and Other Vs. The Spl. Tehsildar (La)  Insc 62 (6 February 2002)
Khare & Ashok Bhan
CA Nos. 8485-8487/95, 8489-8491/1995 & 8492/1995) O R D E R This group of
appeals raises common question of facts and law. We, therefore, proceed to
decide these appeals by a common judgment by noticing facts which have given
rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 8483-8484/1995.
said appeals, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 7.2.1973 which was
followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, the Land
Acquisition Officer, on 10.8.1977, gave an award. The compensation offered to
the appellants was 1,07,437/- + 15% solatium. The claimants were not satisfied with
the amount offered to them, therefore, they sought reference before the Civil Court. The reference Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 8,19,000/- + 15 % solatium + 4% interest. Aggrieved, the
State of Tamil Nadu filed Regular First Appeals before
the High Court.
High Court on the basis of the evidence led before the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the
claimants were entitled to compensation only to the extent of Rs. 1,34,742.50 +
30% solatium and interest. Aggrieved, the claimants have come up before this
Court by way of separate special leave petitions.
counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded to the
claimants in respect of the coconut and mango trees standing on the acquired
land were not adequate and, therefore, compensation is liable to be enhanced.
Before the Reference
Court, the State
filed reports of Shri S. Murugesan, and Shri J. S. Sunderrrajan, Joint Director
of Agriculture in respect of the value of the crop of coconut and mango each year
from the trees standing on the land which was acquired.
said reports of Shri S. Murugesan and Shri J.S. Sunderrajan were proved by Thiru
Seetharaman, RW-1. The claimants examined Shri VN Madhava Rao, Professor and
Head of the Department of Horticulture, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The claimants' said witness
substantially agreed with the reports of Shri S. Murugesan and Shri J.S. Sunderrajan.
In view of the said reports, the High Court reduced the compensation. However,
in concluding part of the judgment, the High Court stated that after all an
estimate is an estimate for all practical purposes and it cannot be accurate,
and considering the fact that there may be some fluctuations in the matter of
estimating the yields from the trees and the value thereof, the claimants are
entitled to 25% increase in the value over and above the said report. In view
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the State's
own witness stated that groves and orchards owned by the claimants are the
finest in the State of Tamil
Nadu, we feel that
the appellants are entitled to further 10% of the compensation awarded towards
coconut and mango trees by the High Court.
this modification of the judgment under challenge, we affirm the judgment of
the High Court. The appeals are decided in the aforesaid terms.
shall be no order as to costs.