Court held reliance on solely oral evidence for determining market value of acquired land is erroneous; valuation must be supported by documentary evidence or analogs to ensure just compensation for landowners.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

1. We have heard Ms. R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that total extent of 1.01.0 hectares and 0.20.0 hectares were sought to be acquired from the respondents respectively for providing free house sites to the homeless people belonging to Arunthathiyar community under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Pursuant to the same, Section 4(1) notices were published under the Act on 08.01.1999 and thereafter, awards came to be passed on 22.03.1999 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,83,420/- and Rs.36,631/- respectively by fixing the market value at Rs.1,57,917/- per hectare by taking into consideration a sale deed dated 09.07.1998 in respect of Survey Nos. 598/2A and 595/2A, which are also classified as ‘Manavari Punjai lands’. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners have preferred two independent appeals in C.M.A. (LA) Nos. 3 and 4 of 2000. She would submit that the Court below had passed a judgment and decree in C.M.A. (LA) No. 4 of 2000 on 09.12.2019 and in C.M.A. (LA) No. 3 of 2000 on 31.03.2021, whereby enhanced the compensation of Rs.21/- per square feet without any substantive documentary evidences submitted by the respondents, except the oral evidence of the respondents. The Court below had also failed to see the reasoning advanced by the appellants based on the statistical data available under Ex.B2 and the award under Ex.B1in C.M.A. (LA) No. 4 of 2000. She would submit that such findings that had been arrived at is wholly without any materials whatsoever. Following the enhancement ordered by the Court in C.M.A. (LA) No. 4 of 2000, the Court below had also followed the enhancement made therein in C.M.A. (LA) No.3 of 2000 in judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021. She would vehemently contend that as the enhancement itself is not supported by any material documents, and hence, the judgment and decree impugned in the second appeal are liable to be interfered with by this Court and the award passed by the authorities has to be upheld.

3. Countering his arguments Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.K.M.Hareesh of M/s.P.V. Law Associates for the respondents in both the appeals would contend that the lands are situated in the main highway and it is surrounded only by the house sites, which have also been approved by the appropriate Planning Authority of the region. He would submit that in such circumstances, the market value of the land calculated by the appellants on the basis that the said land is an agricultural land itself is wholly erroneous. He would submit that the market value of the land should have been assessed only on the basis of the square feet basis and not as an agricultural land. He would submit that even assuming that there are no documentary evidence to substantiate the market value, by taking the judicial note of the fact that the lands are located in an advantageous position near Dharmapuri Town and that the factual reasoning that have been attributed by the Court below, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the Court below