Madras High Court

The Special Tahsildar vs Abdul Rafeeq on 1 February, 2021

                                                                   CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 01.02.2021

                                                    CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                   CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005 and
                                    CMP.Nos. 4127 of 2005 and 19 of 2006


                   The Special Tahsildar,
                   The Land Acquisition Officer,
                   Ramanathapuram.                             .. Petitioner / respondent


                                                        Vs.


                   Abdul Rafeeq
                   rep. through Power Agent Mohammed Sadique
                   amended vide order dated 19.01.2021 made in
                   CMP(MD).No.12119 of 2019 in
                   Crl.O.P(MD).No., 713 of 2005)               ... Respondent / Appellant



                   Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                   of India against the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.04.2002, on the file of
                   the Sub-Court, Paramakudi made in LACMA.No. 3 of 1998.


                                For Appellant      : Mr.C. Selvaraj
                                                     Special Government Pleader

                                For respondent     : Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram


                     1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                    CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

                                                 JUDGMENT

This revision is challenging the Award of the Sub-Court,

Ramanathapuram made in LACMA.No. 3 of 1998. The acquisition was

made under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare

Schemes Act, 31 of 1978, 2.91 acres of land belonging to the sole

respondent in S.No.159/5 of Sakkarakottai Village was acquired for the

purpose of providing the house sites to Adi Dravidar. Notification under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 01.11.1995. The

Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.01.1996, awarding a sum

of Rs.10,000/- per Acre. Aggrieved, the landowner preferred an appeal

before the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram. The Special Thasildar

(Adi Dravidar Welfare) resisted the appeal contending that the Award is

just and reasonable.

2. At trial, the land owner was examined as CW1 and one

Pandian was examined as RW.1, while Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the

side of the claimant, Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the

respondent / Special Tahsildar.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, upon consideration of the

evidence on record, concluded that the value offered by Ex.A2, which is

the lowest of four sale deeds could be taken into account and certain

percentage could be deducted towards developmental charges to arrive at

the reasonable compensation. The value of the land as per Ex.A2,

per Cent was Rs.5,900/-. The learned Subordinate Judge, applying the

deduction of 20%, had fixed the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.4,720/-. He also directed the Government to pay solatium at 30% and

interest at 12% and additional amount along with interest at 9% for one

year and 15% thereafter, till the date of payment. Aggrieved, the

Government is on appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special

Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Meenakshi

Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the

fixation of deduction at 20% is less and the same has to be enhanced. He

would also point out that the extent of land covered as per Ex.A2 is very

http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

small and therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon Ex.A2 for fixing the

value of the land that has been acquired. He would also point out that the

order of the Sub Court for granting solatium at 30% and 12% additional

amount along with interest at 9% for one year and 15% thereafter, till the

date of payment is wrong. He would also rely upon Section 31 of the Act

and submit that the grant of solatium and additional amount and interest

have been done by the learned Subordinate Judge as if he is dealing with

the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984.

6. Per contra, Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent would fairly concede that the grant of 30%

solatium, 12% additional amount with interest at 9% for one year, fixed as

per the Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 is incorrect. He

would further submit that the deduction of 20% towards developmental

charges is just and proper. Since the land acquired lies near the master

plan area and there is evidence to show that the area is already developed.

7. Fixing compensation on compoundable rates method has

posed several difficulties for Courts. In the course of time, the Courts

below have evolved and perused the method of making deductions, to

http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

decide just compensation. In cases, where the evidence adduced by the

parties is not sufficient to decide the compensation with mathematical

precision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again pointed out that

in some guess work has to be done by the Court in deciding the cases

relating to compensation, particularly in land acquisition matters where

evidence is usually lacking.

8. In the case on hand, the learned Subordinate Judge had

taken the Ex.A2 as the basis to decide the compensation. The extent of

land sold under Ex.A2 is small and it is also seen that the land sold is a

house site and it forms part of a developed lay out. The land acquired is

not so developed and is not plotted out as a house site.

9. Provisions have to be made for roads and other public

utilities. Even if, the land owners want to develop it they will have to be

provide for roads and other utilities and deduction of 20% seems to be on

the lower side. It has been repeatedly stressed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that a deduction of 30% would be just and reasonable in such cases.

I am of the opinion that while adopting the value reflected under Ex.A2 -

sale deed, the compensation for the acquired land can be fixed by applying

http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

the deduction of 30% instead of 20% as done by the appellate Court. The

other statutory benefits would be available to the land owner as per the

provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare

Schemes Act, 31 of 1978. If worked out on the above basis, the value of

the land will be as follows:

                           ➢    Value of land as per Ex.A2 Rs. 5,900/-

                           ➢    deducted 30% towards development charges Rs.1,770/-

                           ➢    Value of the land Rs.4,130/- per Cent

                           ➢    For 291 Cents Rs.12,01,830/-

                           ➢    Add 15% towards Solitium Rs.1,80,274.50%

                           ➢    Total value of land Rs.13,82,104.50/-

                           ➢    (Less the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer)

                           ➢                      Rs.53,645/-

                           ➢    Amount to be paid Rs. 13,28,459.50/-

10. It is seen from the Memorandum of Calculation filed by

the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.5,13,131/- as

per the direction of this Court on 08.08.2006. The petitioner is liable to

pay interest at 6% per annum as per the provisions of the Section 22 of the

http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(NPD).No.(MD).No. 713 of 2005

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of

1978. The interest will be run from the date of taking possession.

11. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of fixing the

compensation payable at Rs.13,28,459.50/- with interest at 6% per annum

from the date of taking the possession till the date of payment. Any

payment already made to the claimants, will be adjusted as per the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006(8) SCC 457