The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the comparable sales method and the principles for determining the market value of acquired land, including the need for similarity in potentiality and nature of compared lands, adjustments based on positive and negative factors, and deductions for largeness of area and developmental charges.

R. Banumathi, J.

Aggrieved by the Judgment of Sub Court, Tuticorin, enhancing the market value of acquired land to Rs.7,333/- per cent, as against the market value of Rs.1,333/-, fixed by the Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar [A.D.W.], Tiruchendur, Special Tahsildar, [A.D.W.], Tiruchendur has filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts are as follows :-

2.1. To provide house sites to Adi Dravidar Families of Thoppur h/o Keela Tiruchendur, land to an extent of 3.27 acres [1.32.5 hectares] in S.No.127/5 of Keela Tiruchendur was sought to be acquired. The land belonged to Pattadars one Irudayaraj and joint Pattadar Sankari. Both Pattadars have executed Power of Attorney in favour of Subbiah, the claimant. Notice was sent under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Schemes Land Acquisition Act, 1978 [Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978] [for short, the Act]. Form II Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of 1.32.5 Hectares in S.No.127/5 part [S.No.127/5A] and it was approved by the District Collector, Tuticorin. Thereafter, 4(1) Notification was published in the District Gazette on 05.08.1996.

2.2. The Acquisition Officer collected as much as 52 Sale Deeds during the period of one year from 05.08.1995 to 04.08.1996. Sale Deed dated 08.03.1996 relating to S.No.121/1B [2.10 acres] and S.No.1125/3A4 [0.25 acres] was considered to be similar in all aspects to the land under acquisition and Acquisition Officer accordingly, fixed value of the acquired land at Rs.1,333.35 per cent. Value of 1.32.5 Hectares of land was fixed at Rs.4,36,912/-. 15% solatium was awarded, i.e. Rs.65,537/-. Total compensation amount as per award is Rs.5,02,449/-.

2.3. Aggrieved by the award, claimant filed appeal before the Sub Court, Tuticorin. According to the Claimant, the acquired land lies very near to the main road and within the extension area of Tiruchendur Panchayat Union. It was the case of the claimant that Data Sale Deed of S.No.121 is very far away from the agricultural land. Claimant produced two Sale Deeds for comparison viz., Ex.C-2 - Sale Deed [dated 28.09.1995] relating to S.No.127/5, in which the sale amount was Rs.20,100/- i.e. Rs.4,020/- per cent and Ex.C-3 [28.08.1995], Sale Deed relating to S.No.131 in which five cents of land were sold for a sum of Rs.22,000/-. Sub Court proceeded on the basis that Ex.C-3 should be taken as the basis therefor. Taking Ex.C-3 as basis, Appellate Court fixed the market value at Rs.7,333/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that Data Sale Deed dated 08.03.1996 cannot be placed reliance upon, as S.No.121 is far away from the acquired land and it must have been purchased by the Government for a very low price.

3. Challenging the fixation of market value on the basis of Ex.C-3, at Rs.7,333/- per cent, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that Ex.C-3 being Sale Deed for a small extent of three cents, cannot form the basis for comparison. Placing reliance upon 2006 (2) CTC 733 [The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur Vs. Valliammal and others], the learned Counsel further submitted that price fetched for small piece of land cannot be applied to the acquired lands, covering a large extent and as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Sub Court ought to have deducted at least 1/3rd of land towards largeness of area and developmental charges. It was further submitted that rate of solatium and rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is illegal and not in accordance with Sec.7 and Sec.12 of the Act.

4. Appearing for the claimant, learned Counsel Mr.K.Srinvasan, has submitted that the data land taken in S.No.121 is far away from the acquired land and the same cannot at all be taken as a comparable Sale Deed and the Appellate Court rightly placed reliance upon Ex.C-2. Drawing our attention to Ex.C-1 - Plan, the learned Counsel further submitted that S.No.131 is a developed area, which is in the same vicinity as the acquired land