AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kirubakaran, J.—These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment in L.A.O.P. Nos. 14 of 1996, 16 of 1996, 22 of
1996, 23 of 1996, 24 of 1996, 27 of 1996, 28 of 1996 and 30 of 1996 dated 29.09.1997 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Nagercoil.
Since these appeals arise out of the common judgment awarding the compensation to the respondent/claimant by the Sub-Court on 29-09-
1997 and the properties are situated in the same village called Aralvoimozhy Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District, these appeals are dealt
with together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The subject land in A.S. No. 515 of 2002 is to an extent of 0.51.5 hectares comprised in R.S. No. 390/3B and 4B of the aforesaid village owned
by the Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. An extent of 0.15.5 hectares comprised in Survey No. 381/7B relates to A.S. No. 516 of 2002; an extent
of 0.31.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.379/1A2 relates to A.S. No. 517 of 2002; an extent of 0.09.0 hectares comprised in Survey No.
91/4B relates to A.S. No. 518 of 2002; an extent of 0.37.5 hectares comprised in Survey No. 15/1B relates to A.S. No. 519 of 2002; an extent
of 0.70.0 hectares comprised in Survey No. 389/3B relates to A.S. No. 520 of 2002; an extent of 0.53.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.
383/5B, 383/6A and 384/2B relates to A.S. No. 521 of 2002 and an extent of 0.16.0 hectares comprised in Survey No. 388/3B relates to A.S.
No. 522 of 2002 belonging to the Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd., respondent herein. Those lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of
channel for carrying surplus water to Poigaiyar Reservoir Project. Section 4(1) notification for acquisition of land in question was effected on 27-
10-1993.
Section 4(1) notification to acquire the land, was issued on 27-10-1993. The Land Acquisition Officer relying upon the document, dated 09-
04-1992, determined the compensation at Rs. 100/- per cent by virtue of award dated 28-12- 1995.
Aggrieved by that, at the instance of the claimants, a reference was made to the Tribunal, which fixed the compensation at Rs. 540/- per cent,
relying upon Ex.A4, Sale Deed dated 15-02-1993 through which the claimant purchased the property to an extent of one acre 33 cents. The
Tribunal awarded 30% solatium and other benefits as per the statute. The said award of the Tribunal dated 29.09.1997, is impugned before this
Court in these appeals.
Heard Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for
the claimant/respondent.
Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate contended that the Land Acquisition Officer rightly fixed the value at Rs. 100/- per cent
relying upon the data document under Ex.R3 dated 09-04-1992, which is very closer to land acquired as per Section 4(1) notification whereas,
the Tribunal awarded exorbitant amount namely Rs. 540/- per cent based on Ex.A4 Sale Deed dated 15-02- 1993. The learned Government
Advocate further contended that the acquisition is for formation of channel to carry water to the reservoir and the Tribunal had not deducted any
amount towards development charges and therefore, deduction has to be made. He further submitted that the properties acquired are not
surrounded by the houses and it has got no potential to develop into residential plots and therefore, he pleads for reduction of the compensation
fixed by the Tribunal.
On the other hand, Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the acquisition is only for the
purpose of formation of channel to carry the surplus water to the Poigaiyar Reservoir Project and therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not deduct any
amount towards development charges as there is nothing to be developed taking into consideration the purpose of acquisition. He further submitted
that the to po sketch of land under Ex.B8 would show as to how the acquired property is surrounded by the housing plots and it is very close to
the main road. Moreover, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 27.10.1993. The data document relied on by the Tribunal under Ex.A4 is dated
15-02-1993. The said Sale Deed was to the purchase 1.23 acres of lands which were purchased by the claimants themselves. The sale is anterior
to Section 4(1) notification and in the absence of any allegations of fraud and manipulation the said document was rightly accepted by the Tribunal
and therefore, the learned Counsel seeks for confirmation of award passed by the Tribunal.
A perusal of the pleadings and award and other evidence available on record, would show that the acquisition is for the purpose of formation of
surplus water channel to Poigaiyar Reservoir Project. Ex.B8 would also show that the acquired land is very close to the main road. The Tribunal
took into consideration of the claim of the respondent that the property was situated near the Nagercoil-Tirunelveli main road and that the distance
between the main road and the land is only 100 feet and that it is adjacent to the residential areas like Bharathi Nagar, Anna Nagar, and Indira
Nagar and that it is surrounded by shopping complex, wind mill, Offices and Hospitals, Spinning Mills and temples like Muppandal temple and
considering the potentiality of the land relying upon Ex.A4, fixed the compensation at Rs. 540/- rightly by the Tribunal. Ex.A4 is dated 15-02-
1993 and the same is eight months prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification on 27-10-1993 and through which, the respondent itself purchased the
property. Though a number of documents were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant, the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.A4, since Ex.A4
alone reflected the correct value at that time and rightly fixed the value at Rs. 540/- per cent. The said determination is based on evidence and
therefore, it is confirmed. The Tribunal gave reasons as to why other documents were relied upon. Ex.A4 is not challenged by the appellant and
therefore, it is to be accepted. The said factors were taken into consideration by the Tribunal in paragraph ''6'' of the award.
As far as the reduction towards developmental charges is concerned, the purpose for which the acquisition is made, has to be considered. It is
not for the purpose of forming a housing scheme or for any other development, whereas, the land in question is acquired only for the purpose of
formation of channel to carry the surplus water to Poigaiyar Reservoir Project, where no development is required and therefore, no amount could
be deducted towards developmental charges and the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 540/- per cent as compensation without any reduction.
As far as the statutory benefits are concerned, the Tribunal rightly awarded and the same is confirmed.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. Nos. 3977 to 3984 of 2002 are
dismissed.