Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs T.Paneerselvam on 11 April, 2022
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.Nos.729 & 785 of 2018
[Physical Mode]
1. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Varnatheertham Extension,
Harur Town & Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
2.The Collector of Dharmapuri District,
Collectorate Post,
Avvai Nagar,
Dharmapuri-5. .. Appellants/Respondents/Land
Acquisition Officers in both appeals
Vs.
T.Paneerselvam ..respondent/appellant/claimant
in SA.No.729/2018
Duraisamy ..respondent/appellant/claimant
in SA.No.785/2018
Common Prayer:- Second Appeals filed under Section 13 of Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for ADW Schemes Act, 31/78 r/w section 100 of the
Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgements and Decrees dated
12.4.2013 made in CMA(LA).Nos.21 & 19 of 2008 on the file of the Sub
Ordinate Judge, Harur, (CMA(LA)2/2006 and CMA(LA)4/2005 on the file
of Sub Court Dharmapuri) modifying the Award No.3/(ADW)/1989-90 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
Na.Ka.No.3177/86 (A), dated 17.02.1990 on the file of the Special
Tahsildar (ADW) and Land Acquisition Officer, Harur.
In both appeals
For Appellants : M/S.Edwin Prabakar, SGP,
assisted by Mr.J.Harish GA(CS)
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(1) These Second Appeals have been filed by the Special Thasildar,
Harur and the Collector of Dharmapuri District as against the
judgements and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, Harur
made in CMA (LA) Nos.19 and 21 of 2008.
(2) The respondents in these appeals are the claimants who owned
lands in Sekkampatty village, Harur Taluk in Dharmapuri District.
The lands belonged to the respective respondents and others were
acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-Dravidars.
(3) It is admitted that an extent of 0.64 hectares i.e. 1 acre 58 cents
comprised in survey numbers 192/4 and 192/5A, belonged to the
respondents and others was acquired by issuing a Notification
under Sec.4(1), dated 18.04.1988, under the Land Acquisition Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
1894. It is interesting to note that the acquisition proceedings
through were initiated under Central Act, and on a petition under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, reference was made. The
reference Court dismissed the LAOPs on a wrong notion and held
that only an appeal would lie. Thereafter, appeals had been filed in
C.M.A as seen from the memo of grounds raised before the Sub
Court, Harur.
(4) By a common award in Award Nos.3 of 1989 - 90 dated
17.02.1990, the compensation of the land was fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.5000/- per acre. Accordingly,
the compensation for the individual land owners were fixed by
giving 30 % of solatium on the market land and additional interest
at the rate of 12% as provided under Sec.23 1 A of Land
Acquisitions Central Act. It is to be noted that the solatium payable
under the State Act is only 15% and similarly no additional
interest under Sec.23 (1) (A) of the Land Acquisitions Central Act
is payable for the land acquired under the State Act. Therefore, the
award was passed as per Land Acquisition (Central) Act, 1894.
(5) It appears that as against the Award, the respective land owners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
filed objections and protested to receive the compensation.
Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter under
Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Central Act and the Reference Court
entertained the proceedings in LAOP's. It was some time after, the
reference Court held that the acquisition ought to have been
proceeded under Act 31 of 1978 as the same was upheld by
Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the remedy is only to file an
Appeal as against the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer. It was
thereafter, Appeals were preferred as against the Award before the
learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. Though the decision of
reference Court is wrong and by mistake claimants were forced to
file appeals, this Court in order to avoid further delay, proceed to
dispose of this appeal on merits.
(6) The Sub Court, Karur, allowed both the Appeals, by enhancing
compensation from Rs.5,000/- per acre to Rs.2,75,000/- per acre
relying upon the document which was marked as Ex.C.2.
Aggrieved by the judgement of the Appellate Court enhancing
compensation from Rs. 5,000/- per acre to Rs.2,75,000/- per acre,
the above appeals have been preferred by the appellants / the Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
Acquisition Officer and the District Collector, Dharmapuri District.
(7) The Second appeals were admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:-
“ a)Whether the learned Judge justified to enhance
the award passed by the appellant based on the
document relied upon by the respondent when those
documents are for smaller extent?
b)Whether the learned Judge justified in holding that
the enhancement of award can be made based on the
sale deed document which is house site and small
extent when the acquired land is agriculture land and
larger extent?
c) Whether the learned Judge erred by rejecting the
document based on the appellant fixed the value of
the acquired land without any valid reasons?
d)Whether the potentiality, classification of the
acquired land and the sample documents is one and
the same?”
(8) In the present cases, this Court finds that the claimants/respondents
have examined four witnesses apart from marking the documents
Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. Both the documents marked as Ex.C1 and C2
are well before the Notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4(1) is dated
18.04.1988. Both the documents were proved by examining
witnesses. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, though found
that the document Ex.C1 is in respect of the land, which is located
in the neighbouring village, refused to rely upon the same for fixing
just compensation for lands.
(9) It is to be noted that the document Ex.C1 shows the value of the
land conveyed under the document as Rs.8,72,000/- per acre. The
Land Acquisition Officer found that the document Ex.C2 is in
respect of the land in Survey Number 207/1 in Sekkampatti Village,
which is considered to be part of developed area in Harur Taluk.
Under the said Document, the extent of 2400 sq ft of house sites
was sold for a sum of Rs.28,800/-. Since the document show the
market value of Rs.12 per square feet, the learned Subordinate
Judge, considering the document refixed the market value for a
house site at the rate of Rs.5,23,200/- per acre. CW3, who was
examined on behalf of claimant is a vendor in Ex.C.2 and he has
spoken in his evidence to corroborate the value reflected in Ex.C2.
(10) After relying upon the document Ex.C2, the lower Court considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
the evidence of RW.1, who admitted the relevance of document
Ex.C2. Apart from the fact that the lands neighbouring the acquired
lands are being sold as house sites and the value should be fixed for
the land on square foot basis, it was also noticed by the lower Court
that the acquisition in the present case is also for providing house
sites to Adi Daravidars. The purpose of acquisition is to allot the
lands as house site to Adi Daravidars. Therefore, this Court also
agrees with the lower Court that the acquired lands are located in a
developed area and it is most suitable and the lands in around the
acquired lands are developed as house sites.
(11) The Lower Court has deducted 40% towards development charges.
Therefore, though the value reflected in the document under Ex.C2
shows the market value at the the rate of Rs.5,23,200/-, the lower
court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,75,000/- per
acre. Despite a deduction of 40% towards the development charges,
the main ground on which the learned Special Government Pleader
argued the appeal is that a further deduction of at least 20% is
necessary as the data sale deed is in respect of small piece of land
whereas large extent of land has been acquired. It is further stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
that a deduction for lump-sum payment also should be considered.
Further, the learned Special Government Pleader also made his
submission on the questions raised in the memorandum of grounds.
(12) This Court consciously considered the materials available and the
grounds raised by the learned Special Government Pleader.
(13) First of all, the acquisition was in the year 1988 and the claimants
were given compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per acre. Both the
market value reflected as per the sale exemplar relied upon by the
lower Court shows that the value of the property is more than
Rs.5,25,000/- per acre. The long delay in disbursement of the
compensation has caused serious prejudice to the land owners. This
Court, while considering the documents and the evidence of
plaintiffs witnesses, is convinced that the acquired lands are
surrounded by housing plots and developed lay outs. The
potentiality of the land is fully evident from the admission of RW1
and the evidence of witnesses examined by the claimants.
(14) Merely because the value the compensation has been enhanced
from Rs.5000/- per acre to Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, this Court is not
convinced with the arguments of the learned Special Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
Pleader, that the appeal has to be allowed. The lower court has
considered the market value on the basis of documents. The
enhancement is supported by the evidence of witnesses of the
claimants apart from the admission of RW1. When the property is
in the midst of developed residential area, the Lower Court is right
in relying upon the document Ex.C2 as a sale exemplar to fix the
compensation.
(15) The deduction can not be more than 40 % as it is submitted by the
learned Special Government Pleader having regard the various
circumstances. The acquisition is for the purpose of providing
house sites to Adi-dravidars. Since the property is surrounded by
lay outs and the entire area is developed as residential colony, the
Land Acquisition Officer is prompted to acquire the lands for
providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. It is admitted that the
acquired lands are surrounded by residential plots with commercial
facilities.
(16) Having acquired the lands in a developed area, the Court should
consider the development that had taken place before acquiring the
lands. In the present case, already the appellate Court reduced the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
market value from Rs.5,23,200/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per Acre and
then added 20% to arrive at a figure Rs.4,80,000/-. Thereafter 40%
deduction is allowed. Thereafter, further reduction from
Rs.2,88,000/- to Rs.2,75,000/- per Acre is arrived. This Court finds
no strong evidence or principle in support of the appellants' request
for more deduction. As pointed out earlier,
further deduction in respect of the lands which are developed
cannot be allowed to reduce the compensation.
(17) It is well settled that in a semi urban area, the deduction cannot
exceed 30% towards development charges. In this case the
deduction works out to 45% which is excessive and no further
deduction will be reasonable. Since the data sale deed relied upon
by the Land Acquisition Officer was long prior to the acquisition,
the Lower Court is also right in relying upon the document Ex.C2
and this Court is unable to appreciate any substance or any merit in
the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader.
(18) Having regard to the facts admitted and proved by documents, this
Court is unable to find any merit in the substantial questions of law
raised in these Appeals. Hence these Appeals are dismissed. It is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
be noted that the acquisition was under the Central Act. After
passing Award as per the Central Act, there is no question of
treating the acquisition and proceeding with the same under State
Act. If the State Act applies, the whole acquisition proceeding under
the Central Act are liable to be quashed. Only a fresh acquisition
proceedings has to be initiated. Hence, the claimants are entitled to
30% of the market value as Solatium and Additional interest under
Section 23(1)A of Central Act. The appellants are also entitled to
interest at 9% on the entire amount of compensation(ie., market
value + 30% solatium + Additional interest) for 1 year from the
date of taking possession and thereafter, interest at 15% p.a., for
the entire amount till the payment. Since the claimants are entitled
to statutory benefits, the modification does not attract additional
stamp duty. The appeals are dismissed and the judgment and
decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in C.M.A(LA)No.19 and
C.M.A(LA)No.21 of 2008 are modified as indicated above. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
jrs
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12 Page of 13
SA.Nos. 729 & 785 of 2018
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
jrs
SA.Nos.729 & 785 of 2018
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 Page of 13
