Market value determined by comparable sales' face value, considering proximity, land potentiality for development.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The appeal suit in A.S.No.392 of 2016 has been filed to set aside the order dated 26.07.2011 in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and the Cross-objection has been filed to set aside the Award of the Learned District Judge at Karaikal in LAOP.No.6 of 2009 dated 26.07.2011 in as much as it fixes the compensation for the Appellant’s lands at Rs.10000/- and consequently enhance the compensation in respect of the Appellants Land to Rs.11,500/- per Are. 2. The issue in the appeal suit and the cross-objections filed arise out of an award in respect of the lands that had been acquired for construction of shelters and other infrastructural facilities in coastal villages in Karaikal. A notification underSection 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894was issued on 17.10.2005 invokingSection 17(4) of the said Act. The said lands have been classified as wet and manai and an award came to be passed, fixing the land value at Rs.1,129/- in respect of Thiruvettakudi village and Rs.4,500/- in respect of Akkarai Vattam village by award proceedings dated 16.07.2008. The respondent-land owner had sought for enhancement of compensation and the order is impugned herein after analysing the claims made by the respective parties, the Reference Court had held that the landowner was entitled to enhancement at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Are against the award of Rs.4,500/-

per Are in respect of the lands belonging to Akkarai Vattam village.

3. Being aggrieved against the enhancement, the appellant is before this Court and, being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation and seeking higher compensation, the respondent/landowner had filed a cross-objection.

4. Heard Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the appellants in the suit and Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for the cross objectors.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that on the date of 4(1) notification, as per the statistical data and the guideline value, the value of the land that was acquired was Rs.4,500/- per Are. He would submit that the lands covered under the documents referred to and relied upon by the Reference Court are not similar in nature to the lands that were acquired. He would further submit that the documents covered under Ex.C3 were sold as plots covering smaller extent, whereas the extent of the acquired lands was larger. He would further submit that the Court below, namely the Reference Court, ought not to have, taking note of the classification of the land covered in Ex.C3, applied the value under the said document in respect of the lands that had been acquired. Hence, he seeks the indulgence of this Court. 6. Countering his arguments, Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector would submit that when Ex.C3 was taken into consideration for arriving at the fair and just value for the land, the value as mentioned in the aforesaid document ought to have been taken and the Reference Court erred in unilaterally fixing a lesser value than the consideration that has been passed under Ex.C3. He would further submit that even though Exs.C1 to C5 had been relied upon, no reasons had been attributed as to why they should not be considered. In any event, he would submit that the fixation of the market value by the Reference Court, contrary to the consideration under Ex.C3 which had been taken for fixing the market value, is wholly erroneous. Hence, he seeks interference with the orders passed and seeks enhancement of the compensation by fixing the market value of the land at R