Madras High Court
Masilamani vs The Special Tahsildar on 25 June, 2021
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
Masilamani ... Appellant in A.S.No.761 of 2014
Murugadoss ... Appellant in A.S.No.762 of 2014
Vs
The Special Tahsildar,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare),
Ulundurpet. ... Respondent in both Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Appeal Suits filed under Section 96 of CPC to
set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2011 made in LAOP
Nos.60 & 61 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sriram
For Respondent : Dr.S.Suriya,
Government Advocate (CS)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Appeal suits are filed against the Judgment and
Decree 27.09.2011 made in LAOP Nos.60 & 61 of 1999 on the file of the
II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the claimants is that their respective lands were
acquired for the purpose of house site to the most backward class situated
at Sithathur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk. The Acquisition Officer passed an
award by fixing at Rs.200/- per cent and awarded compensation. The
claimants sold part of the property comprised in same survey number to
one Gurunathan by registered sale deed dated 22.06.1995, in which the
land value was fixed at Rs.600/- per cent. Accordingly to the claimants,
the land is sold in very near to the land acquired, therefore, the
Acquisition Officer should have fixed the value at the property of
Rs.800/- per cent.
4. Per contra, the Acquisition Officer filed a counter stating
that the land belonged to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of
issuing to the landless poor belonging to the most backward class. The
Government approved the acquirement dated 23.03.1998 and passed an
award on 09.02.1998, 30% solatium for the acquired land and 12%
additional market value for the acquired land and the market value had
been paid to the claimants. The award amount also received by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
claimants with protest. Based on his protest, the reference was made to
the Court below on 23.06.1998 for fixing the market value for the
acquired land. 21 sale deeds were collected three years prior to 4(1)
notice dated 09.03.1996, in which, Sl.No.15 is data sale deed and other
deeds were rejected as dissimilar. The sale deed in Sl.No.15, a sale of
1.03 cents in Survey No.70/1A and 1 acre in Survey No.70/1B - total
2.03 cents. The said extent was sold for a sum of Rs.40,600/- vide
registered sale deed in document No.2102/1995 dated 23.11.1995. As
per the above data sale deed, the market value for 1 acre is Rs.20,000/-
i.e., 1 cent = Rs.200/-.
5. After completion of pleadings, the Court below framed the
following points for determination :
“ 1. Whether the land acquisition officer has fixed
correct market value for the acquired land ?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation ?
3. If so to what amount ?”
6. On the side of the claimants, they examined C.W.1 and
marked Ex.P1. On the side of the respondent herein, they examined
R.W.1 and no exhibit was marked. On considering the oral and
documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the
submissions made by the learned counsel, the Court below enhanced the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
value of the property which was acquired by the respondent and fixed a
sum of Rs. 350/- per cent and accordingly, passed the award. Aggrieved
by the same, the present Appeal suit is preferred by the claimants.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
claimants examined themselves as D.W.1 and marked Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is
nothing but a sale deed, which was executed by one of the claimants in
respect of part of the property in the very same survey number, which
was acquired by the respondent, by a registered sale deed dated
22.06.1995. The land value was fixed at Rs.600/- per cent for the total
extent of 0.22 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,200/-. The
Referral Court duly considered the said sale deed and concluded and
found the market value of Rs.200/- per cent is low as the date of 4(1)
notification is 09.03.1996 and the data of sale which took place on
23.11.1995. The Referral Court further concluded that the Acquisition
Officer did not show or discuss about the distance between the land of
data sale deed and the acquired land. Therefore, the Referring Officer
decided that the claimants were entitled for enhanced compensation in
addition to the 12% for enhanced compensation from the date of 4(1)
notification. Even the Referral Court has enhanced a sum of Rs.350/-
from Rs.200/- When the Referral Court has duly considered Ex.P1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
valued to fix the same value. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as per Ex.P1 sale deed.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that as per the award of their acquired land, the entire award amount has
been deposited and the same was also received by the claimants on
protest. Based on the pleadings, acquisition proceedings before the
Referral Court and enhanced the award amount from Rs.200/- per cent to
Rs.350/-. Whereas, the data sale deed which was considered by the
acquisition officer to pass an award, the sale deed of the land comprised
in Survey No.70/1A ad-measuring 1 acre and Survey No.70/1B in total
20.03 acres for the total sale consideration of Rs.40,600/-. As per the
market value for 1 acre was fixed at Rs.20,000/- i.e., 1 cent = Rs.200/-.
When it being so, the Referral Court based on the Ex.P1 enhanced the
award from Rs.200/- to Rs.350 per cent. Therefore, does not warrant any
interference by this Court and as per the enhanced award amount and the
same was also duly paid by the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal suit.
9. Heard, Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the
appeallants and Dr.S.Suriya, learned Government Advocate (CS)
appearing for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
10. The appellants are the claimants and the respondent is the
Acquisition Officer. The land belonged to the claimants in A.S.No.761
of 2014 comprised in Survey No.32/12 ad-measuring 0.39.5 ares, Survey
No.33/5B ad-measuring 0.13.0 ares and Survey No.33/6 ad-measuring
0.36.5 ares, totally 0.89.0 ares and in A.S.No.762 of 2014 comprised in
Survey No.33/1 ad-measuring 0.06.5 ares, Survey No.33/2 ad-measuring
0.25.5 ares, Survey No.33/3 ad-measuring 0.32.0 ares, Survey No.33/4
ad-measuring 0.35.0 ares, Survey No.33/5A ad-measuring 0.13.5 ares
and Survey No.33/7B1 ad-measuring 0.40.5 ares, totally 1.53.0 hectares,
for the purpose of issuance of patta to the landless power belong to the
most backward class. Both the claimants are none other than father and
son in both appeals. For the aforesaid purpose, Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the notification date is 09.03.1996 under Section 5(A)
of the Land Acquisition Act, enquiry was conducted on 21.06.1996 and
4(1) notification issued on 09.03.1996 and the award was passed by the
Acquisition Officer. The award amount was duly paid to the claimants
and the same was received with protest.
11. On the basis of the protest, it was referred before the Referral
Court, the claimants filed a petition for enhancement and respondent
filed a counter. The claimants marked Ex.P1-Sale Deed, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
executed by the appellant in A.S.No.761 of 2014 in respect of the part of
the property comprised in same survey number, which was acquired by
the land acquisition officer ad-measuring 0.22 cents to one Gurunathan
by registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1995. In the said sale deed, the
value fixed at Rs.600/- per cent for the land. The respondent, while
passing an award for compensation, considered the sale deed dated
23.11.1995 and fixed the market value of the property at Rs.200/- per
cent. The Referring Officer failed to show the distance between the land
of the data sale deed and the acquired land. Whereas, Ex.P1, the land,
which was part of the acquired land sold out to one Gurunathan by the
appellants themselves. Therefore, the Referral Court considered the
same and concluded that the value is very close to Sithathur Village and
it can be cultivated at all the times. Therefore, the award fixed by the
Referral Officer is very low and the date of 4(1) notification is
09.03.1996 and the data sale took place on 23.11.1995. However, the
Referral Court determining the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.350/- per cent. There is absolutely no reason to reduce the
compensation from Rs.600/- to Rs.350/- per cent. There is no basis for
fixing the market value at Rs.350/- per cent for the land acquired by the
respondent herein. It is pertinent to mention that the land which was sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
out by one of the appellant herein is part of the land which was acquired
by the acquisition officer comprising in the same survey number.
12. That apart the data sale deed which was considered by the
Acquisition Officer dated 23.11.1995, whereas the Ex.P1 is prior to the
said sale dated 22.06.1995. Therefore, the compensation is liable to be
enhanced. This Court determined the market value for the acquired land
at Rs.600/- per cent. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
award amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. The appellants are entitled for the interest @ 12%
per annum to the market value of the land from the date of 4(1)
notification dated 28.02.1996 to 09.02.1998 till the award. 30% solatium
of market value and they are entitled for 9% interest on solatium amount
till the date of deposit. The balance award amount shall be paid to the
appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
13. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No costs.
25.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
To
The III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
lpp
A.S.Nos.761 & 762 of 2014
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
