J U D G M E N T

***********

This Appeal has been filed as against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018, dated 18.09.2020.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, is as follows:-

2.(1). Originally, a reference was made under Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act 2013. By a notification issued under Section 15 (2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the total extent of 0.8229 Sq.m. of dry and natham lands in Thiruppanikarisalkulam Village, was acquired for widening the State Highways Road (SH-39) Tirunelveli-Sengottai- Kollam Road. The Land Acquisition Officer (Special District Revenue Officer) has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1362/- Per Sq.m. As against the same, the matter has been referred to the Reference Court under Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act.

2.(2). It is the case of the claimant that he has purchased lands to an extent of 16.53, 1.83, 11.02 and 3.65 cents in Survey Nos.109, 114 and 106 of Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirupanikarisalkulam Village as Plot Nos. 16, 17, 18, 56, 57, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27 and 28 and constructed seven shops bearing Door Nos.2/187/1 to 2/187/7 and also houses in that place. In the above lands, totally, 290 Square meters were acquired for the purpose of widening of road. The Acquired property was situated very near to Tirunelveli-Tenkasi Main Road, which is just opposite to the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The cost of one cent is Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) at the time of acquisition. Hence, the respondent / petitioner claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.21,48,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and Forty Eight Thousand) for 7.16 cents and he calculated Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) towards loss of income and also Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards mental agony.

3. On the basis of the above facts, the Reference Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the market value of the property fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for more compensation than the award passed by the Referring Officer?

3. What is the compensation amount for the acquired properties?”

4. During trial, on the side of the respondent / petitioner /

claimant, the respondent himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were marked. On the side of the appellant / Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked..

5. Considering the entire materials and evidences, the Court below partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent / petitioner with costs and fixed the compensation at Rs.34,17,584/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four only) and also fixed the additional amount at the rate of interest of 12% per annum on Rs.4,93,725/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five only) from 04.01.2015 to 15.05.2018. The appellant / Referring Officer has already deposited a sum of Rs.33,79,428/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Eight only). The Referring Officer was further directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of two months and on failure to deposit the balance amount within the above said period, the respondent / claimaint is entitled to 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of Award and thereafter, at the rate of 6% interest till the deposit of the above amount.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal is filed.

7. The main contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant is that the Court below while awarding compensation has adopted multiplier factor as 1.25 and fixed the compensation, which is against the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Cental Act 30 of 2013). His further contention is that the acquired lands are situated within the Municipal Corporation and within eight kilometers from the nearest