Determination of value acquired land.

Somasundaram, J.

The legal representatives of the claimants in O.P.No.33 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram is the appellant in this appeal. The Referring Officer in the said petition is the respondent in this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Original Petition.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows: Total extent of 3 acres and 35,208 square feet of. land had been acquired by the Government under the provisions of Act I of 1894 for construction of a hundred-bed hospital at Chidambaram. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the said acquisition had been published on 30.6.1985 and the declarationon 11. 1969. An extent of 2470 square feet in T.S.No.1097/1 and 3 acres in T.S.No.1123 of the said acquired land belonged to the claimant. He had constructed a rice mill on the said land. The Land Acquisition Officer on a consideration of the materials, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.1.21 per sq.foot and the value of the structure at Rs.42,113. Compen-sation had therefore been fixed by the at the above said rate and together with 15% solatiun and interest the total amount payable to the claimant was fixed at Rs.2,52,363-15. The lands had been taken possession of on 111. 1970. The claimant had disputed the value of the land as well as the structure as arrived at by the Award Officer and at his request reference has been made to the lower Court.

3. The claimant filed a statement in the said Original Petition No.33 of 1972 contending as follows:The acquired land is situate in the town very near the bus stand, railway station, cinema theatres etc., and the value of the site would be not less than Rs.3.50 per sq. foot. The Civil Supplies Corporation is paying a monthly rent of Rs.5,000 for a godown situate within a furlong from the acquired land which would indicate the high value of the land in the locality. Because of the delay in taking possession of the property long subsequent to the publication of the notification the claimant could not lease out his property on a rent of Rs.5,000 per mensem to the Civil Supplies Corporation. There had thus been loss of income at the said rate because of the acquisition. Further because of the notification, people were under the impression that the mill was not running and the claimant could not get his usual annual income of Rs.6,000. The value fixed for the rice mill building is very low. The same would be worth Rs.2,00,085.

4. On the. basis of the gleadings of the parties the lower court framed the following points for consideration.

1. What would be the market value of the site in the acquired land for purpose of compensation?

2. What would be market value of the building for the said purpose?

3. Has the claim sustained loss by reason of the delay in taking possession and is he entitled to compensation in that regard?

5. The lower court by its order dated 2. 1978 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1.75 per sq. foot and consequently enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.1.21 per sq. foot to Rs.1.75 per sq. foot. With regard to the superstructure in the acquired land the lower court held that the value of the superstructure fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is reasonable and there is no ground to enhance the compensation fixed in respect of the superstructure.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the lower court refusing to enhance the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the superstructure and not satisfied with the rate of compensation fixed by the lower court for the acquired land, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

7. The points which arise for consideration before us in this appeal are the following:

1. What would be the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of awarding compensation?

2