Madras High Court
The Land Acquistion Officer And vs Kaadappan (Died) on 19 February, 2021
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
The Land Acquistion Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pudukkottai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Kaadappan (Died)
2.Azhagappan (Died)
3.AL.Thangatamil Mullari
4.AL.Senthamizh Eniyan
5.AL.Gokulapriya
(Respondents 3 to 5 are brought on record as
legal heirs of deceased 2nd respondent vide
order dated 19.02.2021 in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.
769 to 771/2021)
6.Lakshmi
7.Ramachandran
8.Jaya
9.Saravanan
(Respondents 6 to 9 are brought on record as
legal heirs of deceased 1st respondent vide
order dated 19.02.2021 in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.
764, 766 & 767/2021) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against
the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukkottai in
L.A.O.P.No.106 of 1995, dated 21st day of December 2000.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
Additional Govt. Pleader.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasundaram for R2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over enhancement of compensation from Rs.35.71 to Rs.385/-
per cent, fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the present Appeal Suit has been
filed.
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suits, are as
follows:
An extent of 0.875 Hectares land in S.No.577/4, situated at
Melapanaiyoor Village, were acquired on 27.08.1982 for issuing free house sites.
The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.35.71 per cent. On
objections, a reference was made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
before the Sub-Court, Pudukottai.
3. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the side of the appellant
P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Exs.B1 and
B2 were marked.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
4. The Land Acquisition Tribunal after analyzing the entire materials,
enhanced the compensation from Rs.35.71 per cent to Rs.385/- per cent.
Challenging the same, the present appeal suit has been filed.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant would submit that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has taken note of
Ex.B1-Sale deed, in respect of the neighboring land, which was much prior to the
notification, wrongly fixed the value at Rs.385/- per cent and hence, prays for
allowing the Appeal Suit.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that considering the location and area, the Land Acquitting Tribunal has
rightly enhanced the compensation from Rs.35.71 per cent to Rs.385/- per cent
and hence, prays for dismissing the Appeal Suit.
7. In the light of the submissions made by both sides, now the point arise
for consideration is as follows:
Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is
reasonable without any evidence?
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
8. It is not in dispute that the lands were acquired for the purpose of
issuing free house sites. The Reference Court has considered the entire materials
produced before it and factually found that the acquired lands are situated near the
highways leading to Pudukottai-Ponnamaravathi and there are well developed
residential plots and fixed the compensation at Rs.385/- per cent. The above sum
was fixed based on the location of the area, where the acquired lands were
situated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the Reference Court has
considered the materials factually, it cannot be said that the compensation fixed is
higher compensation. Even if a dry land was acquired, at the time of notification,
it is relevant to note that being the State machineries, the action of the State should
not affect the ordinary citizens and being the welfare State, their actions should
benefit the citizens. Though the right to hold the property is a constitutional right,
but now the same is also recognized as a human right, such right cannot be
deprived by the State, by throwing pittance in the name of compensation. State
action should be reasonable without any arbitrariness. To be noted that even in dry
lands, which are not fit for agricultural activities, the ordinary agriculturists even
rear cattle and if they sell their cattle, it would fetch more amount than the
compensation which appears to be pittance at the relevant point of time.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of the Reference
Court is well reasonable and based on the factual aspects. Accordingly, this Court
does not find any infirmity or error in the order.
10. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.91 of 2015
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
19.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
