Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs Balakrishnan on 20 January, 2021
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and
C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
A.S.No.1011/2007
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Unit-3,
Krishna Water Supply Project,
Thiruvallur. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Balakrishnan
2. Parandhaman
3. Thamba Naidu .. Respondents
A.S.No.1012/2007
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Unit-3,
Krishna Water Supply Project,
Thiruvallur. .. Appellant
Vs.
Balakrishnan .. Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
A.S.No.1013/2007
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Unit-3,
Krishna Water Supply Project,
Thiruvallur. .. Appellant
Vs.
Paranthama Naidu .. Respondent
A.S.No.1014/2007
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Unit-3,
Krishna Water Supply Project,
Thiruvallur. .. Appellant
Vs.
Rajendran .. Respondent
COMMON PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Thiruvallur
in LAOP. NoS.461, 462, 463 and 464 of 2002 respectively dated
31.03.2003.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Balagopal
Spl.GP (AS) (in all cases)
For Respondents : No appearance (in all cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
(The case has been heard through video conferencing)
These batch of first appeals are preferred by the State being
aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
The grounds raised are identical since the impugned order arises from the
same acquisition award 5/91-92 passed by the appellant herein.
2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the
appellant. Though the respondents were served notice, there is no
representation on their behalf.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the land of the
respondents was acquired for raising the F.T.L of Chembarambakkam
Tank in Sriperumbudur Taluk under the Krishna Water Supply Project.
The Gazette notification was published expressing the intention of
acquisition on 13.02.1991 and objection was called. Over ruling the
objection, the land was acquired for a sum of Rs.250/- per cent for dry
land and Rs.320/- per cent for wet land as per award passed by the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
acquisition Officer. The respondents land is in Katrambakkam Village,
Sriperumbudur taluk, Thiruvallur District. The Survey number and the
actual of their land is extracted as below:-
LAOP.Nos. Survey Nos. Extent of land
461of 2002 393/1 0.14.5 (36 cents) wet 1/3rd share
462 of 2002 376/6A 0.10.0 (25 cents) wet land
463 of 2002 393/1 0.14.5 (36 cents) wet 1/3rd share
464 of 2002 376/6B 0.06.5 (16 cents) wet land
4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the land
owners, who are the respondents herein, preferred the petition LAOP
Nos.461 to 464 of 2002 before the Land Acquisition Tribunal under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After considering the material
placed before the Tribunal, the award passed by the land acquisition
officer was enhanced to Rs.3840/- per cent being the wet land.
5. The present batch of appeals are preferred by the State
alleging that fixation of Rs.3,840/- per cent for wet land and Rs.3,500/-
per cent for dry land are excessive and exorbitant. The said fixation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
compensation by the land acquisition Tribunal is contrary and violative
to the procedure laid under the Act. Reliance of Ex.A1 by the Tribunal
for enhancing the compensation termed as unreasonable. The document
taken for market value of the property which is located about 3 k.m.,
away from the acquired land referring Ex.A-1 is wrong. The State also
questioned and that the larger extent of land was acquired for the purpose
of Krishna Water Supply Project and therefore development charge at the
rate of 30% ought to have been deducted, which the Tribunal has
miserably failed. Hence the enhanced award fixed by the Tribunal need
to be interfered.
6. In support of his argument, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State referring the
Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the batch of appeal
suits A.S.Nos.707 to 721 of 2004 etc., delivered on 30.04.2008 and
judgment in A.S.No.816 of 2010 dated 19.11.2020.
7. Points for determination:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
(i) whether the land acquisition Tribunal erred in relying
upon Ex.A-1 for enhancing the compensation?
(ii) Whether the development charges should be deducted
from the compensation fixed?
8. The land in question was an agricultural land and under
the scheme of Krishna Water Supply Project, Unit-III, a total extent of
3.07.5 hectares land in Katrambakkam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk was
acquired after following due procedure established under law.
A.S.Nos. LAOP.Nos. Survey Nos. Extent of land Award
amount per
cent
1011 of 2007 461/2002 393/1 0.14.5 (36 cents) Rs.3,840/-
1/3rd wet
1012 of 2007 462 of 2002 376/6A 0.10.0 (25 cents) Rs.3,840/-
wet land
1013 of 2007 463 of 2002 393/1 0.14.5 (36 cents) Rs.3,840/-
1/3rd wet
1014 of 2007 464 of 2002 376/6B 0.06.5 (16 cents) Rs.3,840/-
wet land
9. It is a linear acquisition to lay a canal to raise the F.T.L of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
Chembarambakkam tank. The respondents, who are the land owners have
lost between 6 cents to 36 cents of their land. When the acquisition
officer has fixed at Rs.320/- per cent for wet land, the land owners have
preferred the petitions for enhancement of compensation under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Contending that the land acquired is very
near to Highways and nearby lands are plotted out for housing sites.
During the time of acquisition, the land in neighbouring survey numbers
were sold between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per cent. Therefore, fair and
adequate compensation should be paid to them with solatium and
proportionate future increase in the market value.
10. The Tribunal on considering the nature of the land, its
location and the market value in the neighbouring area has fixed
Rs.3,840/- per cent for wet land. To this 30% solatium and 12% for the
additional market value was awarded with the direction that from the
date of possession 9% interest per annum for first one year and thereafter
15% till the date of deposit payable to the land owners.
11. The learned Special Government Pleader referring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
Ex.A1 submitted that the said document has no relevance to the land
acquired and therefore, it should not have been taken as a referral
document for fixing the market value and would also submit that even
assuming Ex.A-1 as a referral document, proper deduction for the
development charges ought to have been awarded.
12. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not taken the same
value as shown in Ex.A-1. It has applied its mind taking note of the fact
that the land which was subjected to the transaction under Ex.A-1, was
the agricultural land and considering the location it has only fixed
Rs.3,840/- and not the face value shown in the document Ex.A-1.
13. As far as the development charges is concerned, this
Court is of the view that if any undeveloped land acquired for housing
site or for industrial purpose, it is necessary to deduct development
charges, provided the referral document to ascertain market value is a
developed land. Otherwise, the question of deduction towards
development charges will not arise. More so, when the land acquired is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
be used for no other purpose, but for single purpose of laying water canal
to carry water from Krishna river to Chembarambakkam lake. Deducting
development charges will not arise.
14. As far as the judgment referred and relied by the
learned Special Government Pleader, the Division Bench has reduced
30% of the award passed by the Tribunal with the consent of both the
parties. Therefore, it is not a judgment to be considered as a precedent.
The other judgment rendered by a single Judge in A.S.No.812 of 2010
though under the same project, it is a case where the Tribunal has fixed
Rs.5,200/- per cent as compensation and it was reduced to Rs.3,700/- per
cent. On appeal the land in question is in a different area and different
survey numbers. Hence the judgment also will not have any bearing to
decide the present appeals.
15. On holistic consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the order of the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
in L.A.O.P. Nos.461, 462, 463 & 464 of 2002 enhancing the
compensation and fixing it at Rs.3,840/- per cent for wet land is fair and
reasonable and need no interference. Hence the Appeal Suits are
dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant is
directed to deposit the award amount with accrued interest within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
No costs.
20.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
rpl
To,
1. The Sub-Ordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
A.S.Nos.1011 to 1014 of 2007
and C.M.P.Nos.2844 to 2851 of 2007
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
