Madras High Court
R.Krishnamoorthy vs The Special Tahsildar on 12 July, 2021
A.S.No.7 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.7 of 2015
R.Krishnamoorthy ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition, Unit-III,
Outer Ring Road Project,
Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2012, passed in
L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2004 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajesh
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (CS)
For R2 : Ms.Veena Suresh
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 10
A.S.No.7 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit is filed as against the Judgment and Decree
dated 12.03.2012 made in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2004 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the claimant is that the first respondent acquired
the land belonged to the petitioner/claimant for establishment of outer
ring road by an award dated 03.09.2003. The land acquired in
Kolappanchery Village situated within CMDA limit. There are number of
commercial building and industrial units situated very close to the
acquired land. The acquired land is very close and within three
kilometers from Pattabiram Railway Station and Chennai-Bangalore
national highway road. Therefore, the rate fixed by the land acquisition
officer very meager and not according to the market value. Hence he
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
4. The acquisition officer filed counter stating that the
government has followed the procedure as contemplated under the Land
Acquisition Act and passed award dated 03.09.2003 and granted
compensation by fixing the value for the land at Rs.700/- per cent. It
requires no enhancement and prayed for confirming the awards.
5. On the side of the claimant, he examined C.W.1 and marked
Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1
and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. On perusal of the material produced on
record and considering both the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by the respective parties and also the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side, the Court below fixed the land value at
Rs.10,250/- per cent and awarded solatium at 30% and ordered additional
market value at 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification.
Further ordered that the total of enhanced land value plus 30% of
solatium plus 12% interest are treated as total compensation and the
claimant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of possession for one
year and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal suit has been preferred by the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submitted that in similar case, in which the land was acquired under the
very same 4(1) notification dated 28.07.2000, the land value fixed at
Rs.20,000/- per cent by this Court by an order dated 11.10.2011, in a
batch of appeal suit in A.S.No.840 of 2009 etc. Therefore, he prayed for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
7. It is relevant to extract the judgment dated 11.10.2011
passed by this Court in A.S.No.840 of 2009 etc., batch as follows :-
“24. A.S.Nos.951 to 956 of 2009: The name
of the village is Kolappanchery. The date of 4(1)
Notification was 28.7.2000. The Land Acquisition
Officer had relied on a sale deed dated 4.2.1999
for dry land and a sale deed dated 6.7.99 for wet
land. On the basis of these two documents, he has
fixed Rs.710/-per cent for dry land and Rs.700/-
per cent for wet land. However, he had collected
15 sales statistics but he has not given any reason
for rejection of the highest sale in S.No.45/2 dated
21.1.2000 which was immediately prior to 4(1)
Notification. Under this sale statistics the land has
been sold for Rs.17,470/- per cent. The reference
court has referred to the above said sale and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
infact has stated that the claimants had requested
the court to consider this sale and fix the market
value. However, the claimants have also relied on
Exs.C.1 and C.2 which relate to a sale in
Varadharajapuram village.
25. Before the reference court, the claimants
have relied on a judgment of Allahabad High
Court reported in 2001 Allahabad 323 (neither the
name of the journal nor the parties name was
mentioned in the award). As per that decision, if
there is no sale statistics available for the land
acquired in the same village, the sale taken place
in the neighbouring village which is comparable
to the acquired land can be taken into
consideration. On that basis, the reference Court
had considered the sale statistics in Exs.C.3 and
C4 dated 4.9.97 and 9.9.98 respectively under
which the sales took place in Varadharajapuram
which is south of Thookanampattu village.
26. In fact, the same reference court has
relied on the same documents of
Varadharajapuram to fix the market value for the
land acquired for the identical purporse in the
village of Thookanampattu since the former is
adjacent to the subject matter village. In our
considered opinion, Varadharajapuram is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
adjacent to Kolapancherry which is the subject
matter village. Interestingly, the reference court
had taken the market value as per Ex.C.3 at
48,646/-per cent and Rs.21,800/-per cent under
C.4 and also taken into consideration Rs.700/-per
cent fixed by Land Acqusition Officer, calculated
the average (48646 + 21800+700 X 1/3) and has
arrived at a value of Rs.23, 715/-. 10% was added
as appreciation value at Rs.2, 371/- and has
arrived at Rs.26, 086/- and further stated that
there is no deduction towards development
charges and arrived at Rs.27,000/-per cent. Again
in our considered view, the reference court ought
to have either accepted the value fixed by Land
Acquisition Officer or rejected the same. Similarly,
it ought to have considered the vaue under Ex.C.3
or under Ex.C.4, but arriving at an average value
is not the correct method of deciding the market
value on the date of 4(1) Notification.
27. As stated earlier, Exs.C.3 and C.4
cannot be relied on as the sale was effected for the
village at Varadharajapuram and at the same
time, the sale effected as per Sl.No.13 of the sale
statistics in which a wet land was sold for a sum of
Rs.17,470/- on 21.1.2000 ought to have been
considered. The sale is also for a smaller extent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
one cent which could be comparable to the wet
lands and dry lands of subject matter of the village
in which smaller extent has been acquired from
various claimants. Considering the land sold as
wet land 10% increase in value can be added
which would be Rs.19,217/- and which could be
rounded of as Rs.20,000/-per cent. The highest
sale, as stated above, which took place at
Kolapancherry on 21.1.2000, which is
immediately prior to 4(1) Notification dated
28.7.2000, for a smaller extent of the similarly
placed land, which has also equal potential value,
is thus considered. Therefore, considering these
facts, the market value is fixed at Rs.20,000/-per
cent instead of Rs.27,000/- awarded by the
reference court.”
8. Considering the documents which were produced by the
claimants, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court fixed the value of
the land at Rs.20,000/- per cent. The subject matter of the land also, one
of the same which was acquired by the same Notification from the very
same village. Considering the above said judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, this Court feels that the claimant is entitled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
for enhancement of Rs.20,000/- per cent as compensation. Accordingly,
the market value is fixed at Rs.20,000/- per cent, with all other benefits
as awarded by the Court below.
9. In the result, this Appeal Suit stands partly allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
12.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Poonamallee
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition, Unit-III,
Outer Ring Road Project,
Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.7 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
A.S.No.7 of 2015
12.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
