Madras High Court
Union Of India Rep. By The vs V.Rajaram on 9 July, 2021
AS.No.748 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AS.No.748 of 2015 and
MP.No.1 of 2015
1.Union of India Rep. by the
Secretary to Government(Revenue),
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry
2.The Revenue Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer,
Central University Wing,
Directorate of School Education,
Puducherry ... Appellants
Vs.
V.Rajaram ...Respondent
PRAYER:
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against
the order dated 08.04.2015 in LAOP.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Pondicherry.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Djearany,
Government Advocate(Pondy)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
For Respondent : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
JUDGMENT
The Appeal suit is filed against the order dated 08.04.2015 in
LAOP.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking in the court below.
3. The case of the claimant is that the second respondent acquired
larger extent of lands for the purpose of establishing Central University at
Kalapet Revenue Village, Pondicherry. Thereafter, the second respondent
passed award and determined value of the land at Rs.234/- per Are. Upon
objections raised by the land owners, reference was made by the second
respondent and the Referral Court enhanced the value of the land at Rs.1,401/-
per Are. Therefore, the claimant sought for enhancement of the award amount
for the land acquired from the claimant. As far as the land in question was
determined by the award dated 09.09.1999 at Rs.981/- per Are instead of
Rs.1401/- on the basis of the award in LAOP.No.164 of 1985. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
claimant stated that the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands
comprised in RS.No.179/9 and 182/5 which are subject matter of the
LAOP.No.164 of 1985 are not similar to the land which was acquired from the
claimants in RS.No.180/3. It is situated far away from Marakkanam Road and
situated interior and having no potential value of house site. It is also under
developed and having no civil amenities. Whereas, the claimant’s land in
RS.No.180/3 is nearer to Marakkanam Road than the lands comprised in
RS.No.179 and 182. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of the award
amount.
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed reply statement and
stated that the land which is referred by the claimant is situated at RS.No.179/9
and 182/5 as covered under LAOP.No.164 of 1985 is not similar to the
claimant’s land. It is far away i.e. more than 2.5 kilometers away from
Marakkanam main road. It is situated very interior and having no potential
house site or other value besides undeveloped and seven feet higher than
Marakkanam main road level. It is also not having any civil amenities.
Therefore, the value is rightly fixed for the land acquired from the claimant and
fixed value at Rs.981/- per Are.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
5. On hearing the rival pleadings, the court below framed point for
consideration as “whether the petitioner in the above LAOP is entitled for
enhanced compensation? If so, for what amount?”
6. In support of the claimant's case, P.W.1 was examined and six
documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the respondents,
R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were marked. On considering the
submissions made by the learned counsel, the court below allowed the LAOP.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this first appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
Referral Court erred in holding that both the lands which was subject matter of
the LAOP.No.164 of 1985 and the present award are one and the same. The land
which was situated at RS.No.179/9 and 182/5 fell under category III of the
Land Acquisition Officer award. Whereas, the claimant’s land falls under the
category of II of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in award
No.1 of 1985 dated 28.02.1985. Therefore, both lands are not situated in the
nearer place. That apart, the land comprised in RS.No.180/3 is situated far away
from the subject land in LAOP.No.164 of 1985. It is situated very interior and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
having no potential of house site and other amenities. Therefore, she sought for
set aside the award passed by the court below.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the
Referral Court acquired land and fixed value at Rs.1401/- per Are on par with
the other land which was determined in LAOP.No.164 of 1985. Therefore, the
award passed by the Referral Court does not warrant any interference by this
Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal suit.
9. Heard, Mr.G.Djearany, Government Advocate (Pondy) appearing
for the appellants and Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, the learned counsel for respondent.
10. The subject land was acquired for the purpose of establishing
Central University at Kalapet Revenue Village, Pondicherry. The total extent of
84.00.09 hectares was acquired under phase-I. In respect of the said acquisition,
the second respondent herein passed award No.1 of 1985 and fixed value at
Rs.234/- per Are. Simultaneously, the petitioner’s land was also acquired to an
extent of 01.36.00 hectares and the same land was acquired by the Acquisition
Officer. On the objection raised by the land owners, referred before the Referral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
Court. The Land Acquisition Officer has enhanced the compensation amount
from Rs.234/- per Are to Rs.1,401/- in LAOP.No.164 of 1985, in which for the
land comprised in RS.No.179/9 and 182/5, the Land Acquisition Officer has not
made any distinction in his award dated 28.02.1985 in awarding a sum of
Rs.234/- per Are for the entire land acquired by him, without considering
yardstick to minimum percentage towards the price difference between small
piece of land and larger piece. That apart, the Land Acquisition Officer has
failed to see that the lands in RS.No.179/9 and 182/5 falls under the
LAOP.No.164 of 1985 and determined the value at Rs.1,401/- per Are.
Therefore, the second respondent ought to have adopted the same yardstick for
the claimant’s land also. The claimant marked Ex.P6, the proceeding related to
the enhancement of compensation at Rs.1,401/- in respect of land comprised in
RS.No.82/2, 82/4, 82/6 and 167/7 i.e. larger extent viz., 2.53.00 hectares under
phase II covered under LAOP.No.13 of 1987. Therefore, the second respondent
failed to adopt yardstick of difference between small piece of land and larger
piece.
11. It is also evident from Ex.P5, the judgment of this Court in
AS.No.595 of 1999 dated 30.10.2002, thereby enhanced the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
amount at Rs.1,401/- in respect of land acquired in 182/2 to an extent of 1.87.50
hectares situated at Pillaichavady Revenue Village, Pondicherry taking into
consideration of the judgment and decree passed in AS.No.269 of 1992.
Therefore, the Referral Court rightly determined the value at Rs.1,401/- per Are
and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court
below.
12. Accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
09.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
lok
To
The Principal District Judge,
Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
AS.No.748 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
AS.No.748 of 2015
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
