Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: LAOP in Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) vs V.S.Govindarajan on 6 April, 2010Matching Fragments
5. On objection raised by the land owners, references were made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. References were taken on file as LAOP Nos.31, 32, 33/1996; LAOP Nos.1, 18, 20/1997 and 22/2002. In the Reference Court, LAOP Nos.31 to 33/1996 and LAOP Nos.1, 18 and 20/1997 were taken up together and disposed on 31.1.2003 as one Batch. Applying the same rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft., LAOP No.22/2002 was disposed on 27.8.2004. Before the Reference Court, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem alone were the Respondents. The Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body viz., National Highways Authorities of India [NHAI] for which the lands were acquired, was not made as a party.
6. In the Reference Court, the Claimant in LAOP No.32/1996 was examined as CW1 and one Palanisamy, scribe of Ex.C1 was examined as CW2. Sale deed dated 10.5.1994 was marked as Ex.C1 and Judgment in LAOP No.3/1996 Batch was marked as Ex.C2 on the side of the Claimants. No witness was examined and document was marked on the side of the Respondent. In LAOP.No.22/2002, 1st Claimant Radhamani was examined as CW1. The decree and judgment in LAOP.No.32/1996 were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. No oral and documentary evidence on the side of Respondent.
45. Though, LAOP.No.22/2002 was disposed of by Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal and all other LAOPs were disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, as the common Award was passed in respect of the subject lands , we are of the view that LAOP No.22/2002 also has to be heard and disposed of afresh by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
46. In the result, the Judgments of the Reference Court LAOP Nos.31,32,33/1996 and LAOP Nos.1, 18, 20/1997 dated 31.1.2003 and LAOP No.22/2002 dated 27.8.2004 respectively are set aside the these Appeals are allowed and all the LAOPs are ordered to be remitted back to the Reference Court [Sub-Court, Namakkal] for fresh disposal.
In A.S.Nos.1003 to 1005/1994 and A.S.Nos.333 to 335/2005, as per the order in CMP Nos.1638 to 16440/2004 dated 08.10.2004 and as per the order in CMP.Nos.19031 to 19033/2005 dated 14.12.2005 respectively, 50% of the enhanced compensation was deposited to the credit of LAOP Nos.31 to 33/1996 and LAOP Nos.1, 18 and 20/1997. From out of the deposited amount, in LAOP Nos.31 to 33/1996 and LAOP Nos.1,18 and 20/1997, Claimants have withdrawn part of the amount of compensation with security/without security. The amount so withdrawn by the Claimants varies in the Petitions. The amount so withdrawn by the Claimants with security/without security shall be subject to the result of the final order to be passed by the Reference Court. The balance compensation amount shall continue to remain in the fixed deposit on reinvestment plan. The security furnished by the Claimants is also ordered to be retained.