The Trial Court's decision to enhance the compensation from Rs.600/- per Cent to Rs.4,000/- per Cent was found to be reasonable and not erroneous or excessive.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in A.S.No.1077 of 2012 : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.303 of 1994, dated 20.10.2003 of Additional District Court (FTC No.IV), Poonamallee.

Prayer in A.S.No.1078 of 2012 : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.304 of 1994, dated 20.10.2003 of Additional District Court (FTC No.4), Poonamallee.)

Common Judgment:

These Appeal Suits are filed against the common judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Poonamallee, dated 20.10.2003 in L.A.O.P.Nos.303 and 304 of 1994.

2. An extent of 80 cents of land in S.No.48/2, 86 cents of land in S.No.37/2 in Korattur village, Poonamallee taluk were acquired in the year 1986-87 vide Award Nos.1/86, dated 22.08.1986 and 1/87, dated 09.01.1987. A compensation amount of Rs.600/- per Cent was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the above Land Acquisition Original Petitions were filed praying for enhancement of the compensation amount from Rs.600/- per Cent to Rs.20,000/- per Cent. The contention of the Original Petitioners is that the entire area was a very developed area and even before the acquisition, certain properties were sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Cent and therefore, they are justified in praying for Rs.20,000/- per Cent.

3. The Original Petitions were resisted by filing a counter statement stating that the Land Acquisition Officer has correctly awarded the market price.

4. On the above said pleadings, the Reference Court took up both the petitions for joint trial and on behalf of the claimants, one Krishnamurthy was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the authorities, R.Baskaran was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 was marked. Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the case of the parties and finding that in the judgment of L.A.O.P.No.767of 1987, which was marked as Ex.A-3, which was in respect of similarly situated land, the Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000/- per Cent, allowed the above Land Acquisition Original Petitions by enhancing the compensation from Rs.600/- per Cent to Rs.4,000/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal Suits are filed.

5. Even though the first respondent in A.S.No.1078 of 2012 has died and the matter is pending for taking steps in respect of the said respondent, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court took up the cases for hearing on merits. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted and pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the Trial Court erred in enhancing the compensation, that too exorbitantly. It is further pleaded that the Trial Court has not given its reasons as to why it discarded the reasoning given by the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the compensation at Rs.600/-. It is also further pleaded that the Court below has not given any rebates / reductions in respect of the present property which is smaller in extent. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeals be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in A.S.No.1077 of 2012, would submit that even though a sum of Rs.20,000/- was prayed for, only a sum of Rs.4,000/- was awarded as compensation which again was not adequate amount, but, however, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents / claimants. He would submit that even though there is a huge lapse of time, till date, the land owners are yet to realise the total amount due in respect of the lands acquired.

7. I have considered the said submissions and perused the material records of the case. The point for consideration is whether the Reference Court was right in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,000/- per Cent ? It can be seen that the land acquired is in Korattur village which is also a suburban area of the Chennai City at the relevant point of time. Further, it can be seen that while determini