P.Sathasivam,J.: M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited, Madras-1-claimant in L.A.O.P.No.58 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. An extent of 5.46 acres of land in Survey Nos.885/4B, 886/4 and 886/5 were acquired by the Government for construction of Railway line. For the said purpose, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) 1894 (in short “the Act”) on 7.10.1975. After completing the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.3/80-81 on 14.2.1981, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.26 per cent and awarded total compensation of Rs.20,651.63. Aggrieved by the said amount, at the instance of the claimant, the matter was referred to Sub-Court, Poonamallee, which resulted in L.A.O.P.No.58 of 1984.

3. Before the Court below, on behalf of the claimant, D.Janarthanan was examined as C.W.1 and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On the side of the Referring Officer, R.Duraisamy, Special Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R-1. The learned Subordinate Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and relying on Ex.A-2, which is an assessment order passed by the Urban Land Tax Authority, fixed the value at the rate of Rs.218 per cent. Apart from the said amount, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation for trees and also granted statutory amounts. Claiming that the amount fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is inadequate, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant by drawing our attention to the fact that the learned Subordinate Judge having accepted and relied on Ex.A-2 as well as taking note of the fact that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was issued on 7.10.1995, ought to have fixed higher amount instead of Rs.218 as fixed. He also pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to grant interest for the solatium. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the amount arrived at by the Court below is quite reasonable and acceptable and there is no ground for interference.

6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.

7. There is no dispute that though the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.26 per cent for the acquired land, admittedly, he has not produced the document relied on by him before the Court below. In order to claim higher compensation, the claimant has very much relied on Exs.A-2 and A-3. Since the land sold in Ex.A-3 is only 2 ground and acquired land is 5.46 acres, the learned Subordinate Judge is right in not considering Ex.A-3 for arriving the value of the acquired land. The other document is Ex.A-2, which is a proceeding of the Urban Land Tax Officer. The said document shows that the said authority has fixed the value of the land in Survey No.885 at the rate of Rs.2,100 per ground and it is dated 1.7.1971. Though the Additional Government Pleader contended that normally the Urban Land Tax Officer fix higher valuation to levy more urban land tax, the said contention cannot be accepted without any supporting evidence. Considering the fact that the acquired land lie in the very same Survey Number or adjacent to it, namely 885/4B, 886/4 and 886/5, the value fixed/arrived in Ex.A-2 can be safely applied to the case on hand.

8. It is also relevant to note that as said earlier, Ex.A-2 is dated 1.7.1971 and 4(1) notification is dated 7.10.1975, the learned Subordinate Judge, taking note of Ex.A-2, fixed the very same amount as prevailed in 1971, namely Rs.218 per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd.Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002)2 M.L.J. 164 (S.C.): (2002)3 S.C.C. 688

Click Here to Read the rest of this document