The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer) and The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works vs Karuppasamy

N. Kirubakaran, J.—The above appeals arise against the judgment passed on 27.09.2001 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 235 of 1992, 236 of 1992, 242 of 1992 and 243 of 1992, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.

The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The lands comprised various survey Nos. of W. Pudupatti and Watrap Village of Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, to an extent of 0.22.5 Hectares were acquired by virtue of Section 4(1) notification dated 14.07.1988. The purpose of acquisition is for formation of road from Pudupatti to Arjunapuram.

(ii) The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 90/- and Rs. 110/- per cent based on the classification of unirrigated dry lands and irrigated dry lands respectively, relying upon the item No. 37(Ex.R-4) and item No. 50 (Ex.R-5) of the sales statistics namely Ex.R-3. Reference, under 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 1090/- per cent based on Ex.P-1, dated 04.04.1988.

Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the value of the smaller extent of the land namely Ex.P-1 was relied upon to determine vast extent of land. The learned Counsel submitted that it is well settled law that sale of smaller extent of land cannot be the basis for determining the value of vast extent of land. The learned Counsel further submitted that only 50% was deducted towards development charges and needs to be enhanced to 65%. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Vs. Smt. L. Kamalamma (Dead) by Lrs. and Others K. Krishnamachari and Others, .

A perusal of the pleadings, evidence and the award would show that 4(1) notification was issued on 14.07.1988 and the lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of road from Puduppatti to Arjunapuram. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents for fixing the compensation at Rs. 90/- and Rs. 110/- respectively. However, the Tribunal rejected Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents stating that the properties mentioned in Exs.R-4 and R-5 were situate far away from the acquired land and that it was not proved that the land covered by Ex.R-5 was cultivable land. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that R.W.1 did not have direct knowledge about the lands in question and Exs.P-4 and P-5 lands and it was not proved that the data land and acquired lands were of same nature and potential. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected Exs.R-4 and R-5 documents.

R.W-1 himself admitted in his evidence that the value of the land is common for Puduppatti, Watrap villages as they are adjoining villages and that the acquired land had thatched houses, and the tamarind trees. P.W.1 proved that the acquired land is surrounded by banks, panchayat union, co-operative mills society, sarvadhoya store, brick-lins and surrounded by housing colonies. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the acquired land has potential of becoming house sites.

Ex.P.1, is dated 04.04.1988. It was admitted by R.W-1 officer himself that the acquired land was situated in the residential area got potential of becoming house sites. Therefore, the Tribunal relied upon the Ex.P-1 document to determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,180/- per cent.

As Ex.P.1 conveyed smaller extent of land, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards development charges. As per Ex.P.1 the value per cent is Rs. 2180/-. After deducting 50% out of Rs. 2180/-, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 1090/-. The Hon''ble Supreme Court Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , held that value smaller extent of land could be relied upon for determining the value of vast extent of land and what is required is appropriate deduction towards development charges. In that case 10% was deducted towards development charges. The above judgment proves that there is no prohibition for the Court or the Tribunal to rely upon value of the smaller extent of land. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mummidi Apparav (D) through LRs. v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited reported in 2008 (72) AIC 58, confirmed 50% deduction made by the Hon''ble High Court for relying upon the value of sale deed which conveyed smaller extent of land. In this case also the Tribunal deducted 50% towards development charges and therefore this Court confirms the compensation determined at Rs. 1090/- per cent.

Though 30% was awarded towards solatium no interest was granted for the said amount. A Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , held that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium on par with compensation. As the award passed by the Tribunal is before the judgment in Sunder case, this Court awards interest on the solatium also on par with the interest on compensation.

In other aspects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed but for the modification made above and accordingly appeals are dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

The Government is permitted to deposit the entire amount before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Tribunal is further directed to pay the entire amount to the claimants within a period of two weeks thereof, provided the claimants make an application in this regard. If no application is made, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the entire amount in the fixed deposit and the Tribunal has to pay to the amount, whenever the claimants approach for payment.