Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar(Land ... vs Santha on 29 January, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.7737 of 2018
The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),
South Neighbourhood Scheme,
Madurai. .. Appellant/Referring Officer
Vs.
1.Santha
2.Seetha
3.Ram Balaji .. Respondents 1 to 3/claimants
4.The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Madurai. .. 4th Respondent/Beneficiary
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against
the judgment and decree of the learned I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai
in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1997 dated the 28th day of February 2001.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
Additional Government Pleader
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Dismissed
Respondent No.4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the Reference Court, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.45/- per cent to Rs.2,500/-per cent, the present Appeal suit
has been filed by the State Government.
2. The brief facts, leading to file the appeal suit, is as follows:
The extent of 0.06.0 hectares of land in S.No.39/4, situated at Thoopur
Village, Madurai South Taluk, was acquired on 11.01.1989, after issuing
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 23.09.1985, by
the Tamilnadu Housing Board for constructing houses. The Land Acquisition
Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.45/- per cent, whereas the Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.45/- per cent to Rs.2,500/- per cent.
Challenging the same, the present appeal suit has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant would submit that the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is
against law and the Court has failed to make proper deduction towards the
developmental charges, because the acquisition is for the construction of houses.
Therefore, the enhancement made by the Reference Court is not based on evidence
and hence, prays for allowing the appeal suit.
4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, the point arises for consideration
is;
“Whether the compensation enhanced by the tribunal is based on the
proper appreciation of evidence?”
5. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired by the Tamilnadu
Housing Board. The Reference Court has considered the entire materials produced
before it and factually found that the acquired land is within the reachable distance
to the Dhanapandiyan Polytechnic, T.P.Sanitorium and V.G.P.Golden City and
there are well developed residential plots and it has also taken note of the fact that
the main highways leading to Madurai-Kanniyakumari is situate on the eastern
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
side of the acquired land and fixed the compensation at Rs.2,500/- 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. Every fact has to be 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 land
owners, who lost their lands and they should be compensated reasonably. Being
the welfare State, the action of the State should always be reasonable and should
not be arbitrary or oppressive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that challenging
the award with regard to the same acquisition, several appeal suits came to be filed
by other claimants in A.S.Nos.209 of 2003 and batch, wherein, this Court has
fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent and in another
appeal in A.S.(MD).No.128 of 2017 also, this Court, by order, dated 01.12.2020,
has confirmed the order of the Tribunal, which order will be binding on the
appellant herein.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
6. 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. Accordingly, the point for
consideration is answered.
7. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
PJL
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
A.S.(MD)No.146 of 2018
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
