SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. T R BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Virudhachalam challenging the judgment and decree in LAOP No.100 of 2004 dated 15.4.2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam.

(2.) The land of the respondent was acquired to an extent of 0.01.0 Hectares for the purpose of providing house sites to the Erulars in Pennadam Village in Tittagudi Taluk. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,07,781 per Hectare. The respondent claimant objected to the low rate of compensation and demanded Rs.2,000/- per Cent. Therefore, the matter was referred for determination of the market value by the Reference Court. The Reference Court registered the case as LAOP No.100 of 2003. Before the Reference Court, the claimant examined himself as C.W.1. He also marked 2 documents as Ex.C.1 and C2. On the side of the appellant, one Abdul Hameed was examined as R.W.1 and four documents were filed as Ex.R.1 to R.4. The Reference Court on the basis of these materials came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,600/- for the acquired land as against Rs.1,07,781/- Per Hectare as ordered by the acquiring authority.

(3.) It is rather unfortunate that the appellant should file an appeal for the so called enhanced compensation of Rs.7522/-. This especially when there was no other claimant available and no other land was acquired in that Village. Even otherwise the appeal suit was filed with a delay of 732 days. In the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, by an order dated 28.1.2008, the appellant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. Apart from this, for the preparation of the records and the legal fee payable to the Government Pleader, it will cost more than the amount appealed as enhanced compensation. When the Country is to adopt a new National litigation policy, in which it was resolved not to file appeals as a matter of routine and also in matters neither involving policy nor will set wrong precedents, it is unfortunate such appeals are still filed and prosecuted by the State. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order under appeal does not call for any interference, especially, when the court below had gone into the evidentiary value of the deposition given by the appellant.