Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Ramana Gounder on 4 February, 2021
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and
C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005, 876 to 878 of 2010
The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition),
Erode Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme,
Erode District. .. Appellant
Vs.
Ramana Gounder .. Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the
judgment and decree passed in LAOP.No.5 of 2002, dated 16.08.2004
on the file of Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-I, Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.Umesh Rao
For Respondent : No appearance
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Special Government Pleader.
2. It is a very pathetic case of the erstwhile land owner, who is no
more now. Land to an extent of 10 acres was acquired for the landless
Adi Dravidar living in poramboke. The appellant herein, after complying
the acquisition formalities, has awarded compensation of Rs.36,595/- per
acre with solatium and interest.
3. Aggrieved by that, the land owner has preferred a petition for
enhancement of compensation before the Land Acquisition Tribunal
stating that the neighbouring lands were sold at Rs.21/- per sq.ft and the
land acquired ought to have been assessed, based on the square feet price,
since it is well developed property, where several industries are located
nearby. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.7/- per
sq.ft., with 30% solatium and 12% interest.
4. Aggrieved by the enhanced award, the appeal filed by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
Acquisition Authority.
5. Pending appeal, the sole respondent died, but the appellant, who
is representative of the State has not taken any interest to bring the legal
representatives of the deceased sole respondent in time. After delay of
1957 days, petitions are filed to condone the delay; to set aside the
abatement; and bring the legal representatives on record. In these
petitions, the Court on 25.06.2010 ordered notice to the proposed
respondents. Specific direction was also given by this Court to the learned
Special Government Pleader to serve notice on the respondents both
through RPAD and in person with the assistance of the Revenue Officials.
Despite several adjournments, the appellant has not served notice to the
proposed respondents. Later, on 06.02.2013, it was reported by the
learned Special Government Pleader that the proposed 3 rd respondent
died and necessary petitions taken to implead the legal representatives of
the proposed 3rd respondent. The said petitions to bring the legal
representatives of the deceased proposed third respondent were numbered
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
as C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198 of 2013.
6. The perusal of the affidavit along with those petitions indicates
that Ramana Gounder/the sole defendant died on 14.09.2004, leaving
behind his daughter, son, husband of his pre-deceased daughter and
daughter of his pre-deceased daughter. Thereafter, the appellant has not
shown any interest to serve notice on the proposed respondent, despite
granting several adjournments.
7. On merits, this Court finds that the learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court I, which has heard the petition under Section 18
of Land Acquisition Act, has gone through the evidence placed before it
particularly Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-6, which are sale deeds prior and after the
land acquisition proceedings. These sale deeds indicate that the property
is worth about Rs.7/- per sq.ft., though there are document to show that
some of the neighbouring lands were sold at Rs.21/- per sq.ft.. Since the
land acquired is an undeveloped land, only 1/3rd of market value has
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
been awarded.
8. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Court below has
deliberately erred in not deducting the development charges. It is also not
substantiated by the appellant with evidence that the Court below has
erroneously compared the land sold in a smaller extent with the land
acquired in acre. The location of the property, which is acquired and the
market potentiality were taken to assess the market value. Furthermore,
the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.365/- per cent is nowhere
near the market value prevailing during the land acquisition proceedings.
Only after due consideration, the Court below has enhanced the
compensation. Therefore, even on the merits, the appeal does not stand
on the scrutiny of this Court.
9. Therefore, this Court is not convinced by the reason stated by
the appellant to condone delay in setting aside the abatement.
Accordingly, the petitions in C.M.P.Nos.876 to 878 of 2010 filed to bring
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
the LR's of the deceased sole respondent with delay and in C.M.P.Nos.
196 to 198 of 2013 filed to bring the LR's of the of the proposed deceased
3rd respondent with delay are dismissed as devoid of reasonable and
sufficient cause.
10. In the result, the Appeal Suit A.S.No.653 of 2005 is dismissed
as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition are also closed. No costs. The appellant herein is directed to
deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs before the
Court below and intimate the same to the legal representatives of the
deceased sole respondent at the earliest.
04.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rpl
To
The Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-I, Erode.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
rpl
A.S.No.653 of 2005
and
C.M.P.Nos.196 to 198/2005,
876 to 878 of 2010
04.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
