Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The aggrieved claiemant in L.A.C. No. 35 of 1972 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras is the appellant. An extent of 19 grounds and 685 sq. ft. which roughly forms at l/19th of the total extent owned by the appellant-claimant was the subject-matter of compulsory acquisition persuant to a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th November, 1968. The property is situate in Purasawalkam comprised in R.S. No. 2201/10. The public purpose for which the property was acquired was for the Corporation School and playground. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon Exhibits R-2 and R-3 which were sales of plots of land to the south-west of the acquired land. Under Exhibits R-2 and R-3 properties were sold at the rate of Rs. 5,500 per ground. The Land Acquisition Officer bearing in mind the locality in which the acquired property is situate increased the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000 per ground as just compensation payable to the appellant. The appellant not being satisfied with the award sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the civil Court and asked for compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per ground. The claimant relied upon Exhibits C-1 and C-2 and sought for the increased compensation as above. The Court below however noticed Exhibits R-8 and R-9 which were also sales enumerated by the Land Acquisition Officer in the list of data sales referred to by him in his award. Exhibits R-8 and R-9 relate to sales of plots of land to the west of the acquired land under which a price of about Rs. 9,000 per ground was paid in the years 1967 and 1968. This was adopted by the Court below. The appellant appeals against the grant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously relies upon Exhibits C-l and C-2 and would urge that the price paid thereunder represents the fair price for the acquired lands as well. It is no doubt true that the property acquired is part of a vast extent of land belonging to the appellants and this has been sliced away from it for a public purpose. it is abutting a road known as Angalamman koil Street in Purasawalkam division and it had an access throughout its length on the east to that road. That it is in a fairly busy and popular locality is not in dispute. But what is sought to be relied upon for purpose of evaluation is the hypothesis provided for under Exhibits C-l and C-2. From Exhibit R-1 which is the topo-sketch which contains both the acquired lands and the lands with which they are compared we find Exhibits C-l and C-2 relate to sales of plots of land far removed from the acquired land. They are to the south of it and in a locality which is different from the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellant himself had to say at one time that Exhibits C-l and C-2 may not provide a safe and absolute guide for valuation of the acquired lands. We are also of the view that when sales of land in the neighbourhood and nearer to the acquired land are available then it will be an empty exercise to seek for more hype thesis and material and rely upon the date provided from sales of plots far away removed from it and try to value the compulsorily acquired lands. The nearer the acquired land, the better for purposes of comparison. In Exhibit R-l we see that the lands sold under Exhibits R-8 and R-9 provided the data for comparison in the sense that the lands sold thereunder could easily and reasonably be said to be lands which are similar to the acquired lands and are situate in the neighbourhood of it. In such circumstances, therefore, the price paid under Exhibits R-8 and R-9 could safely be taken for purposes of valuing the acquired lands. This was attempted and done by the Court below. We are unable to grant an increased compensation for the reason that Exhibits C-l and C-2, cannot for any purpose be taken into consideration for fixing the market price of the acquired land. We therefore agree with the Court belo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document