The Special Tahsildar (La) vs T.Poonkothai Ammal ...Claimant /
2021 Latest Caselaw 771 Mad

                                                                                 A.S.No.978 of 1997

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 11.01.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                               A.S.No.978 of 1997

                 The Special Tahsildar (LA),
                 Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line,
                 Madurai.                                        ...Appellant/Referring Officer


                                                      Vs.

                 T.Poonkothai Ammal                              ...Claimant /Respondent


                 PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land
                 Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional
                 Subordinate Judge of Madurai in L.A.O.P.No.134 of 1989 dated 29.06.1994.


                                    For Appellant    : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
                                                      Additional Government Pleader
                                    For Respondent : No Appearance


                                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the order of the reference Court

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.978 of 1997

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein,

as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as

follows:-

The claimant is the owner of two cents in Survey No.79/9 in

Thathaneri, Madurai North Taluk, The said land was acquired for the

formation of Karur and Dindigul and Madurai Broadguage Line. The Land

Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per

cent. Aggrieved over the same, the matter has been referred to the land

acquisition tribunal. The land acquisition tribunal, after considering the

materials, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent

with 30% solatium, which comes to Rs.13,000/- with interest at the rate of

12%. Challenging same, the present appeal is filed.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

appellant submitted that enhancement is not based on any evidence, the

Acquisition Officer has fixed the value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- as per the

sale deed of the year 1983, which is prior to the acquisition, hence, prayed

for allowing the appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.978 of 1997

5. There is no representation for the respondent.

6. From the above pleadings, now the point arises for consideration

is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is without any basis and

liable to be interfered with?

7. The present dispute is only in respect of two cents of land in

Survey No.79/9, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer while

widening the road. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation

at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. The above compensation has been fixed

on the basis of the sale deed in respect of the sale deed of the year 1983,

which is three years prior to the notification dated 13.06.1986. It is a

common knowledge that normally in the sale deeds only the guideline value

will be mentioned, true market value would not be reflected. At any event,

the value mentioned in the document is more than three years prior to the

date of acquisition and it cannot be stated that true value of the suit

property was reflected in those documents. Exs.C1 and C2, dated

13.12.1983 and 03.04.1984, indicate that in the year 1983 and 1984, which

prior to the acquisition, the site has been sold as house site in that area for

Rs.7,950/- and Rs.1,21,200/- respectively and one cent is sold for more than

Rs.5,000/-. Besides, the trial Court, has also taken note of the location and

lie of the lands. It is admitted in the evidence that the land, which was

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.978 of 1997

acquired, falls within the corporation of Madurai and nearby places are well

developed areas like Koodal Nagar, Santhi Nagar, Rayilar Nagar, Madurai

All India Radio Office, Housing Board Houses, Fatima College, ESI Hospitals

and LIC Office. All the above offices are situated within the city.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the view of that location and lie of the

property acquired was so near to the well developed area. Further Exs.C1

and C2 also indicated that the property was sold for much higher of value

and the compensation fixed by the land acquisition tribunal is reasonable on

the basis of both documentary and oral evidence.

9. Such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality and infirmity

in the order Land Acquisition Tribunal. Accordingly, the point arose for

consideration in this appeal is answered.

10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and

decree passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai in

L.A.O.P.No.134 of 1989 dated 29.06.1994 is hereby confirmed. No costs.

                                                                                   11.01.2021
                 Index    : Yes/No
                 Internet : Yes/No
                 ta




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                   A.S.No.978 of 1997




                 To

1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.978 of 1997

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ta

Judgment made in A.S.No.978 of 1997

11.01.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in