Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer And vs K.M.Mehbooba Begum on 4 August, 2021
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 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. 743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
The Land Acquisition Officer and
District Collector,
Kancheepuram District ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. K.M.Mehbooba Begum
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.37 of
2016 dated 20.03.2017 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate
Judge, Chengalpattu.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 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 Collector challenging the Common Order passed in
L.A.O.P.No.37 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 lands under Section 19(3) of the
Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamilnadu Act 34 of 2002). The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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.37 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.743of 2021 is filed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and District Collector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
4. The contentions raised by the respondent - land owner before the
court below was that the land in Survey No.223/3A11/C3 in Pooncheri
village to an extent of 201 sq. mtrs respectively 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
the highest value registered prior to one year from the date of acquisition
and prayed the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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:-
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
(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."
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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 this Court 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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.37 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
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.37 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.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
High Court, Madras.
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.R.P.No. 743 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.6163 of 2021
04 .08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
