1. This first appeal at the instance of the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry challenges the Award dated 15 October, 2015 in L.A.O.P.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry on the ground that the Reference Court enhanced the market value without the support of documents indicating higher value in the locality in question.

The Facts

2. The Government of Puducherry acquired 00.56.73 Hectares of land at Embalam Revenue Village in Bahour Taluk, Puducherry for providing free house sites to the landless labourers. The State invoked urgency clause under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4(1) was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 12 December, 2003. It was followed by a declaration under 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 20 February, 2004. The Collector fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.21,520/- per Are. The possession of the land was taken on 12 August, 2004, after paying 80% of the compensation. Thereafter, Award was passed on 12 September, 2005.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the request made by the respondent referred the matter to the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the respondent produced Exhibits P1 and P2 to prove the land value in the locality in question. The Reference Court on verification of documents found that the land covered in those documents were far away from the acquired land. The Reference Court ultimately fixed the land value at Rs.100/- per sq.ft.

Submissions

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that since the acquired land was wet land and larger extent, the Reference Court was not correct in fixing the land value on 'sq.ft.' basis. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the acquired land is situated in a low level and for development, considerable amount is necessary. It was further contended that the land covered in Exs.P1 and P2 produced by the respondent is situated in another village and it is also a dissimilar one. Since there was no other document to show the actual market rate, the Trial Judge ought to have confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that even though the land acquired was wet land, the fact remains that the Government has fixed the guideline rate for similar land on "sq.ft" basis. The learned counsel submitted that the Sale Deed marked as Exs.P1 and P2 could be relied on to fix the market value as those lands are situated just adjacent to the acquired land. The learned counsel further contended that the revenue department in the Union Territory of Puducherry fixed similar guideline rate on "sq.ft." basis even for wet land and as such, the appellants are not correct in the contention that the value given for a developed land cannot be the criteria for fixing the value of wet land though it is also in a developed locality.

Discussion

6. The Government of Puducherry acquired 00.56.73 Hectares of land owned by the respondent. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 12 December, 2003 and it was published in the State Gazette on 30 December, 2003. The Government invoked urgency clause.

7. The Land Acquisition Officer collected the sale statistics for a period of one year preceding the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected 79 sales on various ground and retained one document. The sale retained by the Land Acquisition Officer indicates that the land value was Rs.22,360/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer deducted development charges and infrastructure facilities @ 20% of the retained value and the land value was assessed at Rs.17,888/- per Are. The assessed