Madras High Court
Indian Rare Earths Ltd vs P.Sabesan ...1St on 9 April, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of pronouncing the Judgment
28.10.2021 10.11.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
A.S.(MD) No. 210 of 2021
Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,
Manavalakurichi 629 252
Kanyakumari District. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs
1.P.Sabesan ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition Officer)
Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1984, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2021, passed by the
Sub Court, Eraniel made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan
Senior Counsel, for
Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam and
Associates
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Pillai Vinayagam
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.R.Raghavendran,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S. ANANTHI, J.]
This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order,
dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel, in
L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018.
2. The 1st respondent herein is Claimant in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018.
The Claimant has filed the aforesaid LAOP, against the 2nd respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant herein, for enhancing amount of compensation and the same
was partly allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel, on
09.04.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/2 nd respondent is before
this Court.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
learned Judge has failed to determine the enhancement of compensation in
terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the several
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the order
and decree passed by the Court beelow is not sustainable in law. He further
submitted that the present Appeal has been filed within the period of
limitation.
4.Heard Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, Senior counsel for
Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam and Associates, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.S.Pillai Vinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent and Mr.R.Raghavendran, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The point is to be decided that Whether the award amount of
compensation fixed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018 is very high and without any
basis?
6.The Claimant has owned a land in 3.65 acres in S.No.111,
Manavalakurichi Village. The land was acquired by the Government along
with 17 survey numbers to expand mining activities. The acquisition was
made in the year 1987.
7.An award was passed bearing No.8/1990-1991, in which, by
applying the multiplier method for a period of 20 years, the compensation
was fixed at Rs.2,73,651/-together with solatium at 30% and interest @
12% from the date of the Section 4(1) Notification till the date of the award.
The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.4,51,704.10 to the 1st respondent being
the compensation payable as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Not being satisfied with the award of compensation, the 1st respondent
submitted a claim for enhancement of compensation to the Collector. The
claim for enhancement of compensation was referred under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Court, Eraniel, which was taken on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
file as LAOP No.64 of 1991. The reference Court then proceeded to pass
final orders in LAOP No.64 of 1991, re-numbered as LAOP No.1 of 2018
allowing the claim for enhancement of compensation and fixing the
compensation Rs.4,500/-per cent. Aggrieved by this order, the present
appeal has been filed.
8.For the same purpose of acquisition some other lands were also
acquired in S.No.377 and compensation amount has also paid for that land.
The claimant for S.No.377 has filed L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1991 and the
Tribunal after considering all the aspects has fixed Rs.4,500/-per cent. The
Order in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991 is considered and the learned Subordinate
Judge, Eraniel, has fixed same amount in this case also.
9.Against the order in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991 no appeal has been
filed and the amount was also deposited.
10.S.No.111 in the present case next to S.No.377. Village map also
filed to show that the S.No.111 is adjacent to the S.No.377. The sketch was
also marked as Ex.R.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.To show the Taram of the lands in S.No.111 and 377 are same. 'A'
register for both the survey numbers were filed in the LAOP 'A' register for
S.No.111 was marked as Ex.C.6. 'A' register for S.No.377 was marked as
Ex.R.4. As per 'A' register Taram of lands in both survey numbers are 5.
12.For the same purpose the lands were acquired in S.No.111 and in
S.No.377. In L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991, compensation has fixed at Rs.4,500/-
per cent. No appeal has preferred against the aforesaid order. Therefore,
the compensation has fixed in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991 is become final.
Amount of compensation was also deposited by this same appellant. So,
now, he cannot object the enhanced amount in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon
various Judgments are as follows:
1. 1973(2) SCC 594 ; The State of Madras Vs. Rev. Brother Joseph,
2. 2009(4) SCC 395; The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO Vs.
Shaik Azam Saheb and Others,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. 1988 (3) SCC 751 ; Chimanlal Hargovindas Vs. Special land
Acquisition Officer, Poona & Others,
4. 2002 (3) SCC 527 ; Airports Authority on India Vs. Satyagopal Roy
and Others;
5. 1995(5) SCC 422 ; Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons and Others Vs. State
of Gujaraj.
These Judgments are not relevant to the facts of the case. Since this
appellant already admitted and paid the compensation amount in
L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991.
14. The 1st respondent has also filed various Judgments and has stated
that compensation has awarded for standing trees. But, he has not filed any
appeal against the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018.
15.After considering the sale deed of adjacent lands order was passed
in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel, has
rightly fixed the compensation. This Court has no valid reason to interfere
with the findings of the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.Finally, this Appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the order,
dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel, in
L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018. No Costs.
(V.B.D., J.) (S.A.I., J.)
10.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ksa
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Subordinate Court,
Eraniel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Judgment in
A.S.(MD) No. 210 of 2021
10.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
