The Land Acquisition Officer And vs Vasuki
2021 Latest Caselaw 15729 Mad

                                                                                C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 &
                                                                                C.M.P.No.5779 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.No. 670 of 2021 &
                                               C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021



                      The Land Acquisition Officer and
                      District Revenue Officer,
                      Kancheepuram District                              ... Petitioner


                                                            Vs.

                      1. Vasuki

                      2. The Divisional Engineer,
                         Highways C& M
                         Chengalpattu                                    ...Respondents


                             Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution Of

                      India to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2016

                      dated 20.03.2017 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

                      Chengalpattu.




                      1/16


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 &
                                                                                C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021




                                    For Petitioner          : Mr.J.Balagopal
                                                              Special Government Pleader (AS)

                                    For Respondents         : Mr.J.Ram for R1


                                                       ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Land Acquisition

Officer and District Revenue Officer challenging the Common Order

passed in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2016 by the learned Additional Subordinate

Judge, Chengalpattu dated 20.03.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case is that an extent of land measuring

63,787 square meter, situated in Pooncheri village, Thirukalukundram Taluk

in the District of Kancheepuram was notified for acquisition for the formation

of I.T.Corridor Expressway, i.e., to widen the existing Old Mahabalipuram

Road into a six lane from various survey numbers adjoining the I.T. Corridor

Expressway. After completing the acquisition formalities, by way of Award

dated 20.11.2013, the District Collector, Kancheepuram, had determined

the amount payable to the respective land owners for the acquisition of their

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

lands under Section 19(3) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001

(Tamilnadu Act 34 of 2002). The determination was made to that effect that

the land value for 63,787 square meters was fixed at the rate of Rs.2,669/-

per square meter and building along with the trees that severance from their

place of acquisition with 30% Solatium was arrived at Rs.9,02,34,044/-.

Apart from that, adding additional market value at the rate of 12% to the

whole sum, arrived at Rs.31,36,53,234/-, as such, they have calculated the

above rate and the amount was fixed by the proceedings of the District

Collector, which worked out to Rs.2,669/- per square meter.

3. Aggrieved by the fixation of compensation as arrived by the District

Collector, Kancheepuram in Award No.13/2013 dated 20.11.2013, petition

in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2016 was made to the learned Additional Subordinate

Judge, Chengalpet, seeking for enhancement of compensation by the

respondent / land owner. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

Chengalpet by Common Order dated 20.03.2017 had enhanced the

compensation to Rs.13,500/- per square meter, as against the same,

present Civil Revision Petition No.670 of 2021 is filed by the Land

Acquisition Officer and District Revenue Officer.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

4. The contentions raised by the respondent - land owner before the

court below was that the land in Survey No.220/9A2 in Pooncheri village to

an extent of 240 sq. mtrs belonged to her. She purchased the same under

a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration and thereafter, the

respondent / landowner had performed several improvements in the said

land by levelling it to the height of 2 feet by spending several lakhs and

when the Government notified the land for acquisition under notice dated

12.06.2009 for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway, the

respondent / land owner made a representation before the Collector stating

that the market value of the property is more than Rs.3,50,000/-, as there

are several sale deeds, which were registered for more than Rs.3,00,000/-

in the same locality. The respondent further stated that her land is situated

in the commercial zone and because of the acquisition, her remaining lands

cannot be utilised properly, as it has become a triangular in shape.

5. The respondent / land owner before the court below has also

contended that the authority while passing the award, has not considered

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

the highest value registered prior to one year from the date of acquisition

and prayed the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu to

enhance the compensation.

6. In contrary to the submissions made by the respondent-land owner

before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, the

petitioner herein has stated that they followed all the formalities in

accordance with Law and the compensation fixed as per the award dated

20.11.2013 is absolutely correct, as the data land taken for arriving or fixing

the award was correct and land that the respondent claiming to be as data

land is fancyful, that cannot be considered for arriving at the compensation,

hence he prayed that the award dated 20.11.2013 to be confirmed.

7. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu after

hearing both the parties and in reference to the data land submitted by

either parties, as documentary evidence, has come to the following

conclusion:-

"19. In the result, the claim of the claimants is ordered as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

(i) The compensation fixed by the Referring Officer at the rate of Rs.2,669/- per sq. meter is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.13,500/- 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 15(1) of High Ways Act to the date of taking of the possession.

(iv) Further, the claimants are entitled 9% p.a., 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."

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

8. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the

petitioner vehemently argued that the Award No.13 of 2013 dated

20.11.2013 ought to have been confirmed, as the award was passed in

conformity with the data sale lands that was taken as referral value for fixing

the compensation. When the authority has fixed the right value at Rs.248/-

per square feet, the question of enhancing the compensation to an

exorbitant amount of Rs.13,500/- per square meter or Rs.2,669/- per square

feet is totally incorrect.

9. Apart from the above, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the petitioner further contended that the Land Acquisition

Officer has rightly taken the relevant sale deed from the sale of wet land

prior to Section 15(2) Notification dated 07.07.2009 and only after analysing

all the transactions, as per the data sale collected by him, had rightly fixed

the market value at Rs.248/- per Square feet. The learned counsel further

contended that the Subordinate Court has failed to consider the data sale

deed taken by the Land Acquisition Office for fixing market value, which is

abutting the acquired land, whereas, the Subordinate Court, without even

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

considering all the above facts and without any proper reasoning, had fixed

Rs. 1,255/- per square feet as against Rs.248/- per square feet fixed by the

Land acquisition Officer, which is highly exorbitant and it has to be set

aside.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -

land owner, had contended that the acquisition officer had fixed the

common value in his award for both approved lands and unapproved lands,

as such, the approved land that falls within the acquisition, will have to be

considered separately as against the unapproved plots or lands that were

acquired.

11. It is represented on behalf of the respondent - land owner that

the value fixed cannot be the same for larger extent of land and for smaller

extent of land. Each land should have been decided separately considering

the proximity of the highway road from the acquired land and the

development that has taken place in the adjoining land to the acquired land.

However, when a reference was made to the order of the Subordinate Court

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

seeking enhancement of compensation, the learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that if this Court is not willing to enhance the

compensation from Rs.13,500/- to a higher rate, it would be appropriate for

this Court to confirm atleast Rs.13,500/- per square meter, as enhanced by

the Subordinate Court.

12. Considering the rival submissions and documents relied on by the

learned counsel on either side, this Court proceeds to determine whether

the compensation enhanced by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

Chengalpet in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2016 is just or excessive or insufficient.

13. The acquisition that relates to the present Revision Petitioner is

for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway, i.e, to widen the existing

old Mahabalipuram road. No doubt, the value of the land in and around old

mahabalipuram road has increased manifold. On perusing the Common

Award No. 13/ 2013 dated 20.11.2013, it is noticed that for arriving and

fixing the compensation at Rs.248/- per square feet or 2,669/- per square

meter for the land which were acquired, the authorities had conducted

survey of the land involved in acquisition and inspected the field sketch. As

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

there was variation in the extent between the Public Notice issued under

Section 15(2) of the Highways Act and the Draft Notice under Section 15(1)

of the Highways Act, Notice under Section 16(2) was issued, which was

prior to the notification published in Part II Section 2 of the Extra Ordinary

issue of Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 04.03.2005 by bringing into

the trees and other structures in the lands that represented at the time of

acquisition in the acquired lands.

14. That apart, the authority, for determining the compensation, had

gathered sales statistics from 08.07.2008 to 07.07.2009, i.e., one year prior

to the date of publication of 15(2) Notification from the Sub-Registrar Office,

Thiruporur and found that almost 349 sales have taken place during the

said period in the wet land of Poonjeri Village and out of the said 349 sales,

Sl.No.101, which is to an extent of 1.06.50 cents, i.e., 46,434 square feet in

Survey Nos.222/1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7B & 7C were sold for

Rs.1,15,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 05.03.2007, registered as document

no.1818/ 2007 and the same was taken as 'data land', which were worth

Rs.248/- per square feet approximately.

15. Further, the authority had concluded that as far as the other sales

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

carried out in the subject land are concerned, the same were either sold as

house sites, land with building or otherwise, the sale deed pertaining to

Sl.No.101, reflected the correct value of the said land and hence, the same

was taken and confirmed to be the data land for arriving at the

compensation. Thus, the authority, in Award No.13/2013 dated 20.11.2013

had fixed the compensation to be paid for the acquired lands to an extent of

63,787 square meters at Rs.2,669/- per square meter or Rs.248/- per

square feet.

16. When the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet,

made a reference with respect to the Award passed by the authority, the

claimants, viz., the respective land owners, have filed and marked Exhibits,

viz., Ex.C.1, which is the sale deed dated 21.11.2007; Ex.C.2, is the sale

deed dated 24.11.2008, which is the property situated at Paiyanoor Village;

Ex.C.3, sale deed dated 15.07.2008, which is a document to show that the

land registered abutting the main road at Pooncheri village; Ex.C.4, is the

certified copy of the order in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 and

Ex.C.5 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.03.2007.

17. On evaluation of quantum of award passed by the Authority, it is

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

observed that there is no reason stated as to how the particular sale deed

registered in Sl.No.101 alone was taken as data land for fixing the

compensation among the 349 Sale deeds that were registered between

08.07.2008 to 07.07.2009. The award does not contain any such reason for

the arrival of quantum of compensation, which certainly warrants

interference.

18. On scrutinizing the Common order rendered by the learned

Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, this Court finds that among

the comparative sale deeds produced by the claimants, viz., land owners

and the sale statistics referred by the Authority, the attachment order, which

is marked as Ex.C.4, [Certified copy of the order in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in

O.S.No.15 of 2007] pertaining to the property located in Mahabalipuram

village, was considered to be the 'data land' for the enhanced compensation.

It is no doubt true that the amount fixed by the Authority at Rs.248/- per

square feet for the acquired land is absolutely incorrect and too low for the

commercial land that is situated in the old mahabalipuram road. The land

owners should be justly compensated for their loss of land. Ex.C.4,

pertains to the attachment order passed by the learned Principal District

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

Judge, Chengalpet, which is to an extent of 1,184 square feet [One and a

Half kms., from the data land] and the property worth as mentioned in the

E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 is Rs.15,00,000/-., i.e.,

Rs.13,638/- per square meter, hence, the learned Additional Subordinate

Judge, Chengalpattu has arrived at Rs.13,500/- per square meter, as

against Rs.2,669/- per square meter in the award.

19. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu has

fixed the compensation by taking into consideration Ex.C.4, i.e., Certified

copy of the attachment order in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 in

Mahabalipuram Village to an extent of 1,184 Square feet for Rs.15,00,000/-

hence, 1 Square feet is, Rs.15,00,000/-, / 1184 sq.ft., = Rs.1,266 per

square feet, as on the year 2017.

20. On perusing the reasons rendered in the Common Order passed

by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, it is seen that

though the data land taken by the said learned Judge is lesser in extent, in

comparison to the land acquired, or, in comparison with each and every land

owners, the proximity of the acquired land is closure to Ex.C.4, than the

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

data land in Sl.No.101. In this regard, the learned Judge has appreciated

the reasons to consider the value of land mentioned in Ex.C.4, [Attachment

order in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Chengalpat] to be fixed as just compensation to

the land owners for the land acquired by the petitioner. Ex.C.4 is the

valuation determined in the execution proceedings by the Executing Court in

E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007, which cannot be brushed aside,

merely because the extent is very small. When the court below, viz.,

learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpat has considered the same and

passed an order in an execution proceedings, this Court is completely in

agreement with the same and confirms confirms the Common Order

passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in

L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2016 dated 20.03.2017. All the other terms and

conditions and the interest granted by the learned Additional Subordinate

Judge, Chengalpattu also remains unaltered.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition cannot be entertained and the

same fails. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

04.08.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order ssd

To

1. The Divisional Engineer, Highways C& M Chengalpattu

2. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,

ssd

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.No.670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

C.R.P.No. 670 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.5779 of 2021

04.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in