Madras High Court
Palani Thevar vs Special Tahsildar on 29 January, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
Palani Thevar ... Appellant/Petitioner/Claimant
Vs.
1.Special Tahsildar,
TACID Unit-I,
Gangaikondan,
Sankarnagar-627 357.
2.Chairman and Managing Director,
TACID Unit No-I,
68, Greams Road, Chennai-6. ... Respondents/Referring officer/
Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge-Land Acquisition Court, Tirunelveli, in L.A.O.P.No.91 of 1996, dated
05.01.2004.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents : J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the dismissal order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the
present Appeal Suit has been filed by the appellant.
2. The brief facts, leading to file the appeal suit, is as follows:
An extent of 6.87.5 hectare land (roughly 16 Acres 59 cents) in S.No.
1641/1B1B situated in Gangaikondan Village were acquired for Tamil Nadu
Industrial Development Corporation, out of which 7 Acres are Nanja land and the
remaining acres are dry Punja land. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the
compensation at Rs.99,887/- for the acquired land, which was objected by the
claimant/land owner. Therefore, reference was sent to the Land Acquisition
Tribunal. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Tribunal dismissed the claim mainly on
the ground that the subject property in Ex.C7-sale deed is situated far away from
the acquired lands, as against which the present Appeal Suit came to be filed.
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant/petitioner, Exs.C1 to
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
C7 were marked and the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. On the side of the
respondents, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked and R.W.1 was examined.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.C7
dated 13.11.1991 is much prior to Section 4(1) notification (03.02.1993) and
Ex.C1, dated 26.05.1994, issued by the Mines and Minerals Department clearly
indicates that the quarry permit was given for 3 Acres in the year 1993 itself and
notice issued under Ex.C2 for private negotiation makes it clear that in a private
negotiation Rs.9,000/- was offered per acre and Ex.C7 dated 13.11.1991 wherein 2
acres 20 cents were sold for Rs.43,000/- ie., Rs.13,500/- per acre. This document
was never considered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the evidence of R.W.1
also shows that the acquired lands situated near the Tirunelveli-Madurai Main
Road and many factories and industries has come up. These facts have never been
considered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Hence, prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has held that Ex.C7-
properties are situated far away from the acquired lands. Therefore, non-suited the
appellant and further submitted that the order of the Tribunal does not require any
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
interference and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
6. In the light of the above submissions, the points arise for
consideration are;
“1.Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal erred in appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence properly? and
2.Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is
reasonable based on the market value of the property?”
7. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that 16 acres and 59 cents were acquired after
issuing notice Section 4(1) notification, dated 03.02.1993. The Land Acquisition
Officer has fixed the compensation of Rs.99,887/-. The acquired land consisting of
both wet and dry lands are also not disputed. Ex.C1-document shows that the
appellant running quarry in 3 acres in the said survey number and permit was
issued by the Collector and Ex.C2-notice issued by the agent of TACIT
Corporation with respect of the property, which is acquired, wherein it is stated
that in private negotiation Rs.9000/- per acre is offered. PW.1 in his evidence
clearly spoken about these documents. Further the properties also situated abutting
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
to Tirunelveli-Madurai Main Road, which was also admitted by R.W.1. Further,
Ex.C7 dated 13.11.1991 makes it clear that in S.No.648, which is the nearby land,
an extent of 3.20 acres were sold for Rs.43,200/- ie., per acre sold for Rs.13,500/-,
whereas the Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Ex.C7(sale
deed) in respect of some other property, which is far away from the subject
property. Such findings, in view of this Court, is without any basis and evidence.
In fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of RW.1 has not disputed the fact
that S.Nos.648 and 641 are continuous in nature as per the sketch. In such view of
the matter, this Court finds that the Land Acquisition Tribunal was mechanically
dismissed the claim petition, which was referred under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
9. From the above documents, this Court is of the view that even much
prior to the acquisition, an acre was sold for Rs.13,500/- as per Ex.C7 and Exs.C1,
C2 and C7 same together makes it clear that the compensation amount fixed by the
Land Acquisition Officer is not on proper appreciation of the evidence. The
portion, which is abutting the Highways or other places, which has wide access to
the open area, will have a different value other than the portion, which was
situated behind without any access to that area. Those facts have to be taken note
of by the Courts, while fixing the value of the property. Every fact has to be
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
decided taking note of the circumstances obtaining to the particular cases. Court
should also have regard to the conduct of the people and natural course of events
while considering the facts while deciding a particular issue. Even assuming that
no sale deed whatsoever was produced by the party, whose lands were acquired
and they become a landless at the relevant point of time, that cannot be a ground to
non-suit the ordinary agriculturists, who lost their lands and they should be
compensated reasonably. 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. Their actions should not be oppressive one in
the name of acquiring the lands for a paltry sum. 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. These facts cannot be ignored by the Court. It is a common
knowledge to every one. In this case, reasonable compensation ought to have
been allowed by taking into consideration of the previous sale deed particularly,
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
Ex.C7 and even in the private negotiations, per acre of land was offered at the rate
of Rs.9,000/-, which was not taken note of by the Tribunal.
10. Therefore, fixing the compensation of Rs.99,887/-for the acquired
lands, ie., 16 acres and 59 cents, in the view of this Court, is unreasonable and in
fact, it amounting driving the citizens in the state of landless. Such attitude cannot
be encouraged by the Court of Law. Having regard to the nature of the evidence
available, particularly, in this case that the lands are situate adjacent to the
Tirunelveli-Madurai Main Road and some factories are also there and nearby lands
are also developed, like house sites, the minimum price for the land would be not
less than Rs.13,500/- per acre as per Ex.C7. In such view of the matter, this Court,
taking note of the normal course of events and in relation to the facts and
circumstances of the particular case and the above documents and also taking note
of Ex.C7 and the evidence of RW.1 that the acquired land is abutting to
Tirunelveli and Madurai Main Road, is of the view that reasonable compensation
would be awarded as per the value set out in Ex.C7. Hence, this Court come to the
conclusion that the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal is not based on the
proper appreciation of the documentary evidence.
11. Accordingly, the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal is hereby set
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
aside and the compensation is fixed at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per acre. The
petitioner is also entitled to get 30% of solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per
annum for the first one year period from the date of taking over possession and
thereafter 12% per annum till the date of deposit of the compensation by the State
in Court. The compensation and solatium shall bear interest as indicated above.
12. Accordingly this Appeal Suit is allowed. No Costs. The appellant is
directed to pay the additional Court fee, if any.
29.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
PJL
A.S.(MD)No.100 of 2016
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
