre. The Collector had assessed the house site at Rs. 300/ - per square metre which, according to the learned District Judge, was much below the then market price. The learned District Judge relied on Ext. 10 as a comparable sale deed for the purpose of evaluating the market price of the house site of the objector. The learned District Judge assessed the price of the house site in question at Rs.600 x 1400/ - Rs. 9,40,000/ - The Collector had allowed the objector a sum of Rs. 300 x 1400 = Rs. 4,20,000/ -. The learned District Judge, therefore, held that the Collector had f assessed Rs.4,20,000/ - less towards the market price of the house site. The learned District Judge also granted further solatium to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/ -, In view of Section 23(1 A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the learned District Judge granted 12% per annum on the enhanced market price and held that the Administration had made a less payment of Rs. 5,96,400/ - to the deceased% objector who was substituted by his legal heirs.
(2.) Mr. Tabraiz submits that since the sale price mentioned in Ext. 10 included the price towards the structure standing on the land, the same could not have been relied upon by the learned District Judge for the purpose of determining the market price of the relevant house site. Mr.Tabraiz further submits that the learned District Judge, on the basis of the Ext.10 where the market price of the house site was Rs.422/ - per square metre, assessed the market price of the respondents' house site at Rs. 600/ - per square metre as on the date of the award passed by the Collector i.e. on March 30, 1996. Mr. Tabraiz urges that the market price of the acquired house site Tshould have been assessed as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act and not as on the date of the award. It is also submitted by Mr.Tabraiz that for the purpose of extension of the Airport at Port Blair the Administration acquired vast stretches of land by a common notification dated March 13,1995. The parcels of land acquired under the common notification were classified in the following categories : - (1) Agricultural land; (2) House site; and (3) Commercial site. The Collector, upon considering various reports submitted by various authorities and also taking into account several judicial pronouncements, determined the market value of the aforesaid three categories of land as follows: (1) Agricultural land at Rs. 34/ - per square metre; (2) House site at Rs. 300/ - per square metre; and (3) Commercial site at Rs.500/ - per square metre.
(3.) According to learned Counsel for the Administration, several similarly placed plot -holders had challenged the determination of the market price by the Collector before the learned District Judge and also subsequently before this Court but the market price of the plots as determined by the Collector was not enhanced. In the instant case, however, the learned District Judge was pleased to enhance the market price of the house site from Rs. 300/ - per square metre to Rs. 600/ - per square metre. Mr. Tabraiz submits that there was no reason to enhance the market price in respect of the house site of the deceased objector particularly when the market price of the other house sites in the area acquired under the same notification was uniformly assessed at Rs. 300/ - per square metre.;