Madras High Court
The Special District Revenue ... vs K.Naina Mohamed on 11 January, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:11.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5988 of 2020
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II,
Tiruchirappalli. : Appellant / Referring Officer
Vs.
K.Naina Mohamed : Respondent/ Claimant
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2020
made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District
Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.J.Karthik
********
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
JUDGMENT
***********
This Appeal has been filed as against the order of the learned
Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018,
dated 18.09.2020.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, is as
follows:-
2.(1). Originally, a reference was made under Section 64 of
RFCTLARR Act 2013. By a notification issued under Section 15 (2) of
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the total extent of 0.8229 Sq.m. of dry
and natham lands in Thiruppanikarisalkulam Village, was acquired for
widening the State Highways Road (SH-39) Tirunelveli-Sengottai-
Kollam Road. The Land Acquisition Officer (Special District Revenue
Officer) has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1362/- Per Sq.m. As
against the same, the matter has been referred to the Reference Court
under Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
2.(2). It is the case of the claimant that he has purchased lands
to an extent of 16.53, 1.83, 11.02 and 3.65 cents in Survey Nos.109, 114
and 106 of Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirupanikarisalkulam Village as Plot Nos.
16, 17, 18, 56, 57, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27 and 28 and constructed seven shops
bearing Door Nos.2/187/1 to 2/187/7 and also houses in that place. In
the above lands, totally, 290 Square meters were acquired for the purpose
of widening of road. The Acquired property was situated very near to
Tirunelveli-Tenkasi Main Road, which is just opposite to the
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The cost of one cent is
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) at the time of acquisition.
Hence, the respondent / petitioner claimed compensation of a sum of
Rs.21,48,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and Forty Eight Thousand)
for 7.16 cents and he calculated Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and
Forty Thousand only) towards loss of income and also Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards mental agony.
3. On the basis of the above facts, the Reference Court framed
the following issues:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
“1. Whether the market value of the
property fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is
correct?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for
more compensation than the award passed by the
Referring Officer?
3. What is the compensation amount for
the acquired properties?”
4. During trial, on the side of the respondent / petitioner /
claimant, the respondent himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2 were marked. On the side of the appellant / Referring Officer,
R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked..
5. Considering the entire materials and evidences, the Court
below partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent / petitioner with
costs and fixed the compensation at Rs.34,17,584/- (Rupees Thirty Four
Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four only) and also
fixed the additional amount at the rate of interest of 12% per annum on
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
Rs.4,93,725/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven
Hundred and Twenty Five only) from 04.01.2015 to 15.05.2018. The
appellant / Referring Officer has already deposited a sum of
Rs.33,79,428/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Four
Hundred and Twenty Eight only). The Referring Officer was further
directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of two months and
on failure to deposit the balance amount within the above said period, the
respondent / claimaint is entitled to 9% interest from the date of claim
petition till the date of Award and thereafter, at the rate of 6% interest till
the deposit of the above amount.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal is filed.
7. The main contention of the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the appellant is that the Court below while
awarding compensation has adopted multiplier factor as 1.25 and fixed
the compensation, which is against the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (Cental Act 30 of 2013). His further contention is that the acquired
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
lands are situated within the Municipal Corporation and within eight
kilometers from the nearest urban areas of Tirunelveli Municipal
Corporation. Once the land is situated in the urban areas, the factor by
which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban area shall
be 1.00 as notified in SL.No.3 of First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013. His further contention is that the Court below, instead of adopting
the factors at the rate of 1.00 as per the Act, adopted and multiplied as
1.25 factor, which is against the law. Hence, he prayed for allowing the
appeal.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the Court below rightly adopted the factors at 1.25 as
per the Act, since the acquired lands are situated within thirty kilometres
from the urban areas. It is the further contention of the respondent that
the acquired land is situated beyond eight kilometres distance from the
limits of the Municipal Corporation, which has been admitted by R.W.1.
In such view of the matter, the factors meant for urban areas cannot be
applied in this case. The Court below has rightly dealt with the factors
and arrived at the conclusion. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
9. The only point arose for consideration is that whether the
compensation fixed by the Court below adopting the factors as 1.25 is
against the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Cental Act 30 of
2013) or not?
10. I perused the entire materials.
11. The nature of the extent acquired for widening the road is
not in dispute. Similarly, the location of land also is not in dispute and
the lands which includes the shops and the buildings for the purpose of
widening the road is also not in dispute. The court below, while
considering the entire materials, particularly, the nature of the land
situated which is near the Highways and also near the University, fixed
the compensation by adopting 1.25 factors, as per the Act and also as per
the evidence of R.W.1. It is to be noted that the Government has also
passed an Order in G.O,M.S.No 27, Highways and Minor Ports (HF1)
Department dated 05.03.2018 and the Clause 8 referred as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
“8.The Government after careful
examination have decided to accept the
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land
Administration (CLA) and accordingly, issue
executive instructions on determination of final
amount of compensation (Final Award) to be paid to
the land owners as follows:-
(a)While determining the final
compensation amount, in cases where the interim
compensation had been fixed and allowed earlier
with reference to the Orders issued in G.O.MS.No.
59, Highways and Minor Ports (HF1) Department,
dated 29.05.2014, in accordance with the First
Schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013)
for the compensation amount (Final) shall be
determined, by multiplier factor and the factor by
which the market value shall be multiplied in case
the project is situated in rural areas shall be as
specified in the Table below:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
Sl. Distance of the Project from Factor by which
No Urban Areas the market value to
be multiplied
1. Within 30 Kilometres 1.25
2. Beyond 30 Kilometres and within 50 1.50
kilometres
3. Beyond 50 Kilometres 2.00
The factor by which the market value is to be
multiplied in the case of urban Areas shall be 1.00 (one)
as notified in Sl.No.3 of First Schedule of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
'Urban Area' referred to in the Table above
means:-
(i).The area (including Village Panchayats)
lying within the territorial limits of the Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority (CNDA);
(ii).Municipal Corporations having a
population of 5 (five) Lakhs and above as per 2011
census (i.e., Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Salem,
Coimbatore and Tirunelveli Municipal Corporations,
except Chennai City Municipal Corporation) and the
area (including Village Panchayats) that falls within
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
eight kilometers distance from the limits of the Municipal
Corporations.
(iii).All other Municipal Corporations,
Municipalities, Town Panchayats, Cantonments and
Townships;
and
(iv).any other area that may be notified as urban area by
the State Government, from time to time.
(b).With regard to determination of market
value in accordance with the First Schedule of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. 2013,
the instructions contained in the Circular and Letter as
8th and 10th read above respectively, issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Land
Administration shall be adopted for guidance”
12. From the above Government Order, it is clear that when the
acquired land is situated within thirty kilometres from the Corporation
and the land area not falls within the urban area, the factors of 1.25 has to
be taken note of while assessing the compensation. An urban area means
the area which falls within the eight kilometres distance from the limits
of the said Municipal Corporation. The evidence of R.W.1 itself clearly
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
proves that the acquired land falls beyond the eight kilometres within the
Municipal area. Therefore, such area cannot be termed as urban areas
and the same falls beyond eight kilometres distance from the limits of the
Corporation. The Court below has rightly adopted multiplier factor as
per the Act. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order
by the Court below and the compensation awarded by the Court below is
only based on the evidence and law and the same does not require any
interference by this Court.
13. I do not find any merits in the appeal suit and the order
made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Tirunelveli, stands confirmed. In the result, the appeal suit is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
tsg
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruunelveli.
2.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2020
Dated:11.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
