The Special Tahsildar vs Palanisamy Gounder
2021 Latest Caselaw 2235 Mad

                                                                           S.A.No.633 of 2008

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 02.02.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

                                                S.A.No.633 of 2008
                                                       and
                                                 M.P.No.1 of 2008

                     The Special Tahsildar,
                     Adi Dravidar Welfare,
                     Pollachi.                                                 ... Appellant


                                                    Vs.
                     Palanisamy Gounder,
                     S/o, Ramasamy Gounder,
                     Pukkulam Village,
                     Udumalaipettai Taluk.                                   ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamilnadu

                     Acquisition of land for ADW schemes Act 31/78 r/w section 100 of C.P.C.,

                     against the judgment and Decree made in C.M.A No.1 of 2004 dated

                     22.12.2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalaipettai modifying the

                     award made in Award No.15/2000-2001 dated 15.03.2001 passed by the

                     Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi.



                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                S.A.No.633 of 2008

                                     For Appellant     : Mr.N.Manikandan
                                                         Government Advocate(CS)

                                     For Respondent : No appearance – Set exparte


                                                     JUDGMENT

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree

dated 22.12.2004 passed in C.M.A No.1 of 2004 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Udumalaipettai modifying the award made in Award

No.15/2000-2001 dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi

Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi.

2. At the time when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no

representation for the respondent, the respondent being called, remaining

absent, set exparte.

3. From the materials placed on record, for the provision of house

sites to the Adi-dravidars of Pukkalam Village of Udumalpet Taluk , the

land measuring an extent of 0.84.0 hectares in S.F.No.180/4 of Pukkalam

village was selected for the provision of house sites of Adi-dravidars and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

following the same, necessary proposals for the acquisition were initiated

under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for the Harijan

Welfare Scheme Act 31/78 and the notification was served on the land

owners on 02.11.2000 and following the same, enquiry was conducted and

the land owners participated in the enquiry and thereafter the notification

under section 4(1) of the Act had come to be published on 20.12.2000 and

thereafter collecting the views of the land owners with reference to the

quantum of compensation awarded to them, considering the lie of the land

and other advantages of the land proposed to be acquired, the award in

question has come to be passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar

Welfare, Pollachi, on 15.03.2001.

4. Challenging the quantum of award passed by the Special Tahsildar,

Adi Dravidar Welfare,Pollachi, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been

preferred by the respondent/claimant before the Subordinate Court,

Udumalpet, contending that the award amount fixed by the Special

Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi is very low and considering the

lie of the land and other advantages concerning the land acquired, according

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

to the respondent/claimant, enhanced compensation should have been

awarded and accordingly prayed for the enhanced compensation.

5. The appellate authority taking into consideration the various

materials placed on record ie., Exs.A1 to A5 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

3 as well as Exs.B1 to B3 and the evidence of R.W.1, finally fixed the

compensation at Rs.5,000/- cent ie., Rs,5,00,000/- per acre and accordingly

determined the compensation at Rs.10,35,000/-, the solatium amount at

15%, fixing the same at Rs.1,55,250/- , in all, determined that the

respondent/claimant is entitled to receive Rs.11,90,250/- and deducting the

amount already paid to the respondent/claimant, directed the appellant to

pay the remaining sum with interest as determined by it and aggrieved over

the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6. Considering the materials placed on record and the evidence

adduced on behalf of the respondent/claimant and other witnesses examined

on behalf of the claimant, it is noted that the lands sought to be acquired are

lying adjacent to the road and having water facilities and also the essential

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

aspect of the land being fit for putting up house sites, particularly noting

that the land is sought to be acquired only for putting up the house sites of

Adi Dravidars and therefore based on the documents projected by the

respondent/claimant namely Exs.A3 and A4 which are the sale deeds of the

lands lying adjacent to the property acquired and the abovesaid sale deeds

are also effected just prior to the date of notification and considering the

similar nature of the soil quality of both the lands and the advantages of the

lands acquired, accordingly proceeded to determine the enhanced

compensation in favour of the respondent/claimant. In this connection, as

rightly concluded by the appellate court, noting the lie of the lands sought to

be acquired, considering the various facilities appended to the same,

particularly the transport facilities, the lie of the weaving mills and the easy

conversion of the acquired lands as house sites and also noting that the sale

transactions which had taken place just prior to the notification pertaining to

the adjacent lands which had been alienated at Rs.5,000/- per cent and the

same has been substantiated by the sale deeds marked as Exs.A3 and A4

and considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with reference to the same

and also after considering the various authorities projected by the respective

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

parties, determined that, particularly relying upon Exs.A2 and A3 which

have come into existence just prior to section 4(1) notification and noting

that the value of the adjacent lands had been sold at Rs.5,000/- per cent and

also relying upon Ex.A5, noting that even during the year 1996, the adjacent

land had been alienated at Rs.2978/- per cent, in all, rightly concluded that

the Special Tahsildar had fixed the value of the acquired land erroneously at

Rs.37,931/- per acre which is very low and therefore decided to determine

the compensation to which the respondent / claimant is entitled to at the rate

of Rs.5,000/- per cent and accordingly finally determined the compensation

at Rs.11,90,250/- in favour of the respondent/claimant with interest to be

paid by the appellant as determined by it ie., 9% from 20.12.2000 to

15.03.2001 and thereafter at 6% till deposit with costs and directed the

appellant to pay the amount within six months, failing which, he is liable to

pay the interest at 12%.

7. Considering the reasonings and conclusions of the appellate court,

when it is found that the appellate court on a proper appreciation of the sale

transactions effected just prior to the notification and also considering the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

similar nature of soil and classification of the lands sought to be acquired

and the lands covered under Exs.A3 to A5 and also the advantages of the

proposed acquired land, particularly considering the lie of the lands, rightly

proceeded to determine the compensation as determined by it. The

abovesaid reasonings and conclusions of the appellate court, being based on

the factual matrix and not involving any question of law as such and when

the appellant has not projected any infraction of law on the part of the

appellate court in determining the abovesaid compensation, it is seen that

the second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law for

consideration.

8. The Government Pleader however contend that the interest amount

awarded by the appellate court is on the higher side. However on a reading

of the grounds raised by the appellant in the second appeal as well as the

substantial questions of law mooted by him, it is found that no challenge has

been made with reference to the quantum of interest fixed by the appellate

court for the enhanced compensation fixed by it and the substantial question

of law proposed is also not centering on the quantum of interest fixed by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

appellate court, in such view of the matter, the arguments putforth by the

Government Pleader that the interest awarded by the trial court is against

law, as such, cannot be countenanced.

9. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any substantial question

of law is involved in the second appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if

any, is closed.

02.02.2021

mfa Index:yes Internet:yes

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Sub Court, Udumalaipettai.

2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi.

Copy to

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.633 of 2008

T.RAVINDRAN, J.

mfa

S.A.No.633 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

02.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/