Madras High Court
S.M.Chithambaram vs The Special Tahsildar on 8 January, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
S.M.Chithambaram ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Special Tahsildar
T.A.C.I.D. Unit I, Gangaikondan
Sankar Nagar.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director
TACID 68, Greems Road
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 passed in L.A.O.P.No.63 of
2002 by the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli and set
aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah,
Additional Government Pleader.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the trial Court, fixing the compensation at
the rate of Rs.80/- per cent for the lands acquired for the purpose of development
of Industrial Estate in Kangaikondan Village, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
2. Originally, the Land Acquisition Officer was acquired the lands for the
purpose of constructing Industrial Estate and fixed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.13,585/- per hectare. As against which, the matters were referred to the
Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Tribunal decided the same in
L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 18, 63 and 64 of 2002 and finally, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-
per acre, as compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the Land Acquisition Officer
had filed Appeal suits before this Court in A.S.No.202 to 205 of 2010. This Court,
by order dated 03.01.2012, set aside the orders of the Tribunal, merely on the
ground that no documents have been filed by the claimants and remanded the
matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for fresh consideration. After such
remand, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, once again heard the matter and fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre. Challenging the same, the present
Appeal Suit came to be filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Land Acquisition Tribunal is mechanically passed an order fixing the
compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre. It cannot be expected from the
parties to produce the documents, when the parties have not dealt with the
properties for several years. Therefore, merely non production of any document,
reasonable compensation cannot be denied. The Tribunal ought to have taken into
consideration the entire circumstances, pertaining to the particular cases, that too,
the nature of the property and the location of the property etc. Therefore, fixing
the minimum compensation of Rs.8,000/- per acre is nothing, but depriving the
very constitutional right to hold the property. Hence, it is the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
not based on the appropriate application of the judicial mind. Hence, prayed for
allowing the appeal.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that in an earlier occasion, this Court, taking note of all
the facts, found that the Land Acquisition Tribunal, without considering the fact
that no documents have been filed by the claimants to substantiate their claim, has
erroneously fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre and hence,
set aside the orders and gave an opportunity to the claimants to produce the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
documents. Whereas, the claimants have not even produced a scrap of paper.
Therefore, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, had no other option except to rely upon
the documents filed by the Land Acquisition Officer viz., the respondents herein,
rightly arrived at a conclusion that just one year before the notification i.e., in the
year 1991, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per acre, fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre. Therefore, the order of the
Tribunal does not require any interference and hence, prays for dismissal of this
Appeal Suit.
5. In the light of the above submissions, now the following points come
up for consideration and they are as follows:
i) Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal erred in law in fixing the
minimum compensation without taking note of the location and the nature of the
property?
ii) Whether the claimants can be non-suited merely on the basis of non
production of any document?
ii) Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is
reasonable in the eye of law? And
iv) To what other reliefs, the appellant is entitled?
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on
record carefully.
7. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the entire area has been acquired
for the purpose of development of Industrial Estate. At the time of acquisition, the
Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation, at the rate of Rs.13,385/- per
hectare. The same was opposed and the matters were referred to the Tribunal
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Tribunal, in an earlier
occasion, fixed the compensation at Rs.750/- per cent i.e., Rs.75,000/- per acre,
which was set aside on the ground that no documents have been filed. Again the
Tribunal, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre. Challenging
the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
8. The only ground, on which the order of the Tribunal sought to be
sustained by the Government side, is that since no document was filed by the
claimants, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the compensation, based on the statistical
report filed by the respondents and also the sale taken place in the year 1991 by
way of registered documents, in which, the guide line value of the property has
been mentioned at Rs.5,500/- per acre. It is to be noted that whether the subject
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
matter of the sale in the above documents were situated within the vicinity of the
property acquired or whether it was adjacent property, there was no evidence at all.
Merely because, one of the survey number is the same, that cannot be taken note
of to fix the value. There may be instance, where survey number may be one and
the same, but the value in the same survey number in one portion may be different
from other. The portion, which is abutting the Highways or other places, which
have 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. It is
to be noted that the guideline value has been fixed long back. In a case, where the
properties were never dealt with a particular survey number. As long as there was
no transaction and no sale whatsoever has been taken place in the particular survey
number, the value fixed in the earlier occasion will be the same, except small
marginal increase every year. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the value is
less in respect of the properties. It is to be noted that the claimants being the poor
agriculturists, they cannot be expected to produce the documents to prove the
value at all time. It is the State, being welfare State, should act very fairly and
reasonably. The action of the State should not be in an arbitrary manner and
deprive the livelihood of the poor citizens. Though the right to hold the property
is a constitutional right, but now the same is also recognized as a human right,
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
such right cannot be deprived by the State, by throwing pittance in the name of
compensation. State action should be reasonable without any arbitrariness.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that other circumstances also to be
taken note of by the authorities. The Land Acquisition Tribunal simply fixed the
compensation at Rs.8,000/- per acre, after remanding by this Court, on the ground
that there was no document produced by the claimants. Such finding, in my
considered view, is not in accordance with law. Even though no documentary
evidence produced by the claimants, there are oral evidence available on record
and in fact, the admission of the respondent side makes it clear that the acquired
lands situate abutting the Highways and there are some factories already exist in
the nearby places and the area was also well developed as house sites. In such
view of the matter, the trial Court viz., the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the
normal course of events and natural course of events and the conduct of the parties
and the location of the area, where the lands situate and ought have come to the
conclusion as to the value of the property. 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
Therefore, fixing the compensation of Rs.8,000/- per acre, 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 National Highways 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.50,000/- per acre. 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, is held that the land price would not have
been less than Rs.50,000/- per acre, at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, this
Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. The Land
Acquisition Officer is directed to pay that amount with interest at the rate, as
ordered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, this appeal suit is allowed. No costs.
08.01.2021
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
A.S.(MD)No.235 of 2019
08.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
