Madras High Court
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs C.Alagarsamy on 4 June, 2021
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.4818, 4819, 4821, 4822, 4824,
4826, 4827 and 4828 of 2021
A.S.(MD)No.137 of 2021
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Viruthunagar District. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.C.Alagarsamy ... Respondent/Appellant/
Claimant
2.The Branch Manager,
SIDCO,
Soolakarai,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/
Beneficiary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
praying to set aside the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal cum
Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2012 dated 30.10.2017,
modifying the award No.1/2010 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, dated 31.12.2010 allow the appeal.
For Appellant
in all appeals : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
COMMON JUDGEMENT
************************
[Judgement of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the order passed by the Reference Court
namely, the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, in LAOP Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 of 2012,
dated 30.10.2017.
2.Though all the petitions were disposed of by separate judgments
and decrees, the reasoning is one and the same and therefore, we have heard the
appeals together and they have been disposed of by this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
3.The appellant/Land Acquisition Officer initiated the land
acquisition proceedings during the year 2010 for the establishment of a new
industrial estate in Virudhunagar to be formed by the Small Industries
Development Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIDCO). An extent of
15.20.0 hectares of land was identified for acquisition, which were owned by
several individuals and eight such owners are before this Court in these appeals.
The acquisition proceedings appear to have not been challenged and has
attained finality and the award proceedings were initiated and by Award No.1 of
2010 in the case of the land owner Azhagar Samy, the compensation was fixed
at Rs.57,971/- per acre and the said land owner owned an extent 0.72.0 hectares
in Survey No.157/3. The land owners, though did not object to the acquisition
proceedings and handed over the lands for the purpose of formation of the
Industrial estate, they objected to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Sub Court,
Virudhunagar under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. These petitions
have been taken on file by the Reference Court as LAOP Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9
of 2012. The claimants examined themselves and marked Exs.C1 to C14 and
the Referring Officer examined himself and marked Exs.R1 to R4. The claim
made by the claimants/erstwhile land owners was to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per
cent, which would workout to above Rs.40 lakhs per acre. The Reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated
30.10.2017, impugned in these appeals, fixed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per cent and deducted 30% towards development charges and held
that the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/-
per cent and accordingly, passed the award. The Land Acquisition Officer
namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, being aggrieved by the
said award, is before this Court by way of these appeals.
4.It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court has not considered that the
award passed on the basis of Exs.C3 to C5, C7 and C8, the lands are not
situated near the lands, which are acquired, but they are situated for away and
there are different locational advantages. Further it is submitted that in those
sale deeds, the sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs.8902/- to Rs.8906/-
per cent, but whereas the Reference Court, without any basis, has taken the
value at Rs.10,000/- per cent and therefore, such fixation is erroneous.
Furthermore, the Reference Court failed to take into consideration that the
extent of lands, which was subject matter of sale in Exs.C1 to C14, are meagre
extent and those documents were relied on by the claimants only for the purpose
of claiming enhanced compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
5. Further it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the
Government appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court has not
considered Ex.R4 -(data sale deed) which is the document in respect of the land
which falls within the acquired lands. Furthermore, the award by the Reference
Court is highly excessive and it is more than twelve times for Punja lands, when
compared to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further it is
submitted that the Reference Court ought to have computed the deduction at
40% of the total value, instead of 30%.
6.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
Standing Counsel for the Government appearing for the appellant and perused
the materials placed on record and the judgment rendered by the learned
Reference Court.
7. As pointed out earlier, as many as 14 documents were marked on
the side of the claimants and four documents were marked on the side of the
acquisition Officer. The Reference Court, in our considered view, has taken a
very balanced approach, taken note of the lands which were subject matter of
the sale deeds marked by the claimants, compared the same with that of the data
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
sale deed produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, examined the location of
the land and the purpose for which the lands were acquired and ultimately
concluded that a sum of Rs.10,000/- per cent would be fair and reasonable
compensation. With regard to the deduction, the Reference Court had fixed it at
30% by taking note of several decisions on the point. Furthermore, we note
that the acquisition proceedings were initiated prior to 2010 and the award came
to be passed on 31.12.2010. The land losers were paid very meagre
compensation and therefore, they objected to the same and the matter was
referred to the Civil Court for deciding enhanced compensation in the year
2012. The reference petitions were pending before the Reference Court from
2012 to 2017 when the judgment was delivered on 30.10.2017. The present
appeals filed by the appellant itself were delayed by more than one year and that
is why the appellant filed applications for condonation of 496 days respectively
in filing the appeals. We would have been well justified in dismissing the
condone delay petitions because there were no reasons shown for condonation
of the inordinate delay. Yet we exercised discretion and condoned the delay,
since prayer was made to take a decision on the merits of the matter. Therefore
when we considered the merits of the claim made by the erst while land owners
qua that of the appellant namely the Land Acquisition Officer, we find that
there is no manifest error in the manner in which the Reference Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
proceeded and the amount of compensation awarded itself is reasonable.
Though it is contended that the sale consideration in the exhibits marked by the
claimants is only about Rs.8,900/- and the Reference Court should not have
fixed compensation at Rs.10,000/- per cent, we find that there is no
unreasonableness on the part of the reference Court to fix the compensation at
Rs.10,000/- per cent, since the value of the lands which were sold under
Exs.C3 to C8 was vary and therefore the Reference Court has rounded off the
amount to Rs.10,000/-, which is a fair manner of taking a decision insofar as
award of compensation to the land losers.
8.Thus for the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the
order passed by the Reference Court. In the result, all the Appeals fail and the
same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are also dismissed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
04.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
cp/ssl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
cp/ssl
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.
COMMON JUDGEMENT MADE IN
A.S.(MD)Nos.137 to 144 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.4818, 4819, 4821, 4822, 4824,
4826, 4827 and 4828 of 2021
04.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
