Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Ezhuvan (Died) on 22 January, 2021
A.S.No.709 of 2003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.709 of 2003
The Special Tahsildar
and the Land Acquisition Officer,
Pudukkottai. ...Appellant/Referring Officer
Vs.
1.Ezhuvan (died)
2.Palaniyandi (died)
3.Thangavel (died)
4.T.A.V.Abdul Rahim (died)
5.Aarayee (died)
6.Ulagayee
7.Palaniyandi
8.Vellayan
9.Thandachi (died)
10.Karuppiah (died)
11.Marudhai (died)
12.Sigapayee
13.Chinnapillai
14.Ayyadurai (died)
15.Chitra
16.Sakthi
17.Meena
18.Ezhuvi
19.Chidhambaram
20.Pandian
21.Sampathkumar
22.Sudha
23.Anand
24.Aazhure Beevi
25.Mohamed Ismail
26.Mumtaj Begam
27.Kaja Mohideen
28.A.Habeeba Begam
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
29.A.Shahul Hameed
30.A.Saheera Banu ...Respondent/Claimants
(R5 to R12 were brought on record on 26.10.2018 as legal heirs of the first respondent
RR5, 9, 10, 11 and 14-died
R13 to R17 are brought on record as legal heirs of the second respondent on 26.10.2018
R18 to R30 are brought on record as per order dated 07.09.2018 as legal heirs of the third and
fourth respondents)
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is 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.76 of 1995, dated 11.12.2001.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekaran
for M/s.Sarabhauman Associates
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the Tribunal enhancing the
compensation from Rs.198.68/- per cent to Rs.3,000/- per cent, the present
appeal suit came to be filed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein,
as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as
follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
The claimants are the owners of the property in Survey Nos.285/3,
285/6, 285/7 and 285/10 for an extent of 3.41 acres, which were acquired
for issuance of patta for people belonging to the Most Backward Classes.
Accordingly, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act under notification dated 02.01.1993 and it was published on
02.02.1993 under Section 5(a) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer
fixed the value of the property at the rate of Rs.198.68/- per cent.
Thereafter, the matter has been referred to the Tribunal under Section
18(1) of the Act.
(ii) Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4
were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked and on the side of the
respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
4. The Land Acquisition Tribunal after considering both the
documents and oral evidence has enhanced the compensation at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per cent with 30% solatium with interest at the rate of 12%.
Challenging same, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant submitted that the Tribunal had enhanced the compensation only
on the basis of the market value and the Tribunal has ignored the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
documents filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, it is submitted that
the enhancement made by the Tribunal is exorbitant and the same has to be
interfered with.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that in the issue of acquiring the lands under the notification,
by which the present issue has been raised, this Court has confirmed the
order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal fixing the compensation at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per cent. He would further submit that in this case, the Land
Acquisition Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence; the oral
evidence; lie and location of the property, which is situated within the Town
Panchayat area and also taken note of the documents particularly Ex.P3 to
P8, sale deeds, which happened much prior to the date of notification and
arrived at such conclusion. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal has in
fact fixed the value correctly on the basis of the documents and evidences
placed before it and the same does not require any interference.
7. In the light of the above submission, now the points arise for
consideration in this appeal are:
(i) whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal has
enhanced the compensation exorbitantly without any
materials?
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
(ii) to what other reliefs, the parties are entitled?
8. It is not in dispute that 3.41 acres in Survey Nos.285/3, 285/6,
285/7 and 285/10, were acquired for the purpose of issuing patta to the
Most Backward Class people and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
was issued on 02.01.1993 and the same was published on 02.02.1993. The
Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the property at the rate of
Rs.198.68/- per cent, whereas the Land Acquisition Tribunal taking into
consideration the fact that the properties acquired are situated within the
developed area and nearby places are well developed and based on the
evidence adduced on record, concluded that the value fixed by the
Acquisition Officer is very meager. Further, the Tribunal after taking note
of the fact that the acquired lands were situated within the developed area
and further taking note of Ex.P3 to P8, sale deeds, which are of the year
1990 to 1992, has concluded that prior to the notification under Section
4(1) of the Act, all the Properties have been sold for higher value and those
documents have not been taken note by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Further, with regard to similar places under Ex.P2, this Court has also
enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent. It is also
admitted by both sides that one of the appeal in A.S.No.161 of 2001
challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal was also disposed
confirming the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal deducting only the
development charges in respect of the survey number.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
9. It is submitted that the property in the present case is situated
in entirely different area that of the above mentioned appeal and the
property is also situated within the developed area and therefore, question
of deducting development charges does not arise.
10. Such view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in
the order of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has considered the oral as
well as documentary evidence in fixing the compensation after taking note
of the lie and location of the area, wherein the acquired lands are situated.
Such view of the matter, this Court does not find any materials to interfere
with the well considered order passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Accordingly, the points arose for consideration in this appeal are answered.
11. In the result, the present Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming
the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukkottai
passed in L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1995, dated 11.12.2001. No costs.
22.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
To
1.The Sub Court, Pudukottai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
Judgment made in
A.S.No.709 of 2003
22.01.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
