Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs Thiru.Manikandan (Died) on 12 August, 2022
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013
and
Cross. Obj(MD)No.23 of 2022
A.S(MD)No.152 of 2013
The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Adi-Dravidar Welfare
Periyakulam,
Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer
Vs.
Thiru.Manikandan (Died)
2.Mrs.Sornam
3.Mrs.Kaleeswari
4.Sivakumar
5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2006 made in L.A.O.P.No.
11 of 1996, on the file of the Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Court-cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.T.Vilavankothai
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Cros.Obj(MD)No.23 of 2022
Thiru.Manikandan (Died) ... 1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Mrs.Sornam
3.Mrs.Kaleeswari
4.Sivakumar
5.M.Kohiladevi ... Cross Objectors/
Respondents 2 to 5
Vs
The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Adi-Dravidar Welfare
Periyakulam,
Theni District. ... Respondent/
Appellant/Referring Officer
PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure
Code, to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree in Cross Appeal
against A.S.No.152 of 2013, on the file of this Court in reversing the well
considered judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996, on the file of the
Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam, dated
20.12.2006 and allow the Cross-Appeal with costs.
For Cross-Objectors: Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mr.T.Vilavankothai
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit and the Cross-Objection have been preferred
challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District
Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam, dated 20.12.2006 made in
L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996.
2. The appellant is the respondent and the deceased first
respondent is the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996, on the file of the Land
Acquisition Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track
Court No.4, Periyakulam. The claimant filed L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996 against
the appellant for fixing the market value of the land at Rs.18.40/- per sq.ft.,
However, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.17.10/- per sq.ft., as additional
compensation and 30% solatium and as per the market value from the date
of 4(1) Notification I.e., on 29.12.1994 till the date of judgment has to pay
the sum at 12% and also to deduct the amount already received by the
claimant and to pay interest at the rate of 9% for a period of three months
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
and for the rest of the period the respondent has to pay interest at the rate of
12% from that date till the date of payment. Aggrieved against the said
judgment and decree, the respondent has filed the present appeal.
3.The brief facts of the case is as follows:
L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996 was filed by the claimant/land owner
against the award passed by the Adi Dravidar Welfare, Uthamapalayam
Taluk acquiring lands in survey No.1980/1 to the extent of 1.26.5 hectare ( 3
Acre and 13 cents) situated in Thomas Colony, Uthamapalayam Panchayat,
which was acquired for the purpose of constructing house for the Adi
Dravidar. The District Collector, Madurai has issued the notification under
section 4(1), dated 29.09.1994 and based on the permission granted by the
Government, dated 20.12.1994, the District Collector has fixed an award at
Rs.99,173/- for 3 acre 13 cents. Since the land owner did not agree to the
amount determined by the District Collector, Madurai, the Special Tahsildar
(LAADW), Periyakulam referred the matter to the land acquisition Tribunal,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
namely, the Sub Court, Periyakulam, under reference in Roc.No.1319/94 A
Dated 17.08.1996. The reference was taken on file in LAOP.No.11 of
1996.
4.Before the reference Court, the claimant claimed a sum of
Rs.18.40/- per sq.ft., as the market value for the acquired land and produced
the documents to that effect. The Acquiring Officer has not fixed the correct
value. As per the document produced by the claimant, the Acquisition
Officer ought to have fix a sum of Rs.17/- per sq.ft. It was also stated that
nearby the acquired land, a College, Two Government Schools, Teacher
Tranining School, Life Insurance Corporation Branch Office, Income Tax
Officer, Transport Office, Block Development Office, two Computer Centre,
two Cenema Theaters, National highways Office and Public Works are
there. This property value is at Rs.18.40/- per sq.ft., The Tribunal on
appreciation of various documents, awarded a sum of Rs.17.10/- per sq.ft
and has awarded 30% solatium. Aggrieved by the fixing of market value at
Rs.17.10/- per sq.ft., the Referring Officer, namely, the Special Tahsildar,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
Adi Dravidar Welfare, (Land Acquisition), Periyakulam, has preferred the
present appeal.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge
framed the following issues for consideration:
(i) Whether there is sufficient proof to allow the claim of
the claimant?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the claimant,
three witnesses were examined as PW1 to P.W.3 and seven documents were
marked as Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. On the side of the respondent, no one was
examined and one document was marked as Ex.B1.
7. After completing the trial and on hearing of arguments
advanced on either side, the learned trial Judge, considered the evidence
available on record, decreed the LAOP as stated above.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the lands belongs to the respondent were acquired for construction of
houses for Adi Dravidar. The respondent purchased the said land with larger
extend on 20.05.1994. Within the period of 4 months from the date of
purchase of the land by the respondent 4(1) Notification was issued on
29.09.1994 The character of land is only Manavari Punja that is not fertile
land. The extent of the acquired land was 3 acres and 13 cents in Survey
No.1980/1. The respondent purchased the said land only for a sum of
Rs.42,000/- under Ex.A1, dated 20.05.1994 and the Government has
awarded a compensation at Rs.99,173/-. The total extent covered under sale
deed is 4 acre 73 cents Punja land. Out of which, they acquired only 3 acres
13 cents i.e., within 4 months from the date of sale deed. The Tribunal has
failed to consider the potentiality of the land and also the actual market
value as on the date of 4(1) Notification. He would further submit that the
exhibits marked by the respondent are only related to the sale of very
meagre extent and hence, it could not be taken for fixing market rate for
awarding compensation for larger extent of land acquired. The Tribunal
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
taken the Survey No.2031/2 which are plotted one. The sale deed document
No.1579/94, dated 05.12.1994 is at the extent only 684 sq.ft. But the
acquired land in Survey No.1980/1 is an extent of 3 acres and 13 cents.
The respondent has not produced any clinching evidence to show that the
acquired lands have the potential and Tharam as equivalent to the land
covered under sale deed, dated 15.12.1994. The Tribunal awarded the
amount for more than 27 times from the original award passed by the
appellant herein is without any proper basis. Further, he would submit that
the Tribunal not deducted 40% of the total value of the acquired value
towards the development charges. Without considering these aspects, the
Tribunal awarded compensation from Rs.276/- to 746/- per cent without
proper basis to the acquired land, which is not sustainable both in law and
on facts of the case. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to
be dismissed.
9. Though the respondent has filed the cross-objection with a
petition to condone the delay of 3095 days, this Court, on 02.08.2022 has
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
passed the following conditional order:-
“Though the appeal in A.S(MD) No.152 of 2013 was
filed by the Government in the year 2013, the petitioners have
filed this cross-objection with the delay of 3095 days.
2. The matter involved only land acquisition and the
petitioners have filed the cross-objection only for enhancement
of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Therefore, incase the cross-objection is allowed, the cross-
objectors are entitled only for enhancement of compensation
from the market rate to be fixed by this Court and they are not
entitled to any other benefit like interest etc., Hence, this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the Registry is directed to
take up the cross-objection on file, if it is otherwise in order.”
10. The learned counsel for the respondent/cross-objectors would
submit that the deceased first respondent purchased the properties for
forming a layout and sell the properties as house-sites. In and around the
acquired properties, house properties and approved layout plots are located
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
and nearby the lands, Government schools, colleges and other Government
Offices are available. The Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the
potentiality of the land and awarded compensation at Rs.276/- per cent,
which is very low. At the time of acquisition, the market value is minimum
Rs.40/- per sq.ft. Therefore, the Tribunal could have awarded minimum
Rs.40/- per sq.ft., The compensation fixed by the Acquisition Officer is very
low. Therefore, he has filed the cross-objection. Therefore, the award
passed by the Tribunal has to be enhanced and the order passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer has to be modified.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent, perused the pleadings, issues
framed by the Tribunal, oral and documentary evidence adduced and
produced by both parties.
12.Admittedly, the property of the respondent was acquired by the
appellant for establishment of Adi Dravidar Colony by constructing the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
house and the extent of land acquired was 3 acre and 13 cents in Survey No.
1980/1. 4(1) Notification was issued on 29.09.1994, then, after the enquiry,
the acquisition officer awarded compensation of Rs.99,173/-. Since the
cross-objector raised objection regarding quantum of compensation fixed by
the appellant and the appellant referred the matter to the Tribunal for fixing
the compensation. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after the enquiry,
awarded a sum of Rs.17.40/- per sq.ft., Challenging the said award passed
by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court. The
respondent has also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.
13. It is not in dispute that the properties belongs to the
respondent. He purchased the said property under Ex.A1 sale deed, dated
20.05.1994 which is situated in Survey No.1980/1. 4(1) Notification for
was acquisition made on 29.09.1994 and that is within 4 months from the
date of purchase. Ex.A1 clearly shows that 4 acres 73 ½ cents consisting of
3 survey No.1980/1,2 & 3. The total sale consideration is only Rs.42,000/-.
Out of 4 acres 73 ½ cents, only 3 acres 13 cents covered under the Survey
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
No.1980/1 alone was acquired. The respondent purchased the property with
larger extent only for a sum of Rs.42,000/- just 4 months prior to the 4(1)
Notification. However, considering the other factors, the District
Collector, Madurai awarded a sum of Rs.99,173/- for the total extent. Since
the claimant made objection, the appellant referred the matter to the
Tribunal. The Tribunal without considering all the facts, but only taking
into consideration of two documents referred to by the claimants are only
after 4(1) Notification, which is between the date of Ex.A1 and the 4(1)
Notification i.e., small extent of 640 sq.ft. Though the claimant during the
evidence stated that nearby the land, hospitals, schools, Colleges,
Government Offices and building are there, during the cross-examination,
he has clearly admitted that all are one kilo metre away from the land.
Though the claimant/respondent stated that he purchased the property and
he formed lay out, but there is no evidence to show that the acquired land
have been formed as a layout. His own document in Ex.A1 itself the
property is described as a Punja land. Government classification is only a
Manavari Punja land. Therefore, it cannot be compared with Ex.A4, Ex.A5
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
& Ex.A6. The only relevant documents are Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 the land
covered under the said documents are only small extent and the same are
also not adjacent to the acquired land. Four months prior to the 4(1)
Notification, the said lands were purchased. Four boundaries given in the
acquired properties are only a Punja lands. Therefore, the acquired land
cannot be valued at sq.ft., rate. The acquisition officer fixed a sum of Rs.
276/- per cent. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.17.10 paise per sq.ft., and the total compensation is Rs.23,35,293/- for an
extent of 1.26.5 hectare i.e., 313 cents. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the purpose for which it is acquired and
considering the future development, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of
Rs.500/- per cent. The Tribunal erroneously fixed sq.ft., rate which is not
legally sustainable. Accordingly, compensation is fixed Rs.500/- per cent
with consequential benefits.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
14. With the above modification, the Appeal Suit is partly
allowed. The cross-objector has no ground to succeed in the cross-objection
and therefore, the Cross-Objection is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No 12.08.2022
am
To
1. The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal
Additional District Court-cum-
Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
am
A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013
and
Cross. Obj(MD)No.23 of 2022
12.08.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
