Enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired.

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.

1. To form a link road between Chellandiamman Koil and Palani road in Chettinaickanpatty, a strip of land was acquired by the State including the one viz., an extent of 1254 sq.ft. comprised in T.S.No.26 in the said village.

2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.12.1971 was duly published. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure laid down under the Act, passed an award viz ., Award No.4 of 1978. The award is dated 15.12.1978, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.14,501.04. The split up figures are, value of the land at Rs.2.40 per sq.ft. for 1254 sq.ft – Rs.3,009.60; for the super structure at the rate of Rs.8 for 1200 sq.ft – Rs.9,600; and damages at 15% - Rs.1,891.44, thus the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award for Rs.14,501.04.

3. The respondent/landlady, being aggrieved by the said fixation, requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for the purpose of fixing the market value. The matter was referred to the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, who took the same on file and it was numbered as L.A.O.P.177 of 1980. Before the reference Court, the respondent/landlady filed a counter statement wherein she has claimed that the market value of the site should be valued not less than Rs.35 per sq.ft. She also claimed a sum of Rs.60,000 by way of cost of construction viz ., built up area of 1200 sq.ft. For the damages that is caused to the walls in the west, north and south, she claimed 15% on the amount claimed under the two heads i.e., 15% on 1,06,200 which would work out to Rs.15,930. Totally in all, the respondent/landlady claimed Rs.1,07,628.95 (Rs.1,06,200 + Rs.15,930 = Rs.1,22,130 – Rs.14,501, which represents the amount already received).

4. Beforethe reference Court, the respondent examined herself as PW-1 and also examined an approved valuer, who is a Civil Engineer. Exs.A-1 to A-3 had been marked. On the side of the State, RW-1 was examined and two documents Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the Claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.21,540 with usual solatium and interest, etc. Or in other words, the reference Court enhanced the value of the site from Rs.2.40 to Rs.12.40 per sq.ft and value of the construction from Rs.8 to Rs.13.10 per sq.ft.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above appeal, questioning the correctness of the fixation by the reference Court. The respondent/landlady in turn has filed Cross Objection 7 of 1999 claiming enhanced compensation.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the reference Court can have no reason whatsoever for enhancing the value of the site from Rs.2.40 to 12.40 per sq.ft. The learned counsel would contend that it is settled law, when the landlady claims higher compensation, the burden is solely on her to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Court. A further submission is also made to the effect that there is no acceptable evidence to fix the value of the construction at Rs.13.10 per sq.ft.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlady would contend that even way back in the year 1957, she purchased the property for a sum of Rs.3,500 and that 14 years have elapsed and that there has been steep increase in the price of the land, admittedly when the same is located in an important area in that village. The learned counsel would also contend that fixing the value of the superstructure at Rs.13.10 per sq.ft. is alarmingly low and that the reference Court should have accepted the testimony of PW-2 and the valuation report Ex.A-3 dated 11.1.1990 given by him ought to have been accepted. Yet another contention is raised to the effect that in the acquired premises, she was carrying on hotel business and the turnover was