The Deputy Chief Engineer vs Marimuthu
2021 Latest Caselaw 3103 Mad

                                                                          A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED:09.02.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
                                               A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

                      The Deputy Chief Engineer,
                      Constructions, Southern Railway,
                      Salem.                                   : Appellant / Beneficiary
                                                         Vs.
                      Pavalayee (Died)
                      1.Marimuthu
                      2.Balammal
                      3.Ganesan
                      4.Kanthamani
                      5.Selvaraj                         : Claimants / Respondent Nos.1 to 5
                      6.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
                          Salem Karur New Broad Guage,
                          Railway Line Scheme, Karur. : Referring Officer / Respondent No.6


                      PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
                      Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
                      L.A.O.P.NO.103 of 2011 dated 29.03.2012 on the file of the learned
                      Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.

                      1/6




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                          A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

                                          For Appellant       : Mr.S.Manohar
                                          For R-1             : Died
                                          For R-2 to R-5      : Mr.K.Prabhakar
                                          For R-6             : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
                                                           Additional Government Pleade
                                                     ********
                                                 JUDGMENT

***********

This Appeal has been filed as against the order of the Land

Acquisition Tribunal fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per

Square Feet.

2. The main contention of the appellant is that the enhancement

is not based on the proper appreciation of evidence and the Land

AcquisitionTribunal has failed to consider the proceedings. Aggrieved

over the same, the Appellant / Beneficiary has filed this Appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that already several appeals have been filed before this Court in

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

A.S.(MD).Nos.116 to 121 of 2015 regarding the similarly acquired lands

which was used for the very same purpose. This Court by its judgment

dated 01.06.2017 confirmed the compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per

Square Feet and the matter has now reached its finality. Hence, it is

submitted that since this Court has already disposed of similar cases, the

said judgment will be applicable to the present case also.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 and

the learned Additional Government Pleader are not disputing the same.

It is not in dispute that the subject matter of this appeal is also arisen out

of the same acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Salem Karur New

Broad Gauge.

6. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced the

compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per Square Feet. This Appeal has

been filed by the beneficiary. It is not disputed by both sides that the

amount has already been disbursed and the landlords have also received

the same, whereas, the beneficiary accepted the award of the Reference

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

Court and now the Court could not re-open the case regarding the

correctness of the enhancement made by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.

7. At this juncture, this Court has pointed out a judgment

reported in AIR 1991 SC 1320 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashok

Singhal and Others)

8. In such view of the matter, this Court, taking note of the

evidence adduced before the Tribunal in the earlier cases, held that the

compensation fixed at Rs.35/- per square feet is a reasonable one and the

Tribunal has arrived at such conclusion in uniformity.

9. Having regard to the fact that the matter has already reached

its finality as per the judgment of this Court in A.S.(MD).Nos.116 to 121

of 2015, dated 01.06.2017 and the said judgment is binding on the

appellant also. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no further

point that arose for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal

lacks merit.

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

10. In the result, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed and the

judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.NO.103 of 2011, dated

29.03.2012 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

Karur, stands confirmed. No costs.

                                                                                09.02.2021
                      Index    : Yes/No
                      Internet : Yes/No
                      tsg
                      To

1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.6 of 2019

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J

tsg

Judgment made in A.S.(MD)No.06 of 2019

Dated :

09.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in