Compensation for acquired land should be based on comparable sale instances, with necessary deductions for larger plots to ensure fair valuation.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The Special Tahsildar / Acquiring Authority is on appeal, aggrieved by the award of the learned Sub-Judge, Gopichettipalayam made in L.A.C.M.A.No. 7 of 2005, an appeal under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as the Act).

2. The factual backdrop leading to the appeal is as follows:-

An extent of 5.08 acres of land belonging to the respondent was sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing free house sites to Adi Dravida people belonging to Rajan Nagar Village of Sathyamangalam Taluk of Erode District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Erode District Gazette on 20.09.2003. The local publication as required under the Act were also made subsequently. An enquiry under Section 5 was conducted and ultimately an award came to be passed on 28.12.2004. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare who passed the award granted a sum of Rs.52,965/- per acre. Claiming that the award is very meagre, the respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the jurisdictional Sub-court namely, Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam.

3. At trial before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, the claimant/appellant filed two sale deeds dated 19.12.2003 and 14.11.2002 as Exs.C1 & C2 respectively. The claimant was examined as C.W.1 and two other witnesses connected with the sale deeds were examined as C.W.2 & C.W.3. The Award Officer was examined as R.W.1 & Exs.R1 to R18 were marked. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge, upon consideration of the evidence on record, took the value at Rs.7,50,000/- per acre and determined the value of the acquired land at Rs.38,10,000/-. He also awarded the statutory benefits viz., solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. It is this award, which is subject matter of challenge in this Second Appeal.

4. The following question of law was framed for determination in the appeal on 18.04.2024:-

"Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in fixing the compensation on a complete guess work without following the well laid down criteria as found in various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly when compensation is fixed on the basis of comparable sale deeds."

5. The counsel were put on notice on question of law and heard on 15.07.2024. Mr.R.Siddharth, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has not followed any of the principles that have been laid down in respect of determination of compensation using the exemplar sale method. He would also further point out that while Ex.C1, sale deed relates to an extent of about 5 cents, Ex.C2 relates to 20 cents. He would also fault the learned Sub-ordinate Judge for not having deducted any amount towards development charges while fixing the compensation on the basis of a sale deed on a smaller extent of land. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Premlata and Others , (2022) 7 SCC 745 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that while a sale instance of a small plot is taken as the basis for determination of compensation for larger extent of land, suitable deductions should be made.

6. Contending contra, Mr.A.R.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent / land owner would submit that the Trial Court had taken into account the combined effect of Exs.C1 & C2 while determining the compensation. Though it has not dealt with the documents separate