The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare) vs Abdul Aziz Rowther rep. by his Power of Attorney Abdul Aziz Rowther

N. Kirubakaran, J.—The above appeal has been preferred by the Government against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the compensation at Rs. 653.40 per cent.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The lands comprised in the following Survey Numbers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. S. No. Extent Hectares Acre Cents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 251/1A 0.30.0 0 74

251/1B 0.30.0 0 74

251/1C 0.29.5 0 73

Total 0.89.5 2 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

to an extent of 0.89.5 Hectares (2.21 Acres) situate at Thirumangalakudi village, Thanjavur District, were acquired u/s 4(1) notification dated 10.07.1991, for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Land Acquisition Officer relying upon the Item No. 1 Sale Deed dated 20.08.1990, in Sale Statistics, determined the compensation at Rs. 454.54 per cent. Aggrieved by that, a reference u/s 18 of the Act, was made to the civil Court at the instance of the land owner. After elaborate enquiry, the civil Court determined the compensation at Rs. 1.50 per square feet, i.e. Rs. 653.40 relying upon the sale deed dated 09-07-1991, which has been described as Item No. 12 in the sale statistics. The present appeal has been filed against the said award by the Government.

Mr. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the value of the smaller extent of land was relied upon to determine the value of the larger extent of land and that too, without any proper deduction towards amenity charges. He relied upon the judment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mummidi Apparav (D) through Lrs. v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited reported in 2008(72) AIC 58 to stress his point.

On the other hand, Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that there is no prohibition for relying upon the value of the smaller extent of land relied upon by the Tribunal is closer to the acquired land and the said land has the potential for becoming house sites. Secondly, he contended that the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites for Adi Dravidar and therefore, the acquired land should be treated as house site. Therefore, he submitted that there is no prohibition for the Court to rely upon the value of the smaller extent of land to determine the value. Further, he pointed out that the property is situated abutting the road and surrounded by housing colonies. Moreover, he contended that the property situated in the developed area and there is no necessity to make any deduction anything towards development charges.

On perusal of pleadings and evidence and award would show that the Tribunal took into consideration Item No. 12 in sale statistics filed by the Government. As per Item No. 12 is a sale deed dated 09-07-1991, which conveyed the property comprised in Survey No. 234/1. The value of the land is Rs. 1.34 per square feet. Considering the proximity of the said land with the acquired land, the Tribunal determined the value of the acquired land based on Item No. 12 of the sale statistics. The Tribunal rejected the sale deed relied upon by the claimants stating that those documents did not reflect the correct value as the properties are situated away from the acquired land. RW.1 in his cross-examination, admitted that the acquired land is situated on the northern side of the Kumbakonam-Mayiladuthurai road and on the eastern side, there is a housing colony and therefore, it is to be concluded that the acquired land is situated in a developed area and has got potentiality for developing into house site, apart from many other advantages. Therefore, the value determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 1.50 per square feet i.e. Rs. 653.40 per cent towards the value cannot be found fault with. The Honourable Supreme Court in Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, held that there is no prohibition for relying upon the value of the smaller extent of land to determine the vast track of land and what is required is to deduct appropriate amount towards development charges. Therefore, the value of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

It is seen that no amount was deducted towards development charges. The purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites and therefore, the land is required to be given for formation of road and other amenities and accordingly, the value has to be deducted. As seen from the evidence of RW.1 the property is situated in the developed area surrounded by housing colony and on main road. Therefore, much deduction is not required towards development charges. In Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , the Honourable Supreme Court deducted only 10% considering location of the acquired land. A learned single Judge of this Court in The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs. Sornambal @ Sornasundari and Selvaraj, held that deduction of 20% towards development charges is proper and only for exceptional and special reasons, deduction can be more than 20%. Therefore, relying upon the judgment of this Court, deduction of 20% towards development charges is made. Accordingly, the value is determined as follows:

Value determined : Rs. 653.40 Less : Deduction of 20% towards development charges : Rs. 130.00 ----------------- Compensation : Rs. 523.40 -----------------

Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 523/- per cent towards compensation.

The award of the Tribunal was passed on 21.06.1999. A Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , held that the claimants are entitled to interest on the solatium amount also. The award was passed prior to the above said judgment, no interest on the solatium, awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above said judgment, the claimant is entitled to interest on the solatium on par with compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and there is no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the cross appeal is also disposed of in the above terms.