Skip to content


The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs. A. Jude Thaddeues - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.S.Nos. 587, 589, 590, 619 to 622 of 1996 & 384 to 387, 252 & 254 of 1997 & 630 to 633 of 1996, Cros.Obj.Nos. 100, 143 & 107 of 1997 & 20 & 19 of 2001 & C.M.P.Nos. 3061 to 3063 of 1997
Judge
AppellantThe Special Tahsildar (LA)
RespondentA. Jude Thaddeues
Excerpt:
land acquisition act, 1894 section 4(1), section 54, section 18 acquisition of land claim of compensation lands were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under scheme, under section 4(1) of the act, 1894 and notification was issued by land acquisition officer, and fixed value of land - not being satisfied with award passed by land acquisition officer, petitioner/claimant sought for reference under section 18 of the act, 1894 and reference were made in before subordinate judge, which was dismissed hence instant petition issue is - whether trial court is correct in fixing value of land and claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation court held - it is not a case that said document is created for the purpose of fixing land.....(prayer: appeal filed under section 54 of the land acquisition act against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge of periyakulam in l.a.o.p.no.9 of 1992, dated the 27th day of february, 1995.) a.s.nos.587, 589 and 590 of 1996: 1. the special tahsildar (la), shanmuganadhi reservoir scheme, uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in l.a.o.p.nos.9 of 1992, 16 of 1992 and 2 of 1993 respectively. 2. the lands in survey nos.1146/1, 1147/1 and 1147/1c in kamayakavundanpatti village of an extent of 0.15.5, 0.10.5 and 0.06.5 hectare respectively and in 316/6a, 316/6b, 316/7, 316/7b and 316/6 in royappanpatti village to an extent of 0.09.5, 0.12.0, 0.32.0, 0.12.0 and 0.09.5 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Periyakulam in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1992, dated the 27th day of February, 1995.)

A.S.Nos.587, 589 and 590 of 1996:

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.9 of 1992, 16 of 1992 and 2 of 1993 respectively.

2. The Lands in Survey Nos.1146/1, 1147/1 and 1147/1C in Kamayakavundanpatti Village of an extent of 0.15.5, 0.10.5 and 0.06.5 hectare respectively and in 316/6A, 316/6B, 316/7, 316/7B and 316/6 in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.09.5, 0.12.0, 0.32.0, 0.12.0 and 0.09.5 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,095.60/- and the value of the trees each at Rs.1,328.25/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1992; fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,095.60/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.16 of 1992 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,029.15/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1993 along with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant in all appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference were made in L.A.O.P.Nos.9 of 1992, 16 of 1992 and 2 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,095.60/- to Rs.56,000/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 0.80cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from 1,328.25 /- to Rs.2,94,000/- for 147 trees by fixing Rs.2,000/- for each tree and totally awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,095.60/- to Rs.1,13,400,000/- by fixing Rs. 700/- per cent for 1 acre 62 cents in respect of L.A.O.P.No.16 of 1992; and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,029.15/- to Rs.16,100/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 23 cents in respect of L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1993. The trial Court has also awarded 30% solatium for additional compensation and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Against which the present appeals have been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.700/- per cent, which is very high and hence, he prayed for reduced the amount fixed by the trial Court.

4. Resisting the same the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the consideration in Ex.C.4 sale deed for Rs.90,600/- for the land measuring 1 acre 23 cents whereby the sale consideration is Rs.736.50/- per cent, but without any reason, the trial Court has reduced the same to Rs.700/- per cent. He would further submit that they filed the documents viz., Exs.C.1 and C.2, certificates issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Coconut Nursery, Theni and in that it was specifically mentioned that the life span of one coconut tree is 90 years, but the trial Court has considered only 20 years and thereby awarding Rs.2,000/- per tree, which is very low. He would further submit that without filing any cross-appeal, the claimants entitled to enhance the compensation. For that reason, he would rely upon the following decisions:

(I) In State of Madras Vs. Rev.Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463;

(II) In Sone Ram Vs. Jeyaprakash reported in AIR 1986 MP 21;

(III) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh Ltd., Vs. Rani, Minor Hebasiba reported in 2006 ACJ 1224;

(IV) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamata Kumar and Others reported in 2012 SCC online Delhi 483;

(V) In Ashokkumar and another etc. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 1210.

5. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in similar reference made in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, dated 10.07.2009 and in that decision, the amount fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed and both the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of typed set of papers, the following points for determination have been framed for disposal of these appeals:

(1) Whether the trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land at Rs.700/- per cent instead of Rs. 736.50/-?;

(2) Without filing cross-objection, the claimants are entitled for enhancement from Rs.700/- to Rs.736.50/-?;

(3) Fixing of Rs.2,000/- per tree is fair or in lower side?;

(4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

Point No.1 :

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the properties are situated in Kamayagoundanpatti village and Royappanpatti Village which are situated adjacently and the document has been taken as data land from the village of Kamayagoundanpatti, but the trial Court has take Ex.C.4 as a data land from that village and on that basis, it fixed Rs.700/- per cent. The land covered in Ex.C.4 is also described as 'Tope' land. The acquired lands and the land covered in Ex.C.4 do not have the same quality and the value. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the trial Court discussed and fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent.

8. It is not a case that the document is created for the purpose of fixing the land value and also came to the existence for small extent. But Ex.C.4 is for 1 acre 23 cents. The trial Court has rejected the other documents filed by the claimants i.e., as per Ex.C.6, 50 cents have been sold for Rs.55,000/- which is wet land and as per Ex.C.5, 1 acre 11 cents have been sold for Rs.89,000/- and one cent has been sold for Rs. 2,402.17/-, which have the water facility, well and motor pumpset and it was a flower garden. So, that documents were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

9. At this juncture, we can consider the document Ex.C.4 measuring 1 acre 23 cents and once cent has been fixed at Rs.700 and sale deed has been executed. On perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that the value of the property is Rs.86,100/- and one cent is valued at Rs.700/-. But a perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that there are ten big coconut trees each valued at Rs.200/- and 25 saplings each valued at Rs.100/- and the total value of the trees is Rs.4,500/- and the total value of the property is fixed at Rs.90,600/- and hence, the value of one cent of land is Rs. 700/- and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. So the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was held that Rs.736/- per cent and it fixed Rs.700/- per cent without assigning any reason does not merit acceptance. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2

10. At this juncture we have to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation without filing any cross-objection. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are related to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases and they are not relevant to the fact of the present cases. Since the trial Court has fixed the correct value, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is answered.

Point No.3:

11. A perusal of Ex.C.4, the value of one tree is fixed at Rs.200/-, whereas the trial Court has granted Rs.2,000/- each for a tree. The claimants obtained a certificate from the Assistant of Agriculture, Andipatti @ Vaigaidam, in which it was stated that sanction has been accorded for a sum of Rs.11,700/- being the cost of 3000 Nos of Tall coconut seed nuts procured from Thiru.K.Baskaran, Rayappanpatty by the Deputy Assistant Officer Coconut Nursery, Kovilpatty. But it is not helpful. Ex.C.2 is a document showing that how many trees are in the property. In that it was stated that upto 90 years, economical yield and then there will be decrease in yield trend. While considering Ex.C.4, the property has been purchased for Rs.86,100/- and for old trees, they fixed the value at Rs.200/- and for saplings, they fixed the value at Rs.100/-. Due to the natural calamities, so many trees are died and furthermore, hybrid varieties will not stand for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- fixed by the trial Court for each tree is fair and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:

12. In the similar matters, this Court in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in the same reference. Against which no appeal has been preferred before the Honourable Apex Court. Considering the fact that the trial Court has considered document Ex.C.4 and fixed the correct value of the property, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Hence, all the appeals are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered.

13. In view of the answer given to the point Nos.1 to 4, all the appeals are hereby dismissed.

A.S.Nos.619 to 622 of 1996 and Cros.Obj.Nos.100, 143 of 1997 in A.S.Nos.619 and 620 of 1996 and Cros.Obj.No.20 of 2001 in A.S.No.621 of 1996:

14. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.11 of 1992 and 4, 3 and 7 of 1993 respectively and Cros.Obj.Nos.100, 143 of 1997 in A.S.Nos.619 and 620 of 1996 and Cros.Obj.No.20 of 2001 in A.S.No.621 of 1996 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

15. The Lands in Survey Nos.321/3 B, 324/2B, 339/3, 339/1, 339/1B, 322/2, 322/3 in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.18.0 hectare, 0.07.0 hectare, 0.23.0 hectare, 0.06.0 hectare, 0.12.0 hectare, 0.22.5 hectare and 0.05.5 hectare in respect of L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1992; in Survey No.351/2 E in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.31.5 hectare in respect of L.A.O.P.No.3/93; in Survey No.351/2C in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 1/3rd of 0.09.0 hectare i.e., 0.03.0 hectare in respect of L.A.O.P.No.4/93; and in Survey No.1151 in Kamayakavundanpatti Village to an extent of 0.42.5 hectare were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the value of the land at Rs.10,182.25/- and the value of the trees at Rs.12,850/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1992; fixed the value of the land at Rs.3,412.40/- and the value of the trees and building at Rs.3,550/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No. 3 of 1993; fixed the value of the land at Rs.324/- and the value of the building at Rs.5,637/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1993 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,564.85/- and the value of the trees at Rs.9,490/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1993 along with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant in all appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference were made in L.A.O.P.Nos.11 of 1992 and 4, 3 and 7 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,182.25/- to Rs.1,62,400/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 2 acres 32 cents and fixed the value of each tree at Rs.2,000/- and totally awarded for 223 trees at Rs.4,46,000/- for 223 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.6,08,400/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,412.40/- to Rs.54,600/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 78 cents and fixed the value of each tree at Rs.2,000/- and totally awarded Rs.1,34,000/- for 67 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,88,600/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1993; enhanced the compensation from Rs.324/- to Rs. 4,900/- by fixing Rs.700/- for 7 cents and enhanced the value of the building from Rs.5,637/- to Rs.30,000/- and fixed the value of each tree at Rs.2,000/- and totally awarded Rs.4,000/- for 2 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.38,900/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1993; and enhanced the value of the land from Rs.1,564.85/- to Rs.73,500/- by fixing Rs.700/- for 1 acre 05 cents and fixed the value of each tree at Rs.2,000/- and totally awarded Rs.1,26,000/- for 63 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,99,500/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.7 of 1993. The trial Court has also awarded 30% solatium for additional compensation and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Against which the present appeals have been filed.

16. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.700/- per cent, which is very high and hence, he prayed for reduced the amount fixed by the trial Court.

17. Resisting the same the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the consideration in Ex.C.5 sale deed for Rs.90,600/- for the land measuring 1 acre 23 cents whereby the sale consideration is Rs.736.50/- per cent, but without any reason, the trial Court has reduced the same to Rs.700/- per cent. He would further submit that they filed the documents viz., Ex.C.7, certificate issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Coconut Nursery, Theni and in that it was specifically mentioned that the life span of one coconut tree is 90 years, but the trial Court has considered only 20 years and thereby awarding Rs.2,000/- per tree, which is very low. He would further submit that without filing any crossappeal, the claimants entitled to enhance the compensation. For that reason, he would rely upon the following decisions:

(I) In State of Madras Vs. Rev.Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463;

(II) In Sone Ram Vs. Jeyaprakash reported in AIR 1986 MP 21;

(III) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh Ltd., Vs. Rani, Minor Hebasiba reported in 2006 ACJ 1224;

(IV) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamata Kumar and Others reported in 2012 SCC online Delhi 483;

(V) In Ashokkumar and another etc. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 1210.

18. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in similar reference made in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, dated 10.07.2009 and in that decision, the amount fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed and both the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

19. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of typed set of papers, the following points for determination have been framed for disposal of these appeals:

(1) Whether the trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land at Rs.700/- per cent instead of Rs. 736.50/-?;

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation?

(3) Fixing of Rs.2,000/- per tree is fair or in lower side?;

(4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

Point No.1 :

20. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the properties are situated in Kamayagoundanpatti village and Royappanpatti Village which are situated adjacently and the document has been taken as data land from the village of Kamayagoundanpatti, but the trial Court has taken Ex.C.5 as a data land from that village and on that basis, it fixed Rs.700/- per cent. The land covered in Ex.C.5 is also described as 'Tope' land. The acquired lands and the land covered in Ex.C.5 do not have the same quality and the value. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the trial Court discussed and fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent.

21. It is not a case that the document is created for the purpose of fixing the land value and also came to the existence for small extent. But Ex.C.5 is for 1 acre 23 cents. The trial Court has rejected the other documents filed by the claimants i.e., as per Ex.C.6, 50 cents have been sold for Rs.55,000/- which is wet land and as per Ex.C.4, 1 acre 11 cents have been sold for Rs.89,000/- and one cent has been sold for Rs. 2,402.17/-, which have the water facility, well and motor pumpset and it was a flower garden. So, that documents were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

22. At this juncture, we can consider the document Ex.C.5 measuring 1 acre 23 cents and once cent has been fixed at Rs.700/- and sale deed has been executed. On perusal of Ex.C.5, it shows that the value of the property is Rs.86,100/- and one cent is valued at Rs.700/-. But a perusal of Ex.C.5, it shows that there are ten big coconut trees each valued at Rs.200/- and 25 saplings each valued at Rs.100/- and the total value of the trees is Rs.4,500/- and the total value of the property is fixed at Rs.90,600/- and hence, the value of one cent of land is Rs.700/- and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. So the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was held that Rs.736/- per cent and it fixed Rs.700/- per cent without assigning any reason does not merit acceptance. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2

23. At this juncture we have to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are related to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases and they are not relevant to the fact of the present cases. Since the trial Court has fixed the correct value, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is answered.

Point No.3:

24. A perusal of Ex.C.5, the value of one tree is fixed at Rs.200/-, whereas the trial Court has granted Rs.2,000/- each for a tree. The claimants obtained a certificate from the Assistant of Agriculture, Andipatti @ Vaigaidam, in which it was stated that sanction has been accorded for a sum of Rs.11,700/- being the cost of 3000 Nos of Tall coconut seed nuts procured from Thiru.K.Baskaran, Rayappanpatty by the Deputy Assistant Officer Coconut Nursery, Kovilpatty. But it is not helpful. Ex.C.2 is a document showing that how many trees are in the property. In that it was stated that upto 90 years, economical yield and then there will be decrease in yield trend. While considering Ex.C.5, the property has been purchased for Rs.86,100/- and for old trees, they fixed the value at Rs.200/- and for saplings, they fixed the value at Rs.100/-. Due to the natural calamities, so many trees are died and furthermore, hybrid varieties will not stand for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- fixed by the trial Court for each tree is fair and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:

25. In the similar matters, this Court in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in the same reference. Against which no appeal has been preferred before the Honourable Apex Court. Considering the fact that the trial Court has considered document Ex.C.4 and fixed the correct value of the property, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Hence, all the appeals are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered.

26. In view of the answer given to the point Nos.1 to 4, all the appeals and the connected cross objections are hereby dismissed.

A.S.Nos.384 to 387 of 1997:

27. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.12 and 18 of 1992 and 1 and 8 of 1993.

28. The Lands in Survey Nos.348/2, 349/2, 350/2A, 349/2C, 350/2B, 351/2C and 351/2D in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.52.0 hectare, 0.14.0 hectare, 0.16.0 hectare, 0.12.5 hectare, 0.23.5 1/3rd of 0.09.0 hectare i.e., 0.03.0 hectare and 0.35.0 hectare respectively and in 1099/2B, 1100/2, 1102/1B and 1152 in Kamayakavundanpatti Village to an extent of 0.05.5 hectare, 0.10.0 hectare, 0.05.0 hectare and 0.35.5 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the value of the land at Rs.12,782.95/- and the value of the trees at Rs.11,667,50/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.12 of 1992; fixed the value of the land at Rs.2,220.75/- and the value of the trees at Rs.3,564.75 and the value of the building at Rs.1,344.00 in respect of L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1992 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.3,845.70/- and the value of the trees at Rs.1,290.00/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1993; fixed the value of the land at Rs. 3,845.70/- and the value of the trees at Rs.1,290.00/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1993 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.4,169.70/- and the value of the trees and building at Rs.9,667.00/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1993 along with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant in all appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference were made in L.A.O.P.Nos.12 and 18 of 1992 and 1 and 8 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,782.95/- to Rs.2,03,700/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 2 acres 91 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from 11,667.50 /- to Rs.5,00,000/- for 250 trees by fixing Rs.2,000/- for each tree and totally awarded a sum of Rs.7,03,700/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.12 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,220.75/- to Rs.35,700/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 51 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs. 3,564.75 /- to Rs.66,000/- for 33 trees by fixing Rs.2,000/- for each tree and confirmed the value of the building at Rs.1,344.00/- and totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,044/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,845.70/- to Rs.61,600/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 88 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs.1,290.00/- to 86,000/- for 43 trees by fixing Rs.2,000/- for each tree and totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,600/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No. 1 of 1993; and awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,500/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No. 1 of 1993 by fixing Rs.700/- per cent and Rs.2000/- for each tree. The trial Court has awarded 30% solatium for additional compensation and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Against which the present appeals have been filed.

29. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.700/- per cent, which is very high and hence, he prayed for reduced the amount fixed by the trial Court.

30. Resisting the same the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the consideration in Ex.C.5 sale deed for Rs.90,600/- for the land measuring 1 acre 23 cents whereby the sale consideration is Rs.736.50/- per cent, but without any reason, the trial Court has reduced the same to Rs.700/- per cent. He would further submit that they filed the document viz., Exs.C.3, certificates issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Coconut Nursery, Theni and in that it was specifically mentioned that the life span of one coconut tree is 90 years, but the trial Court has considered only 20 years and thereby awarding Rs.2,000/- per tree, which is very low. He would further submit that without filing any crossappeal, the claimants entitled to enhance the compensation. For that reason, he would rely upon the following decisions:

(I) In State of Madras Vs. Rev.Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463;

(II) In Sone Ram Vs. Jeyaprakash reported in AIR 1986 MP 21;

(III) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh Ltd., Vs. Rani, Minor Hebasiba reported in 2006 ACJ 1224;

(IV) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamata Kumar and Others reported in 2012 SCC online Delhi 483;

(V) In Ashokkumar and another etc. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 1210.

31. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in similar reference made in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, dated 10.07.2009 and in that decision, the amount fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed and both the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

32. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of typed set of papers, the following points for determination have been framed for disposal of these appeals:

(1) Whether the trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land at Rs.700/- per cent instead of Rs. 736.50/-?;

(2) Without filing cross-objection, the claimants are entitled for enhancement from Rs.700/- to Rs.736.50/-?;

(3) Fixing of Rs.2,000/- per tree is fair or in lower side?;

(4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

Point No.1 :

33. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the properties are situated in Kamayagoundanpatti village and Royappanpatti Village which are situated adjacently and the document has been taken as data land from the village of Kamayagoundanpatti, but the trial Court has take Ex.C.5 as a data land from that village and on that basis, it fixed Rs.700/- per cent. The land covered in Ex.C.5 is also described as 'Tope' land. The acquired lands and the land covered in Ex.C.5 do not have the same quality and the value. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the trial Court discussed and fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent.

34. It is not a case that the document is created for the purpose of fixing the land value and also came to the existence for small extent. But Ex.C.5 is for 1 acre 23 cents. The trial Court has rejected the other documents filed by the claimants i.e., as per Ex.C.6, 50 cents have been sold for Rs.55,000/- which is wet land and as per Ex.C.4, 1 acre 11 cents have been sold for Rs.89,000/- and one cent has been sold for Rs. 2,402.17/-, which have the water facility, well and motor pumpset and it was a flower garden. So, that documents were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

35. At this juncture, we can consider the document Ex.C.5 measuring 1 acre 23 cents and once cent has been fixed at Rs.700 and sale deed has been executed. On perusal of Ex.C.5, it shows that the value of the property is Rs.86,100/- and one cent is valued at Rs.700/-. But a perusal of Ex.C.5, it shows that there are ten big coconut trees each valued at Rs.200/- and 25 saplings each valued at Rs.100/- and the total value of the trees is Rs.4,500/- and the total value of the property is fixed at Rs.90,600/- and hence, the value of one cent of land is Rs. 700/- and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. So the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was held that Rs.736/- per cent and it fixed Rs.700/- per cent without assigning any reason does not merit acceptance. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2

36. At this juncture we have to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation without filing any cross-objection. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are related to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases and they are not relevant to the fact of the present cases. Since the trial Court has fixed the correct value, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is answered.

Point No.3:

37. A perusal of Ex.C.5, the value of one tree is fixed at Rs.200/-, whereas the trial Court has granted Rs.2,000/- each for a tree. The claimants obtained a certificate from the Assistant of Agriculture, Andipatti @ Vaigaidam, in which it was stated that sanction has been accorded for a sum of Rs.11,700/- being the cost of 3000 Nos of Tall coconut seed nuts procured from Thiru.K.Baskaran, Rayappanpatty by the Deputy Assistant Officer Coconut Nursery, Kovilpatty. But it is not helpful. Ex.C.3 is a document showing that how many trees are in the property. In that it was stated that upto 90 years, economical yield and then there will be decrease in yield trend. While considering Ex.C.5, the property has been purchased for Rs.86,100/- and for old trees, they fixed the value at Rs.200/- and for saplings, they fixed the value at Rs.100/-. Due to the natural calamities, so many trees are died and furthermore, hybrid varieties will not stand for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- fixed by the trial Court for each tree is fair and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:

38. In the similar matters, this Court in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in the same reference. Against which no appeal has been preferred before the Honourable Apex Court. Considering the fact that the trial Court has considered document Ex.C.5 and fixed the correct value of the property, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Hence, all the appeals are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered.

39. In view of the answer given to the point Nos.1 to 4, all the appeals are hereby dismissed.

A.S.Nos.630 to 633 of 1996and Cros.Obj.No.19 of 2001 in A.S.No.630 of 1996 and Cros.Obj.No.107 of 1997 in A.S.No.631 of 1996:

40. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.13 to 15 of 1992 and 13 of 1993 and the claimants have also filed Cros.Obj.No.19 of 2001 in L.A.O.P.No.630 of 1996 and Cros.Obj.No.107 of 1997 in L.A.O.P.No.631 of 1996.

41. The Lands in Survey No.323/1 in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.68.0 hectare; in Survey Nos.1101 and 1103 in Kamayakavundanpatti Village to an extent of 0.31.5 hectare and 0.39.5 hectare respectively; in Survey Nos.322/1 and 322/4 in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.27.0 hectare and 0.09.0 hectare respectively and in Survey Nos.1109 and 1110 in Kamayakavundanpatti Village to an extent of 0.30.5 hectare and 0.79.0 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,366.45/- and the value of the trees at Rs.7,100.00- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1992; fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,691.45/- and the value of the trees at Rs.2,483/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.14 of 1992 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.3,899.85/- and the value of the trees at Rs.3,245/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.15 of 1992 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.4,081.80/- and the value of the trees at Rs.23,095/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1993 along with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant in all appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference were made in L.A.O.P.Nos.13 to 15 of 1992 and 13 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,366.45/- to Rs.1,17,600/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 1 acre 68cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs.7,100 /- to Rs4,36,000/- for 218 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.5,53,000/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,691.45/- to Rs.1,22,500/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 1 acre 75 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs.2,483/- to Rs.3,22,000/- for 161 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.4,44,500/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.14 of 1992; enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,899.85/- to Rs.62,300/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 0.89 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs. 3,245/- to Rs.2,20,000/- for 110 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs. 2,82,300/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.15 of 1992; and enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,081.80/- to Rs.1,89,000/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 2 acre 70 cents and enhanced the compensation for trees from Rs.23,095/- to Rs.5,38,000/- for 269 trees and totally awarded a sum of Rs.7,27,000/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1993. The trial Court has awarded 30% solatium for additional compensation and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Against which the present appeals and the connected Cross Objections have been filed.

42. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.700/- per cent, which is very high and hence, he prayed for reduced the amount fixed by the trial Court.

43. Resisting the same the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the consideration in Ex.C.4 sale deed for Rs.90,600/- for the land measuring 1 acre 23 cents whereby the sale consideration is Rs.736.50/- per cent, but without any reason, the trial Court has reduced the same to Rs.700/- per cent. He would further submit that they filed the documents viz., Exs.C.1 and C.2, certificates issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Coconut Nursery, Theni and in that it was specifically mentioned that the life span of one coconut tree is 90 years, but the trial Court has considered only 20 years and thereby awarding Rs.2,000/- per tree, which is very low. He would further submit that without filing any cross-appeal, the claimants entitled to enhance the compensation. For that reason, he would rely upon the following decisions:

(I) In State of Madras Vs. Rev.Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463;

(II) In Sone Ram Vs. Jeyaprakash reported in AIR 1986 MP 21;

(III) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh Ltd., Vs. Rani, Minor Hebasiba reported in 2006 ACJ 1224;

(IV) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamata Kumar and Others reported in 2012 SCC online Delhi 483;

(V) In Ashokkumar and another etc. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 1210.

44. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in similar reference made in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, dated 10.07.2009 and in that decision, the amount fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed and both the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

45. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of typed set of papers, the following points for determination have been framed for disposal of these appeals:

(1) Whether the trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land at Rs.700/- per cent instead of Rs. 736.50/-?;

(2) Without filing cross-objection, the claimants are entitled for enhancement from Rs.700/- to Rs.736.50/-?;

(3) Fixing of Rs.2,000/- per tree is fair or in lower side?;

(4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

Point No.1 :

46. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the properties are situated in Kamayagoundanpatti village and Royappanpatti Village which are situated adjacently and the document has been taken as data land from the village of Kamayagoundanpatti, but the trial Court has take Ex.C.4 as a data land from that village and on that basis, it fixed Rs.700/- per cent. The land covered in Ex.C.4 is also described as 'Tope' land. The acquired lands and the land covered in Ex.C.4 do not have the same quality and the value. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the trial Court discussed and fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent.

47. It is not a case that the document is created for the purpose of fixing the land value and also came to the existence for small extent. But Ex.C.4 is for 1 acre 23 cents. The trial Court has rejected the other documents filed by the claimants i.e., as per Ex.C.5, 50 cents have been sold for Rs.55,000/- which is wet land and as per Ex.C.3, 1 acre 11 cents have been sold for Rs.89,000/- and one cent has been sold for Rs. 2,402.17/-, which have the water facility, well and motor pumpset and it was a flower garden. So, that documents were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

48. At this juncture, we can consider the document Ex.C.4 measuring 1 acre 23 cents and once cent has been fixed at Rs.700 and sale deed has been executed. On perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that the value of the property is Rs.86,100/- and one cent is valued at Rs. 700/-. But a perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that there are ten big coconut trees each valued at Rs.200/- and 25 saplings each valued at Rs.100/- and the total value of the trees is Rs.4,500/- and the total value of the property is fixed at Rs.90,600/- and hence, the value of one cent of land is Rs.700/- and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. So the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was held that Rs.736/- per cent and it fixed Rs.700/- per cent without assigning any reason does not merit acceptance. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2

49. At this juncture we have to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation without filing any cross-objection. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are related to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases and they are not relevant to the fact of the present cases. Since the trial Court has fixed the correct value, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is answered.

Point No.3:

50. A perusal of Ex.C.4, the value of one tree is fixed at Rs.200/-, whereas the trial Court has granted Rs.2,000/- each for a tree. The claimants obtained a certificate from the Assistant of Agriculture, Andipatti @ Vaigaidam, in which it was stated that sanction has been accorded for a sum of Rs.11,700/- being the cost of 3000 Nos of Tall coconut seed nuts procured from Thiru.K.Baskaran, Rayappanpatty by the Deputy Assistant Officer Coconut Nursery, Kovilpatty. But it is not helpful. Ex.C.2 is a document showing that how many trees are in the property. In that it was stated that upto 90 years, economical yield and then there will be decrease in yield trend. While considering Ex.C.4, the property has been purchased for Rs.86,100/- and for old trees, they fixed the value at Rs.200/- and for saplings, they fixed the value at Rs.100/-. Due to the natural calamities, so many trees are dies and furthermore, hybrid varieties will not stand for more than ten years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- fixed by the trial Court for each tree is fair and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:

51. In the similar matters, this Court in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in the same reference. Against which no appeal has been preferred before the Honourable Apex Court. Considering the fact that the trial Court has considered document Ex.C.4 and fixed the correct value of the property, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Hence, all the appeals are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered.

52. In view of the answer given to the point Nos.1 to 4, all the appeals and the connected Cros. Objections are hereby dismissed.

A.S.Nos.252 and 254 of 1997:

53. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.17 of 1992 and 6 of 1993 respectively.

54. The Lands in Survey Nos.1108, 1112, 1113/2, 1114, 1137/2, 1143/1, 1144 and 1145 in Kamayakavundanpatti Village to an extent of 0.29.0 hectare, 0.37.5 hectare, 0.22.5 hectare, 0.15.0 hectare, 0.02.0 hectare, 0.22.0 hectare, 0.70.0 hectare and 0.28.5 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,067.80/- and the value of the trees at Rs.276.60/- in L.A.O.P.No.17 of 1992 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,271.95/- and the value of trees at Rs.41,720/- and the value of building at Rs. 16,933/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1993 along with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant in all appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference were made in L.A.O.P.Nos.17 of 1992 and 6 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,067.80/- to Rs.50,400/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 72 cents and enhanced the compensation for tree from 276.60 /- to Rs.2,000/- each for 29 trees i.e., Rs.58,000/- and totally awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,400/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.17 of 1992 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,271.95/- to Rs.3,41,600/- by fixing Rs.700/- per cent for 4 acre 88 cents and enhanced the compensation for tree from 41,720 /- to Rs.2,000/- each for 233 trees i.e., Rs.4,66,000/- and and enhanced the amount from Rs.16,933/- to Rs.25,000/- for building and totally awarded a sum of Rs.8,32,600/- in respect of L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1993. The trial Court has awarded 30% solatium for additional compensation and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit. Against which the present appeals have been filed.

55. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.700/- per cent, which is very high and hence, he prayed for reduced the amount fixed by the trial Court.

56. Resisting the same the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the consideration in Ex.C.4 sale deed for Rs.90,600/- for the land measuring 1 acre 23 cents whereby the sale consideration is Rs.736.50/- per cent, but without any reason, the trial Court has reduced the same to Rs.700/- per cent. He would further submit that they filed the documents viz., Exs.C.2 certificate issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Coconut Nursery, Theni and in that it was specifically mentioned that the life span of one coconut tree is 90 years, but the trial Court has considered only 20 years and thereby awarding Rs.2,000/- per tree, which is very low. He would further submit that without filing any crossappeal, the claimants entitled to enhance the compensation. For that reason, he would rely upon the following decisions:

(I) In State of Madras Vs. Rev.Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463;

(II) In Sone Ram Vs. Jeyaprakash reported in AIR 1986 MP 21;

(III) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh Ltd., Vs. Rani, Minor Hebasiba reported in 2006 ACJ 1224;

(IV) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamata Kumar and Others reported in 2012 SCC online Delhi 483;

(V) In Ashokkumar and another etc. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 1210.

57. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in similar reference made in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, dated 10.07.2009 and in that decision, the amount fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed and both the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

58. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of typed set of papers, the following points for determination have been framed for disposal of these appeals:

(1) Whether the trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land at Rs.700/- per cent instead of Rs. 736.50/-?;

(2) Without filing cross-objection, the claimants are entitled for enhancement from Rs.700/- to Rs.736.50/-?;

(3) Fixing of Rs.2,000/- per tree is fair or in lower side?;

(4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

Point No.1 :

59. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the properties are situated in Kamayagoundanpatti village and Royappanpatti Village which are situated adjacently and the document has been taken as data land from the village of Kamayagoundanpatti, but the trial Court has take Ex.C.4 as a data land from that village and on that basis, it fixed Rs.700/- per cent. The land covered in Ex.C.4 is also described as 'Tope' land. The acquired lands and the land covered in Ex.C.4 do not have the same quality and the value. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the trial Court discussed and fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent.

60. It is not a case that the document is created for the purpose of fixing the land value and also came to the existence for small extent. But Ex.C.4 is for 1 acre 23 cents. The trial Court has rejected the other documents filed by the claimants i.e., as per Ex.C.6, 50 cents have been sold for Rs.55,000/- which is wet land and as per Ex.C.5, 1 acre 11 cents have been sold for Rs.89,000/- and one cent has been sold for Rs. 2,402.17/-, which have the water facility, well and motor pumpset and it was a flower garden. So, that documents were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

61. At this juncture, we can consider the document Ex.C.4 measuring 1 acre 23 cents and once cent has been fixed at Rs.700 and sale deed has been executed. On perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that the value of the property is Rs.86,100/- and one cent is valued at Rs. 700/-. But a perusal of Ex.C.4, it shows that there are ten big coconut trees each valued at Rs.200/- and 25 saplings each valued at Rs.100/- and the total value of the trees is Rs.4,500/- and the total value of the property is fixed at Rs.90,600/- and hence, the value of one cent of land is Rs.700/- and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. So the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was held that Rs.736/- per cent and it fixed Rs.700/- per cent without assigning any reason does not merit acceptance. Hence, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2

62. At this juncture we have to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation without filing any cross-objection. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are related to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases and they are not relevant to the fact of the present cases. Since the trial Court has fixed the correct value, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is answered.

Point No.3:

63. A perusal of Ex.C.4, the value of one tree is fixed at Rs.200/-, whereas the trial Court has granted Rs.2,000/- each for a tree. The claimants obtained a certificate from the Assistant of Agriculture, Andipatti @ Vaigaidam, in which it was stated that sanction has been accorded for a sum of Rs.11,700/- being the cost of 3000 Nos of Tall coconut seed nuts procured from Thiru.K.Baskaran, Rayappanpatty by the Deputy Assistant Officer Coconut Nursery, Kovilpatty. But it is not helpful. Ex.C.2 is a document showing that how many trees are in the property. In that it was stated that upto 90 years, economical yield and then there will be decrease in yield trend. While considering Ex.C.4, the property has been purchased for Rs.86,100/- and for old trees, they fixed the value at Rs.200/- and for saplings, they fixed the value at Rs.100/-. Due to the natural calamities, so many trees are died and furthermore, hybrid varieties will not stand for more than ten years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- fixed by the trial Court for each tree is fair and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:

64. In the similar matters, this Court in A.S.Nos.634 and 635 of 1996, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in the same reference. Against which no appeal has been preferred before the Honourable Apex Court. Considering the fact that the trial Court has considered document Ex.C.4 and fixed the correct value of the property, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Hence, all the appeals are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered.

65. In view of the answer given to the point Nos.1 to 4, all the appeals are hereby dismissed.

66. In the result, all the Appeals and the connected Cros.Objections are dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in all the L.A.O.Ps. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //