The Special Tahsildar (L.A) Vs. Manickam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/926531
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnFeb-17-2012
Case NumberA.S.No.544 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
JudgeG.RAJASURIA, J.
ActsLand Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 4 (1)
AppellantThe Special Tahsildar (L.A)
RespondentManickam
Appellant AdvocateMr.S.Pasupatheeswaran,, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateMr.N.S.Sivakumar, Adv.
Excerpt:
this appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree of the additional district sessions judge and (fast track court no.i) of salem in laop no.286 of 2002, dated 19.05.2003.judgment1. animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional district sessions judge and (fast track court no.i) of salem, dated 19.05.2003 in l.a.o.p.no.286 of 2002, the government has filed this appeal.2. heard both sides.3. the epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: the government vide notification dated 23.02.1999 made under section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 2.01.0 hectare in survey nos.19/3a1a etc., in amanikondlampatti village, salem taluk, for the purpose of laying railway track from salem to karur.3. previously there were batch of appeals which were disposed of by the common judgment of this court dated 16.07.2009 in a.s.nos.430 to 454 of 2007 etc. even though the respondents 1 and 2/claimants/land losers happened to be the parties in the common judgment by the lower court, the government has not preferred appeal along with the batch of appeals. hence, this has come up separately before me.4. the learned special government pleader (a.s.) and the learned counsel for the respondents in unison would submit that the decision rendered by the division bench in the batch of appeals could be followed in this case also. as such, i am of the view that for this appeal alone no exception could be carved out and accordingly, the following is extracted from the previous judgment: the reference court has not taken into consideration the largeness of the area which has been acquired, while arriving at the value with reference to small piece of land in sl.no.476. the extent of lands sold by document dated 15.04.1998 in s.no.476 is 398 sq.m., (4187 sq.ft), whereas the land acquired is an extent of 2.01.0 hectares. hence, definitely certain percentage in the value has to be deducted towards the largeness of the area acquired.in all reasonableness, a deduction of rs.25/- per sq.ft., in our view, would meet the ends of justice. if such a deduction is given, the value of the land would be rs.100/- per sq.ft. thus, the value of the land is determined at rs.100/- per sq.ft.the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. in respect of other aspects, the order of the reference court would remain in tact. the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed in view of the order in the appeal suit.
Judgment:

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Sessions Judge and (Fast Track Court No.I) of Salem in LAOP No.286 of 2002, dated 19.05.2003.

JUDGMENT

1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge and (Fast Track Court No.I) of Salem, dated 19.05.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.286 of 2002, the Government has filed this appeal.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide Notification dated 23.02.1999 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 2.01.0 hectare in Survey Nos.19/3A1A etc., in Amanikondlampatti Village, Salem Taluk, for the purpose of laying railway track from Salem to Karur.

3. Previously there were batch of appeals which were disposed of by the common judgment of this Court dated 16.07.2009 in A.S.Nos.430 to 454 of 2007 etc. Even though the respondents 1 and 2/claimants/land losers happened to be the parties in the common judgment by the lower Court, the Government has not preferred appeal along with the batch of appeals. Hence, this has come up separately before me.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) and the learned counsel for the respondents in unison would submit that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the batch of appeals could be followed in this case also. As such, I am of the view that for this appeal alone no exception could be carved out and accordingly, the following is extracted from the previous judgment: The Reference Court has not taken into consideration the largeness of the area which has been acquired, while arriving at the value with reference to small piece of land in Sl.No.476. The extent of lands sold by document dated 15.04.1998 in S.No.476 is 398 sq.m., (4187 sq.ft), whereas the land acquired is an extent of 2.01.0 hectares. Hence, definitely certain percentage in the value has to be deducted towards the largeness of the area acquired.

In all reasonableness, a deduction of Rs.25/- per sq.ft., in our view, would meet the ends of justice. If such a deduction is given, the value of the land would be Rs.100/- per sq.ft. Thus, the value of the land is determined at Rs.100/- per sq.ft.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In respect of other aspects, the order of the Reference Court would remain in tact. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed in view of the order in the appeal suit.