Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Ramasamy Goundar (Died) on 17 June, 2021
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravida Welfare,
Thirupattur. ... Land Acquisition Officer
/Respondent/Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramasamy Goundar (died)
2.Rani
3.Mani
4.Chakravarthi
5.Mangammal ... Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 5 brought on record as legal representatives of the
deceased sole respondent viz., Ramasamy Gounder vide Court order
dated 22.04.2021 in C.M.P.Nos.1557, 1567 and 1571 of 2019 in
S.A.No.1279 of 2008 by PTAJ)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for ADW Schemes Act 31/78 read with Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in
L.A.C.M.A.No.1 of 1998 dated 10.02.2005 on the file of the learned
Sub Judge, Thirupattur, modifying the Award made in Award No.A-
21/1995-1996 dated 19.03.1996 (proceedings No.A1/519/93) passed
by the learned Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thirupattur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran,
Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman
for R2 and R5
R1-died
JUDGMENT
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer), Adi Dravida
Welfare, Thirupattur, is the appellant before this Court, challenging the
enhancement of the Award passed by the learned Sub Judge,
Thirupattur in L.A.C.M.A.No.1 of 1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
2.The lands of the respondent situate at Bandarapalli Village,
Thirupattur Taluk, comprised in Survey No.803/5 measuring an extent
of 1.29.5 Hec. was the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings.
The lands were sought to be acquired for providing house sites to the
Adi Dravidars. The Section 4(1) Notification dated 04.12.1995 under
the Act 31/78 was issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated in
the Land Acquisition Officer determining a compensation of a sum of
Rs.1,60,000/- and in addition, solatium at the rate of 15% and in all the
compensation was determined at a sum of Rs.1,84,000/-. Being
aggrieved by the low compensation, the respondent had filed his claim
before the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur.
3.The respondent while adducing evidence as C.W.1, had
deposed on the facilities available in and around his lands and had also
marked Ex.C.2 which is the Sale Deed in respect of an adjacent land
which was sold for a consideration of Rs.16 per sq.ft. The respondent
had also filed Ex.C.1 which is the Sale Deed registered as Document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
No.872/94 in which five cents of lands were sold at Rs.20,000/- and
from a perusal of which, it is evident that the value of the land was a
sum of Rs.9.17 per sq.ft. The learned Sub Judge taking note of these
documents had considered and determined the value of the respondent's
land for a sum of Rs.5 per sq.ft and after deducting a sum of Rs.1.50p
towards development charges ultimately fixed the value of the land
acquired at the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq.ft and had enhanced the
compensation to a sum of Rs.4,88,320/- and has fixed the solatium at
the rate of 15%. In all a sum of Rs.5,61,568/- was determined as the
compensation payable for the lands acquired. Deducting a sum of
Rs.1,84,000/- which has already been deposited, the appellant herein
was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,77,568/- together with interest @9%
from 04.12.1995 to 03.12.1996, 12% from 04.12.1996 to 03.12.1997,
15% from 04.12.1997 till the date of Judgment and thereafter, @15%
per annum. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the appellant is
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
4.The only ground on which the Award is being challenged that
the land which has been taken as a data land for calculating the
compensation was the small extent of land and therefore cannot be
considered for arriving at the value of the land. Further, the data land
was not close to the lands acquired and when the matter came up for
argument, the main argument of the learned Government Counsel was
that the interest is high.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
land covered under Ex.C.2 was one prior to the acquisition and
therefore, the learned Sub Judge was not wrong in relying upon the
said document for arriving at the compensation. As regards the
interest, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that only
a reasonable interest has been awarded.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the papers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the learned Sub Judge has relied upon the value of a land
sold nearly a year prior to the acquisition proceedings which was more
or less similar to the land acquired. Though the value of the land which
is the subject matter of Ex.C.2 was a sum of Rs.9.17 per sq.ft, the
learned Sub Judge has only determined the market value of the land
acquired at Rs.5/- and after deducting the Development Charges arrived
at a sum of Rs.3.50p. The appellant have not let in any evidence to
rebut this.
8.As regards the interest, the learned Sub Judge has only fixed a
reasonable interest for which reasons have been given, this Court does
not find any reason to interfere with the said determination. The land
in question was also taken possession immediately after the acquisition
proceedings had been initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
9.A perusal of the Judgment under Appeal would clearly show
that the learned Judge has not been persuaded into arriving at the
market value by the purpose for which the land acquired and
consequently fixing the compensation. As already stated, the properties
sold in Ex.A.2 was nearly a year prior to the acquisition proceedings
and further, the learned Judge has not taken the entire consideration of
Rs.9.17p but has only awarded a compensation of Rs.5/- per. sq.ft to
the respondent which is very reasonable. The Substantial Question of
Laws are held against the appellant and the Second Appeal is therefore,
dismissed, however, there shall be no orders as to costs.
17.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mps
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Thirupattur.
2.The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare),
Thirupathur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
S.A.No.1279 of 2008
17.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
