Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs P.S.Rengasamy on 7 January, 2021
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)Nos.69 and 70 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2015
The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Tamil University
Thanjavur. ... Appellant in
both A.S.
Vs.
P.S.Rengasamy ... Respondent in
A.S.(MD)No.69/2015
COMMON PRAYER: Appeal Suits filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge
of Thanjavur in L.A.O.P.No.69 of 1984 and 142 of 1983, dated 9 th day of
September, 1991.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
(In both Appeals) Additional Govt. Pleader.
For Respondent : No Appearance
(In both Appeals)
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the Reference Court, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.2,500/- per acre to Rs.10,000/-per acre, the present Appeal
suits have been filed by the State Government.
2. The brief facts, leading to file these appeal suits, are as follows:
The extent of 1.82 acres of land in S.No.29/1 & 8 and 0.57 acres of land
in S.No.30/9, situated at Pillaiyarpatti Village, were acquired on 27.08.1982 for
the purpose of construction of Tamil University at Thanjavur. The Land
Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.2,500/- per acre, whereas the
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,500/- per acre to
Rs.10,000/- per acre. Challenging the same, the present appeal suits have been
filed.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant would submit that the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is
against the law and the acquired lands were situated five kilometers away from the
Town of Thanjavur. Therefore, the enhancement made by the Reference Court is
not based on evidence and hence, prays for allowing the appeal suits.
2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, now the following points come
up for consideration and they are as follows:
i) Whether the compensation enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/-
per acre is based on proper evidence and materials and the same is reasonable?
ii) Whether such compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre is unreasonable?
iii) To what other reliefs, the appellant is entitled?
5. It is not in dispute that the lands were acquired for the purpose of
construction of Tamil University and Residential Quarters for its employees. The
Reference Court has considered the entire materials produced before it and
factually found that the acquired lands are within the reachable distance to the
Medical College, SIDCO Industrial Estate and Tantex Company and there are well
developed residential plots and it has also taken note of the fact that the acquired
lands are also situated within the vicinity of the main highways leading to
Pudukottai-Trichy and fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre. 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,
3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
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. 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 agriculturists, who lost their lands and they should be compensated
reasonably. Being the welfare State, the action of State should always be
reasonable and should not be arbitrary or oppressive in nature. Even assuming
that there was no document produced, this Court can also take note of the nature
of the agricultural land situate in Thanjavur. 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.
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
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
does not find any infirmity or error in the order. Accordingly, all the points are
answered.
7. In the result, these Appeal Suits are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.01.2021
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, Thanjavur.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S(MD)No.69 and 70 of 2015
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
A.S.(MD)Nos.69 and 70 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2015
07.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
