Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer & vs A.R.Nagappan on 4 August, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.5601 of 2021
The Land Acquisition Officer &
District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. A.R.Nagappan
2. The Divisional Engineer (H)
Highways C & M,
Chengalpattu. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in
LAOP.No.58 of 2016 dated 28.02.2017 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader (AS)
For R1 : Mr.J.Ram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/16
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 28.02.2017 made in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 on the file of
the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The District Revenue Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer
have filed this revision petition challenging the award in the said
LAOP.No.58 of 2016 dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Additional
Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an extent of land measuring
40,186 square meters situated in Alathur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk
(now Thiruporur), Kanchipuram District, was notified for acquisition for
the purpose of forming I.T. Corridor Express Highway i.e. to widen the
existing Old Mahabalipuram Road into Six Lane from various survey
numbers adjoining the I.T. Corridor Express Highway. After completing
the acquisition formalities by proceedings of the District Collector,
Kanchipuram who determined the amount payable to the respective land
owners for acquisition of their lands under Section 19(3) of Tamil Nadu
Highways Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34/2012), the determination came
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
to be passed on 15.07.2013. While determining the land value for 40,186
square meters, it was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,216/- per square meter.
After calculating the building and tree value along with 30% Solatium,
which arrived at Rs.6,54,66,674/-. Apart from that, additional market
value at the rate of 12% was also added to the whole sum of
Rs.6,54,66,674/- and which arrived at Rs.9,30,16,123/-. After calculating
the land value, the above rate was fixed by the proceedings of the District
Collector who worked out to Rs.113/- per square feet to the first
respondent / landowner. Dissatisfying with the compensation fixed by
the District Collector, Kanchipuram, a reference was made by the first
respondent / landowner to the Additional Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu, seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the
Award No.9 of 2013, dated 15.07.2013.
4. The first respondent / landowner has claimed before the Court
below that the land in Survey No.101/1B1, 101/1B2A in Alathur Village
to an extent of 1297 square meters is belonged to him. He purchased the
same under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and
thereafter he has done lot of improvements for levelling the land to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
height of 2 feet by spending several lakhs of rupees. When the
Government notified the acquisition of land under notice dated
13.10.2008 for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway, he made
a representation before the District Collector stating that the market value
of his property is more than Rs.3,50,000/-. There were several sale deeds
which are registered for more than 3 Lakhs of rupees in the same locality
and his land is situated in a commercial zone, and because of this
acquisition, his remaining land is not in the position of being utilized as
it becomes a triangle in shape. Apart from that, he claimed before the
Court below that the authority while passing the award has not
considered the highest value registered prior to one year from the date of
acquisition and prayed to the Learned Subordinate Judge to fix the
compensation at Rs.7,405/- per square meter.
5. In contrary to the submissions made by the first respondent /
landowner, the petitioner herein has claimed before the Court below that
they have followed all the formalities in accordance with law and the
compensation fixed as per the award dated 15.07.2013 is absolutely
correct as the data land taken for arriving or fixing the award was correct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
and the land that claiming to be the data is fancyful, that cannot be
considered for arriving at the compensation. Hence he prayed that the
award dated 15.07.2013 to be confirmed.
6. The Learned Additional Subordinate Judge after hearing the
parties concerned and in reference to the data land submitted by either
parties which are documentary evidences has come to the conclusion as
follows :
(i) The compensation fixed by the Referring Officer
at the rate of Rs.1,216/- per sq. meter is ordered to be
enhanced to Rs.7,405/- per sq. meter with 30% solatium
along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on solatium.
(ii) Any sum already paid towards the compensation
has to be deducted from the total sum if it is already
received by the claimants.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to get the additional
market value at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of
notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
to the date of passing of the award.
(iv) Further the claimants are entitled 9% p.a.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
interest on the excess amount for the 1st year from the date
of taking possession and 15% p.a. interest for subsequent
years till the date of deposit.
(v) It is also further ordered that the expenses
incurred by this Court for sending notice to the claimants
should be deducted at the time of issuance of cheque to the
claimants.
(vi) It is further ordered that, the claimants are
entitled for the cost of the proceedings.
(vii) It is further ordered that, except the above
mentioned claims, with regard to other aspects, the
determination for the Land Acquisition Officer is
confirmed.
(viii) Time for payment of the enhanced claim 2
months.
7. Aggrieved by the above order of the Learned Subordinate Judge
at Chengalpattu, the present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner herein i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer.
8. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
petitioner has vehemently argued that the Award No.9 of 2013 dated
15.07.2013 ought to have been confirmed as the award was passed in
conformity with the data lands that were taken as referral value for fixing
the compensation. When the authority has fixed the right value at
Rs.1,216/- per square meter, the question of enhancing the compensation
to an exorbitant rate of Rs.7,405/- per square meter is totally incorrect.
9. The Learned Special Government Pleader has also submitted
that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly taken the relevant sale deed
prior to Section 15(2) Notification dated 24.12.2008 and only after
analysing all the transactions as per the data collected by him has rightly
fixed the market value at Rs.113/- per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per
square meter.
10. The Learned Special Government Pleader has further
submitted that the Learned Subordinate Judge has failed to consider the
data sale deed taken by the Land Acquisition Officer which is abutting
the acquired land relevant to this C.R.P and whereas the Learned
Subordinate Judge without any proper reason has enhanced the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
compensation from Rs.1,216/- per square meter to Rs.7,405/- per square
meter, which is exorbitant and has to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the first respondent / landowner would
submit that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a common value for
both approved lands and unapproved lands in the award, as such, the
approved lands that fall within the acquisition will have to be considered
separately as against the unapproved lands that were acquired.
12. The learned counsel for the first respondent / landowner would
further submit that the value fixed for the acquired lands cannot be same
for larger extent of land and smaller extent of land, each land should
have been decided separately considering the proximity of the highway
road from the acquired lands and the development that has taken place in
the adjoining areas next to the acquired lands. However, when reference
was made to the order of the Learned Subordinate Judge seeking
enhancement of compensation, it is submitted that if this Court is not
enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,405/- per square meter to a higher
rate, it would be appropriate for this Court to confirm at least Rs.7,405/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
per square meter as enhanced by the Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for R1, and perused the materials available on record.
14. On considering the rival submissions made and the documents
relied on by the counsels on either side, this Court proceeds to determine
as to whether the compensation enhanced by the Learned Additional
Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 is excessive or
insufficient. The acquisition relates to the present revision petition is for
the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway i.e. to widen the existing
Old Mahabalipuram Road into Six Lane. After the I.T. Companies came
into existence in the Old Mahabalipuram Road at Chennai, no doubt, the
value of the lands in and around the OMR has increased manifold.
15. On perusal of the common award dated 15.07.2013 passed in
Award No.9 of 2013 for arriving or fixing the compensation at Rs.113/-
per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per square meter, it is seen that the
authorities have conducted a survey in the lands involved in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
acquisition and inspected the field sketch. As there was no variation in
the extent between the Public Notice under Section 15(2) of the
Highways Act and Draft Notice under Section 15(1) of the Highways
Act, notice under Section 16(2) was issued on 30.07.2010, which was
prior to the notification published in Part - II Section - 2 of the Extra
Ordinary Issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 04.03.2005 by
including the trees and other structures that were present at the time of
acquisition in the acquired lands. For determining the amount as
compensation, statistics were gathered from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008
i.e. 3 years prior to the date of publication of 15(2) notification, from the
Sub Registrar Office, Thiruporur. There are 184 sales have been taken
place during the said period in Alathur Village. Out of which, the land in
Serial No.36, an extent of 0.59 cent (25,724 sq.ft) in Survey Nos.44/4A,
44/4B, 44/4A1 (Wet land) of Alathur Village, has been sold for
Rs.29,00,000/- vide Doc.No.6650 dated 31.07.2006, which was taken as
a data sale deed and worked out to Rs.113/- per square feet. As far as the
other sales are concerned, which were either sold as house site or for
lower amount, Land with building, UDS, Combined sales. The
authorities have concluded that the sale in Serial.No.36 reflected the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
correct value of the land and therefore it was taken as data land and the
compensation was fixed at Rs.113/- per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per
square meter for the lands under acquisition, and they have rightly fixed
the compensation to be paid for the acquired lands to an extent of 40,186
square meters at Rs.1,216/- per square meter or Rs.113/- per square feet.
16. It is further seen from the award that on reference being made
by the authorities, the claimant i.e. the respective landowner has filed
claimant's side documents before the Additional Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu, which are Exs.C1 and C2 Sale deeds dated 21.11.2007 and
24.11.2008. Ex.C1 Sale deed is with respect to the property in Survey
No.237/3A1 to an extent of 51 cents and Ex.C2 Sale deed is with respect
to the property in Paiyanur Village which is adjacent to the Village in
Survey No.222/10 to an extent of 1.47 acres. Ex.C3 which is the
document to show that the claimant's property abutting the main road of
Paiyanur Village was also marked before the Court below.
17. On evaluating the quantum of award passed by the referring
authority, it is observed that no reason has been stated by the authority as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
to how the sale deed registered in Serial No.36 among 184 sale deeds
that were registered between 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008 alone was taken
as data land for fixing the compensation. While entertaining the petition,
the authority has to give proper reason as to why the particular sale deed
was taken and recorded to be made as a data land for fixing the
compensation, but the award passed by the Court below does not contain
any such reason for arriving or fixing the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per
square meter. Hence the order of the Court below certainly needs
interference of this Court.
18. On going through the Judgment and Decree rendered by the
Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, this Court finds
that Ex.C2 is the document to be considered as data land as far as the
Additional Subordinate Judge is concerned. The amount fixed by the
District Collector, Kanchipuram at Rs.1,216/- per square meter for the
acquired land is absolutely incorrect and which is too low for the
commercial zone that is situated in the Old Mahabalipuram Road at
Chennai. The first respondent / landowner should be justly compensated
for his loss of land. The Learned Subordinate Judge, for enhancing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
compensation, has taken Ex.C2 which is the sale deed dated 24.11.2008
with respect to the property in Paiyanur Village which is adjacent to the
land in question of acquisition. The Ex.C2 pertains to the land to an
extent of 1.47 acres and the land mentioned in Ex.C2 has been sold for
Rs.3,20,00,000/-. The Learned Subordinate Judge has arrived at
Rs.7,405/- per square meter as against Rs.1,216/- fixed by the District
Collector at Kanchipuram.
19. This Court is unable to accept the fixation of compensation by
the Learned Subordinate Judge for the reason that as per Ex.C2, the land
to an extent of 1.47 acres (64033.20 sq.ft) in Paiyanur Village has been
sold for Rs.3,20,00,000/- viz., it has been valued at Rs.499/-
(3,20,00,000 / 64033.20) per square feet or Rs.5,370/- per square meter. I
afraid that how the Learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the
compensation to Rs.7,405/- per square meter or Rs.688/- per square feet
when considering Ex.C2 or relying Ex.C2 for enhancing the
compensation. If Ex.C2 is considered as date sale deed, the above
calculation will come only to Rs.5,370/- per square meter or Rs.499/- per
square feet. There is no good reason stated by the Learned Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
Judge while enhancing the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per square meter
when the data sale deed i.e. Ex.C2 relied on by the Learned Sub Judge
comes to only Rs.5,370/- per square meter. In this regard, this Court is in
conformity with the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu for
taking Ex.C2 Sale deed as data land for fixing or enhancing the
compensation. However, the amount arrived at by relying on Ex.C2 as
Rs.7,405/- per square meter or Rs.688/- per square feet is incorrect.
20. This Court, only to this extent, is interfering with the quantum
of compensation enhanced by the Learned Subordinate Judge at
Chengalpattu and the award passed by the referring authority has to be
interfered with as the award is too low and there was no reason stated for
relying the sale in Serial No.36 out of 184 sales that have been taken
place during the period from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008. At the same
time, the Learned Subordinate Judge is also incorrect from not taking the
exact value from Ex.C2 for fixing or enhancing the compensation.
21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
enhanced compensation by the Learned Subordinate Judge at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
Chengalpattu warrants interference only with regard to the amount
determined under Ex.C2 as Rs.7,405/- per square meter instead of
Rs.5,370/- per square meter and in all other aspects the orders passed by
the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu are confirmed and which
need no interference.
22. Accordingly, the compensation fixed by the Learned
Additional Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 at
the rate of Rs.7,405/- per square meter is modified as Rs.5,370/- per
square meter.
23. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.08.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
raja
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Divisional Engineer (H), Highways C & M, Chengalpattu.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.5601 of 2021
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
