Venkataraman, J.-These three appeals have been filed by the State of Madras against the judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, awarding compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the Government for rehabilitating the persons displaced from Ganapathy Nagar Colony, Guindy. The lands were vacant and were near Chamiers Road. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the persons whose lands were acquired got a reference made to the City Civil Court, and the learned Judge enhanced the amount of compensation payable and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per ground. In addition, he granted a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the claimants in two cases, L.A.C. Nos. 38 and 44 of 1961, for the injury sustained by them in respect of the properties still remaining in their hands on account of the acquisition of the plots in question. Similarly, in respect of another claim, he awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000 under this head. Aggrieved by this decision the Government has preferred these appeals. They contend that the award of Rs. 4,000 is excessive and that there is no justification for the award of compensation for the other properties having been injuriously affected.

2. With regard to the first point, we wish to observe that the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was made on 23rd December, 1959 and that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court took into account the value of the land about half a furlong away as disclosed by the sale-deed dated 16th October,1959 (Exhibit R-4) in Survey No. 3918/1 of an extent of 3 grounds and 1241 sq. ft. for Rs. 11,964, which worked out to Rs. 4,320 per ground and made a deduction of about Rs. 320 on account of the fact that the property acquired was somewhat in the interior, about half a furlong from the other property.

3. Thiru G. Ramaswami, the learned Additional Government Pleader, has brought to our notice that there are other sale-deeds where the prices paid would work out to much less than Rs. 4,320. But we find that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down, in Ranee of Vyyur v. Collector of Madras1, that the highest value should be preferred to the rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. They observe:

“Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale-deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course.”

In this case no such circumstances are placed before us. Thiru Ramaswamy then urged that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court had not made any specific deduction for laying out roads. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the area acquired was not a developed area and roads had to be formed, that consequently some deduction would have to be made for the cost of the roads which would have to be formed and that it would not be proper to value undeveloped land at the same rate as developed land. In this connection he cited the decision of a Bench of this Court in State of Madras v. Balaji Chettiar2, where it has been pointed out that normally a deduction of 10 to 25 per cent, would be proper on account of this circumstance. We are, however, inclined to think that, though no specific reference on this aspect has been made in the judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, he must have had this factor also in his mind when he made a deduction of Rs. 320 per ground . In any case, we are satisfied that in this particular case the valuation adopted by the learned Judge is substantially fair and does not call for interference. We, therefore, confirm the valuation of Rs. 4,000 per ground.

4. Regarding the other point, clause 4 of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, says that, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document