The importance of documentary evidence and the need for a fair opportunity for both sides to present their case in land acquisition disputes.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer/Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1988, the 1st respondent directed this appeal.

2. For the purpose of laying down Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway Line, 53 cents of land comprised in Survey No.624/2, situate in Vembur Village, in Vedachandur Taluk, in Dindigul District, has been acquired.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, referring to comparable sale statistics, determined compensation at Rs.5,287.75, which carry other statutory entitlements.

4. At the time of distribution of the amount, the Land Acquisition Officer faced with rival claims from the appellant herein and also 2nd respondent, he is unable to apportion the amount among them. Thus, the Officer made the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.

5. The Tribunal entertained the reference in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1988. The Special Tahsildar of the concerned acquisition unit has been added as 1st respondent in the appeal. The main disputants are respondents 1 and 2 herein.

6. Before the Tribunal, appellant/1st respondent filed his counter affidavit, however, thereafter, because of his fault, he was set ex parte.

7. In the circumstances, the Land Acquisition Tribunal conducted enquiry. In the enquiry, 2nd respondent Mohammad Ibrahim participated. He deposed himself as C.W.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st respondent contended that the appellant's claim has been backed by documents, however, he did not have reasonable opportunity and his claim as on today remain not adjudicated.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that actually 2nd respondent claimed only 43 cents and he has also produced documents. Further, in earlier civil litigations, his right has been settled and ultimately he was declared to entitle to Rs.4,625.75.

10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would further contend that the right of the 2nd respondent to claim proportionate amount has been established under Ex.A1 partition document and also prior litigation among his brothers.

11. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would further submit that the Tribunal, elaborately, gone into the matter, considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced and recorded a categorical finding that the 2nd respondent is entitled to 43 cents and declared his proportionate amount, namely, Rs.4,625.75.

12. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the records of the case and the impugned order.

13. Now, as it has two sides of a coin, the Land Acquisition Officer having found that as it will involve too much nerving relegated it to the Tribunal, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

14. Each side have their own version. Both sides are strengthening their view by documents. Documentary evidence is to play a significant role in untying the tie arose because of the rival claims. Each side say they are having strong case. Strengthness of their case is to be gauged by close scanning of their respective documents in it's true perspective.

15. Now, we are handicapped because of no documentary evidence on the side of the appellant/1st respondent, as he was set ex parte. Both side say they are supported by documents from their point of view. However, a conclusive finding has to be arrived at. Some solution has to be arrived at and it should not be allowed to remain unresolved. Therefore, it requires a threadbare analysis of both sides' case their documents and truth of the matter has to be found out. So, redoing exercise has to be done and reasonable opportunity has to be given to both sides. Thus, it calls for fresh hearing and fresh conclusion.

16. In view of the fore-goings:

i. This appeal is allowed,

ii. Order and Decreetal order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1988 are set aside,

iii. The matter is rem