M.M. Sundresh, J.@mdashThe appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the Reference Court, wherein the Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 147.27/- per cent to Rs. 1,165/- per cent.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
An extent of 1.77.5 hectares of land situated in Survey No. 350/1B in Ambasamudram Village, Tirunelveli District has been acquired for the
purpose of construction of houses to the Adi Dravidar people. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a sum of Rs. 147.27/- per cent in his award.
Challenging the same, the respondent/claimant sought a reference and the Reference Court has enhanced the valuation at Rs. 1,165/- per cent.
Being aggrieved against the enhancement fixed by the Reference Court, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Before the Reference Court, the respondent has marked four documents in Ex.C1 to c4 claiming a sum of Rs. 3,600/- per cent. The respondent
has also examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 in support of his case. The appellant has marked Ex.B1 to B3 in support of his case and examined R.W.1 on
his side.
4. The Court below has fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 5,17,216/- and challenging the same, the above appeal has been filed. The
learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Court below has not taken into account Ex.C1 to C3 for fixing the valuation. According
to the learned Additional Government Pleader without any basis the Court below has enhanced the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer
by eight times. It is also submitted that the fixation has no legal basis and such a method adopted by the Court below is not permissible in law. It is
further submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration about the statutory deductions to be made for development charges and for
relying upon documents which are for smaller extent of land.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that a perusal of Ex.C1 to c4 would show that the valuation mentioned therein is very high
and therefore the order passed by the Court below will have to be sustained. According tot he learned Counsel, there is an admission by the
appellant about the potential value of the land and therefore the judgment and decree of the Court below will have to be sustained.
6. After going through the judgment of the Court below, this Court finds that unilaterally and without any legal basis, an enhancement of eight times
over and above the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has been made by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has also not
taking into consideration of the documents filed by both sides. The Reference Court has to exercise his power under the Land Acquisition Act and
based upon settled principle of law laid down by the higher Courts. The fixation of value by merely taking into consideration of the potentiality of
the land by increasing the same to eight times than the one fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not legally permissible. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that under those circumstances, the judgment and decree of the Court below will have to be set aside and the Court below will have
to be directed to decide the issue of compensation afresh in accordance with law by taking into consideration of the material available before the
Court. Hence while remanding, the parties are at liberty to file additional documents if any in support of their respective contentions.
7. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1997 dated 26.04.1999 is hereby set aside and the Court
below is directed to take L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1997 on file and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.