JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Sub-Court, Chengalput in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1986 dated 31.01.2003.

1. The defendant, Land Acquisition Officer and District Backward Welfare Officer is the appellant before this Court. The first appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chenglelepet in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1986.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The lands belonging to the original claimant/deceased first respondent was proposed to be acquired by the appellant herein for providing house sites to Dhobies/Barbers. The Section 4(1) Notification came to be issued on 03.03.1982 in and by which an extent of 4.04 acres was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed, the market value at Rs. 160 per cent and arrived at an award amount of Rs. 1,20,495.75. The lands that were acquired was comprised in S. No. 1263/1 of Maduranthagam Village. The deceased first respondent had received the compensation amount under protest and requested the matter to be referred to the appropriate Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantagam under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The form of reference to the Court would indicate that the extent of 4.04 acres in S. No. 1263/1 had been acquired and possession had also been taken on 23.09.1985. The reference was made on 20.10.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer would submit that the sale deeds referred by the claimant had been rejected since the sale had taken place in Madurantagam village and was not identical in any aspect to the lands acquired. Further, the sales referred to by the land owner relates to housing plots lying in well developed areas whereas the land that has been acquired is an arable land lying in the southern boundary of the village. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer would submit that the compensation that has been arrived at is reasonable.

3. The form of reference had also enclosed the copy of the award. A reading of the award will also show that the first respondent/claimant had raised an objection that he has not been provided with severance compensation, since by reason of the acquisition the remaining extent of his land i.e. an extent of acre 2.02 cents becomes uneconomical. The contentions of the claimant had been rejected and the Land Acquisition Officer had arrived at an award at Rs. 1,20,495.75.

4. The claimant had filed a written statement in which he would contend that this Court in its writ jurisdiction had held that the proceedings of the respondent was not correct and hence ordered a re-enquiry. After the order, the Land Acquisition Officer had delayed the proceedings of more than 1½ years and had commenced the enquiry only in the year 1984. Therefore, the price fixed was also paltry since the price of the lands had escalated. It is the case of the claimant that he had effected the following improvements on the entire extent of 6.16 acres: land:

(a) levelling the same by using Bulldozers.

(b) digging a Well in the adjacent land viz. S. No. 1264/1 for supplying water.

(c) improving the soil of the land.

(d) constructing a compound wall as well as motor shed, etc.

5. The claimant would submit that he had purchased the lands to converted into an agricultural farm along with the lands in S. No. 1264/1. The lands in S. No. 1263/1 measured an extent of 5 acres 8 cents and the land in S. No. 1264/1 measured an extent of 1 acre 4 cents. The acquisition was in respect of an extent of 4 acres 4 cents from out of 5 acres 8 cents compromised in S. No. 1263/1. Since a large portion of the lands had been acquired, the remaining extent was of no use to the claimant and the value of the land had also reduced drastically. The claimant would also submit that the acquired lands had several locational advantages like