1978 Supreme(Mad) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ramaprasada Rao and S. Suryamurthy, JJ.
The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition Municipal Cases, Madurai .....Appellant(s)
Versus
G. Venkatesan and others .....Respondent(s)
A. Nos. 552 to 556 of 1975 and Memorandum of Cross objections therein.
Decided On : 09 February 1978
The Additional Government Pleader, for Appellant
K.G. Manickavasagam and R. Sugantharaj, for Respondent.
Method for fixing compensation to be adopted.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 49(2)(3) -Scope-Issuance a notification for acquisition of land belonging to claimants for public purpose-Only a portion of the notified and acquired- Later entire left land acquired on objection raised by owners-Procedure to be adopted for fixation of compensation.
2. At the initial stage when the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was made, it was proposed to acquire a part of the portion in T.S. No. 2003/1 out of which was carved out T.S. No. 2003/1-A-2 of an extent of 31,467 sq. ft. By the said proposal, an extent of 4.588 sq.ft. now comprised in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-1 was left out. The owners raised an objection that the severed bit of 4,588 sq. ft. would be of no use to them and therefore they demanded that the entire extent should be acquired. In order to avoid any excessive claim for severance compensation, the Government, on the advice of the appropriate and concerned authorities, issued orders on 16th March, 1970, invoking section 49 (2) of the Act directing the acquisition of the left-over area. This order of the Government was duly served on the owners on 9th April, 1970. After issuing due notices for enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation as above and which was increased by the civil Court on a reference.
3. It is common ground that each of the respondents is entitled to 7,211 sq. ft. in the acquired land. They filed various statements of objections before the civil Court and contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in having uniformly valued the land which is the subject-matter of the acquisitions and he ought to have made a distinction between the land originally acquired pursuant to the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act and the land subsequently directed to be acquired by the Government memorandum dated 16th March, 1970, under section 49 (2) of the Act. They sought for a distinct and separate valuation of the lands accordingly as on the two dates referred to above. On merits,- their contention was that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low.
4. In so far as the lie of the prope