The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the binding effect of relevant orders, the need for deductions towards development charges in developed areas, and the necessity to provide reasons for enhancing compensation.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 4. 1988 in LAOP No.12 of 1982 passed by the learned 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in enhancing the compensation. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The Government vide the Notification dated 25. 1973 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 86 sq.ft. in Survey No.356/4 and an extent of one ground and 733 sq.ft in Survey No.362/28 in Mc.Nichols Road, for the purpose of widening the road. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land in respect of Survey Nos.356/4 and 362/28 and passed an award dated 9. 1979 as detailed below:

S.No.356/4 R.S.No.362/28

Value of the land Rs. 680.83 Rs.25,119.58

Value of Superstructure Rs.1,661.00 Rs. 5,332.54

Value of the Trees - Rs. 40.00

Compensation Rs. 351.27 Rs. 4,573.78

Total Rs.2,693.10 Rs.35,065.70

Being aggrieved by the said assessment, the owners of the land and buildings got the matter referred to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, one of the claimants M.S.Venkatraman examined himself as P.W.1 along with one Mr.K.Narayana Iyengar, a retired Engineer as P.W.2 and marked Exs. P1 to P6. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one T.Samuel was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. Ultimately the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.88,278/- as follows:

1. Loss of frontage, Rs.10,000/- damages caused

2. Gate Pillars Rs. 2,000/-

3. Enamel Board Rs. 750/-

4. G.I.Sheet and Rs. 1,800/- Gate Structure

5. A.C.Sheet Rs. 1,661/- covered rost

6. Watch Room Rs. 2,847/-

7. Cow Shed Rs.1,305/-

8. Trees Rs. 40/-

9. Value of the Land Rs.67875/-

5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

The Reference Court simply adopted the valuation as set out in Ex.P1 relating to the building value and awarded the enhanced compensation. There are also various other irregularities, which warrant interference of this Court.

6. The points for consideration are as to:-

.(a) whether the Reference Court assessed the compensation for the land as per law?

.(b) whether Reference Court assessed the compensation for superstructure adhering to the well settled principles in assessing the Buildings? and

.(c) whether there is any infirmity in the Judgment and Decree of the Reference Court?

POINT No.1

7. At the outset, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) would advance his argument to the effect that Ex.P1, the order of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act should not have been relied on by the Reference Court as it did not reflect the true value of the land acquired as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification.

8. However, the learned counsel for the land owners would convincingly and correctly highlight the fact that the order passed by the said Assistant Commissioner does have the binding effect on the Government which cannot have double standard, one under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act and another under Land Acquisition Act.

9. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the owners for the reason that the perusal of Ex.P1 dated 7. 1971 would reveal that the Statutory authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act assessed the market value of the land concerned, whereas section 4(1) Notification in this connection was published on 25. 1973. Hence, it is apparent th