The court affirmed the enhancement of compensation for acquired land based on prior sale deeds, emphasizing the need for just compensation reflecting market value and the impact on land losers.

ORDER :

This Appeal Suit has been filed, praying to set aside the order dated 12.12.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in LAOP No.39 of 2017.

2.Challenge in this Appeal is made to the enhancement of compensation order passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') regarding the acquisition in respect of the land to a total extent of 57H-53A-87Ca situated at Keezhavoor, Thirunallar and Pettai Revenue Villages of Karaikal District, Puducherry, which was acquired for the development of Temple Town, particularly, for providing Ring Road and Facility Node. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 06.08.2007. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Revenue Department vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 03.03.2009 and published in the Pondicherry State Official Gazette on 22.07.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award fixing the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per Are. Aggrieved by the fixation, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Upon reference made, the claimants filed a claim statement seeking enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, based on the reference and taking note of the various transactions of the sale particularly, the sale made in the same survey number prior to the acquisition, has enhanced the compensation from Rs.50,000/- per Are to Rs.1,50,000/-. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal came to be filed on behalf of the Revenue Department.

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would mainly contend that the enhancement has been made relying upon the sale deeds dated 12.03.2007, 16.03.2007, 30.03.2007, 07.06.2007 and 12.02.2007, which were marked as Exs.C1, C3 to C7 by the Reference Court. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, these documents have already been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the compensation. Those documents have been rejected since the transactions have been made very abnormal by knowing the land acquisition proceedings to hike the value of compensation for the land under acquisition. Therefore, it is the contention that same documents have been relied upon by the Reference Court which cannot be a proper basis for enhancing the compensation. Therefore, he would urge that the enhancement order passed by the Reference Court has to be interfered with.

4.Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Reference Court has rightly considered the sale deeds, which were in existence prior to the notification and the similar order, enhancing the compensation has been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.546 of 2023, arising out of the same reference, whereas the Division Bench of this Court, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the Appeal as devoid of merits.

5.In the light of the above submissions, what arises for consideration before this Court is whether enhancement made by the Reference Court is abnormal and not based on the evidence?

6.I have perused the material available on record. It is well settled that for fixing compensation relying on the sale deeds which were prior to the notification of the subject land are pertaining to neighboring lands or other lands which are very closest facility of the acquired land and could be taken note of by the Reference Court. In fact, before the Reference Court, the claimant examined herself as C.W.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C7. The claimant also examined her vendor through Advocate Commissioner as CW2 and marked her Income Tax Returns as Ex.C8. On the side of the 2^nd respondent, one K.P.Sreejith, the then Tahsildar was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. The Reference Court, taking note of the fact t