JUDGMENT :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the award, dated 23.07.2014 and made in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court at Puducherry in so far as rejecting the claim of the Appellants to the extent of Rs.17,44,20,388/- worked out at the rate of Rs.678/- per Sq.ft over and above the sum of Rs.100/- fixed by the lower Court and fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.778 per Sq.ft and allow the appeal.)

The Appeal Suit:

This Appeal Suit in A.S.No.566 of 2018 is filed by the Appellants/Landowners aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2010 dated 23/07/2014 and praying for further enhancement of value of their lands at the rate of Rs. 778/- per sq. ft.

Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeal Suit:

2. The appellants are the owners of the lands comprised in R.S.No.25/2, admeasuring 02.39.00 Hectares (2,57,257.21 sq. ft) in Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Puducherry. By a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 09/06/2006, the said extent was acquired along with larger extent for expansion for Airport/facilities. Section 6 Declaration was published on 25/04/2007.

3. On 28/11/2006, the Land Acquisition officer inspected the acquired lands and made notes of valuation. The L.A.O took note of a total number of 874 sales effected during the relevant period that is for a period one year preceding the 4(1) notification (08/07/2005 to 07/07/2006). Of the sales data collected, he rejected 78 sales data on the ground that those were sales along with superstructures. Thereafter, he rejected 45 sales data on the ground that they relate to sale of less than 500 sq. ft. He further rejected 576 sales data on the ground that there are faraway and finally retained 175 sales data. Out of the retained, the highest was in Sl. No. 164 at the rate of Rs. 167/- per sq.ft. was rejected on the ground that the sale was transacted on 01/02/2006 anticipating acquisition. The next highest data in Sl.No.128 at Rs.66/- was taken and by giving standard deduction of 33.3% deduction towards developmental charges, assessed a value at Rs. 41/-. Since the guideline value was Rs. 60/- more than the assessed value, he took the same.

4. Thereafter, an award was passed in award No.1/2009 dated 21.01.2009 at the said rate of Rs.60 per sq. ft. In respect of the lands in question, the Land Acquisition officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the rightful claimant to receive the award and the said reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.199 of 2009 and, by an award dated 09.09.2009, it was held that all the three claimants were entitled to one-third each. Thereafter, as per the requisition of the appellants made earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining higher compensation and the same was taken on file L.A.O.P.No. 14/2010.

5. A claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming to enhance the value at Rs. 778 per sq. ft. The same was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter. Thereafter, all the three claimants, namely Anandan, Kuppu and Mary, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-5, copies of the sale deeds were marked on their behalf. The Land Acquisition Officer examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Trial Court, thereafter, considering the contention of either side and the evidence on record found that no independent sale deed was filed by the claimants. The Exs.P-1 to P-5 are the sale deeds found in the data of the respondent and the respondent had rejected them already by giving various reasons. Therefore, the Court on its own held that it is safe