w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


The Sub Collector, Kovilpatti v/s E.M.A. Ramachandran

    A.S.No.39 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.1880 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006
    Decided On, 03 March 2008
    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
    For the Appellant: So. Paramasivam, Additional Govt. Pleader. For the Respondent: K. Chellapandian, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.)


This appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.


2. Pithily and precisely, the background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal, would run thus:


The Government vide 4(1) notification dated 15.06.1988 acquired the land bearing S.No.228/2B to an extent of 2.02.5 Hectares 5 acres in Elanbuvanam village. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation amount at Rs.68/- per cent placing reliance on the sale deed emerged relating to S.No.78/6 which was some what away from the land acquired. The land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. Thereupon, the Sub Court placing reliance on the sale deed Ex.C.4 dated 03.07.1985 relating to 5 cents of land, assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.448/- and from that deductions to the tune of Rs.148/- was made obviously towards developmental charges.


3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the said order, the present appeal has been filed on the following main grounds among others:


The Sub Court fell into error in enhancing the compensation arbitrarily placing reliance on the sale deed Ex.C.4 which is for a smaller extent of plot whereas the land acquired is a huge agricultural area intended for putting up buildings for a Girls' Higher Secondary School.


4. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Sub Court is just and proper?


5. The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the memorandum of appeal would reiterate that the compensation awarded based on Ex.C.4 pertaining to a smaller extent of plot, was not tenable. However, the learned Counsel for the claimant/land owner would draw the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 12.03.2006, in C.M.P.(MD)No.1880 of 2006 in this A.S.No.39 of 2006 and the same is extracted hereunder for ready reference:


"Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader. He fairly concedes that the award of compensation in the L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Kovilpatti, is reasonable and that only on the basis of the sale deed dated 3.7.1985 for the adjoining lands, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation. The learned Additional Government Pleader represents that the Government is prepared to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs.


2. Interim stay on condition that the petitioner/appellant deposits the entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Kovilpatti, within a period of eight weeks." (emphasis supplied.)


6. The perusal of the aforesaid excerpt would demonstrate that while granting stay, this Court recorded that the Government Pleader conceded that the compensation awarded by the Sub Court was proper. Even then, the appeal was filed by the Government. De hors such concessions which emerged from the side of the Government Pleader, this Court has to analyse and assess the correctness of the compensation awarded by the Sub Court. Accordingly, I proceed to deal with the matter as per law.


7. The Land Acquisition Officer took into account the sale deed dated 08.12.1986 relating to the land bearing S.No.78/6, which was to some extent comparatively away from the land acquired. Whereas Ex.C.4, dated 03.07.1985 which is even anterior to the said sale deed dated 08.12.1986, relating to 5 cents was valued at the rate of Rs.448/- per cent.


8. The Sub Court correctly after deduction of Rs.148/- per cent towards developmental charges, assessed the net value of the compensation in a sum of Rs.300/- per cent. In other words, approximately 1/3 rd of the sale consideration as found in Ex.C.4 was deducted for assessing the value of the land acquired. In fact, the Sub Court correctly had not given notional increase at the rate of 10% for each year for the purpose of arriving at the market value as on 15.06.1988 so to say, the date of Section 4(1) notification, inasmuch as the land acquired referred in Ex.C.4, dated 03.07.1985 is a sma

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ller land of habitation area. Broadly speaking, the Sub Court in a reasonable manner arrived at the just compensation of Rs.300/- per cent which requires no interference and nothing has been spotlighted on the Government side in what manner the said assessment is bad in law. 9. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. No costs.
O R