SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Cuddalore against the judgment and decree in LAOP No.91 of 1996 dated 18.7.2003. The appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequent to the numbering of the appeal, notice was given to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per the statutory requirement and the Standing Counsel appears.

(2.) Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the Housing Board.

(3.) The land of the 1st respondent situated in Kilperumbattur Village at Villupuram was taken over for implementing the neighbourhood scheme in constructing houses for the public. The 1st respondent claimant, who owned lands to the extent of 1720.5 Sq.ft in Survey No.32/10B, was not satisfied with the compensation ordered by the acquiring authority. It was Rs.7.35p per Sq.ft. In view of the objection to the low compensation paid, the matter was referred for determination of the market value by the jurisdictional reference court. The Second Additional Sub Court, Villupuram to which the matter was allotted registered the same as LAOP No.91 of 1996. Before the Reference court on behalf of the claimant, her husband Rajamani was examined as P.W.1 and on their side 4 documents were marked, which are Ex.P.1 to P.4. On the side of the appellant, one Duraikumar was examined as R.W.1. Surprisingly, no documents were produced by the acquiring authority. The Reference Court on the basis of these materials found that the Document No.867/90 dated 30.5.1990 alone was considered as a data land and the same reflected the value of Rs.4 per Sq.ft. Though Rs.7.35 per Sq.ft was fixed, the amounts were deducted towards development charges. The Reference Court found Exs.P.1 to P.4 are more reliable. Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 4.8.1988 in R.S.No.163/2B is situated in the same village. Likewise Ex.P.2 Sale Deed dated 10.7.1991 is also in the same village in R.S.No.168/3B to the extent of 1875 Sq.ft vacant site. Ex.P.3 Sale Deed dated 7.9.1989 is also situated in the same Village to the extent of 1000 Sq.ft in Survey No.38/, which is also a vacant site. Likewise, Ex.P.4 Sale Deed dated 28.2.1990 is situated in the same Village in Survey No.157/4B to the extent of 900 Sq.ft, which is also a vacant site. The Reference Court also found that Ex.P.4 correctly reflects the market value of the acquired land. It related to the period before Section 4(1) Notification and the amount fixed by the acquiring officer was very low and therefore the reference court held that the claimant was entitled to for higher compensation. On the said basis, the court below came to the conclusion that if the market value of Ex.P.4, which was to the extent of 900 Sq.ft was Rs.22,500/-, then the Square Feet costs worked out to Rs.25/-. It is on that basis, the court below came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for additional compensation. It also provided for solatium and other statutory payment. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended that the court below ought not to have accepted Ex.P.1 to P.4 and the lands were situated far away from the lands which are acquired and more acceptable rate than what is found in the data land. It is also contended that Ex.P.4 is also the extent of 2 Cents, which cannot reflect the correct market value. But, this argument overlooks the fact that the claimant's land is only 1720.5 Sq.ft Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition was to the larger extent of land and the exemplaries in Ex.P.1 to P.3 can be taken into account. In the present case, the land has been acquired for house sites. Therefore, no further development is required in the land in all other heads. What was sold is only is a vacant site. Further, it must be stated that on the side of the appellant, no documents were filed and relying upon statistical data alone cannot be a true indicator for determination of the market value. It must be understood that the reference under section 18(1) is not an appeal and the court below is not obliged to go into the statistical data though it could form the basis for the acquiring authority.