Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs S.Balupillai (Died) on 28 January, 2022
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Officer (ADW)
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Balupillai (died)
2.B.Kumar
3.B.Bose
4.B.Jeya
5.Devaki
6.Premalatha
7.Manimaran ... Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 7 are bring on records as
legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent
vide Court order dated 25.01.2018 in M.P.
(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 01.07.2010 passed in
L.A.C.M.A.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Paramakudi.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Suriyananth
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed by the Referring
Officer/Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Paramakudi,
challenging the judgement and decree, dated 01.07.2010 made in
L.A.C.M.A.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Paramakudi.
2. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and
also perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
3. The facts, in nutshell, leading to filing of this Second
Appeal are that pursuant to the notification dated 26.04.2000 issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, ‘the Act’], the
punja lands of the deceased first respondent/claimant which were
situated in Survey No.523/2B in Urappuli village, Paramakudi Taluk,
Paramakudi, to an extent of 0.21.0 Hectares, was acquired for the
purpose of providing house sites for the Adi Dravida Arundhathiyar
community people residing in the same village. After complying with the
formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the quantum of
compensation for the acquired lands in respect of the deceased first
respondent/claimant at Rs.26,312/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Three
Hundred and Twelve only) and accordingly, passed Award
No.15/2000-01, dated 09.03.2001, whereas on the matter on being
appealed to the Sub Court at the instance of the claimant, the
compensation was fixed at Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per
cent and in total, it was quantified at Rs.4,68,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
and Sixty Eight Thousand only) in addition to 15% towards solatium and
interest at 6% per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with it, the
Government preferred the instant Second Appeal on the main ground that
the enhancement awarded by the Court based on Ex.P.4 - sale agreement
is exorbitantly higher and disproportionate to the actual land value
available in the vicinity. Further, the Tribunal has failed to take into
account the reasonable deduction towards developmental charges which
is necessary to provide house sites to poor Adi Dravidars.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
Counsel for the respondents that the issue involved in this Second
Appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court, made in S.A.No.93 of
2004, dated 04.04.2018, in respect of the very same notification issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 26.04.2000 and in
respect of the very same survey numbers, but with different sub division
numbers, in the same Village, namely, Urappuli Village, Paramakudi
Taluk, Paramakudi, wherein the value of the land was fixed at Rs.9,000/-
(Rupees Nine Thousand only) per cent and the Court has granted 15%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
solatium with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and that similar
yardstick may also be adopted in this Second Appeal also.
6. In the judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.93 of 2004, dated
04.04.2018, it has been held in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 as follows:-
“2. This Second Appeal is filed by the
appellant /Land Acquisition Officer, Special
Tahsildar, Adi Diravidar Welfare, Paramkudi as
against the Judgment and Decree passed in
L.A.C.M.A.No.19 of 2001, on the file of the Sub-
Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District,
which in turn was preferred by the land owner, under
the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for
Harijan Welfare Schemes Act. An extent of 1.62.5
Hectares of land was acquired for the purpose of
providing house sites patta to the Adi Diravidar and
Arunthathiyars. The notification under Section 4(1)
of the “Act” was issued on 26.04.2000. The
appellant before this Court fixed the market value of
the acquired land at Rs.44,000/- per acre. As against
the award fixing the compensation, by taking into
consideration of the market value at Rs.44,000/- per
acre, the land owner / respondent in this appeal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
preferred an appeal in L.A.C.M.A.No.19 of 2001, on
the file of the Sub-Court, Paramkudi. The Appellate
Court, fixed the compensation at Rs.9,000/- per cent,
relying upon the documents, which were produced by
the respondents. Very strangely, the lower Court
adopted a method, by which, valuation under three
different documents were taken note of and the
average market value reflected in three documents
was taken. However, after arriving at the market
value reflected in the three documents, the lower
Court relying upon one of the documents, determined
the market value at Rs.9,000/- per cent. While
awarding interest, the lower Court has taken into
consideration the provisions of Land Acquisition
Central Act instead of following the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare
Scheme Act. It is to be stated that the notification
under Section 4(1) of the state Act, in this case, was
issued in the year 2000 and the land owners are
entitled to solatium only at 15% of compensation
fixed, as on the date of notification, under Section
4(1) of State Act. Under the Central Act, the land
owners are entitled to 30% of the compensation as
solatium. The benefit of Additional interest as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
contemplated under Section 23(I)(A) of land
Acquisition Central Act is not applicable to the land
owners, whose lands are acquired under the State
Act. Similarly, the interest on the Additional
enhanced amount contemplated under the Land
Acquisition Central Act are not applicable to the
land owners when land is acquired unless the State
Act. The State Act enables only 6% of interest on the
market value and that too, from the date of taking
possession of the land.
3. In such circumstances, the land owner
namely the contesting respondent in the appeal is
put to great hardship by the lapse of time, i.e., due to
the pendency of the proceedings before the Court for
more than 17 years.
4. In the circumstances, though this Court may,
on proper appreciation of evidence, reduce the
market value by Rs.2,000/- per cent and the
Judgment of the lower Court, enhancing the amount
beyond Rs.7,000/- was not proper, in view of the
prejudice that is caused to the land owners by the
long pendency of these proceedings in view of the
draconic change under the State Act as regards
interest, which is detailed in the previous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
paragraphs, this Court is not interfering with the
amount determined as market value.
5. In the result, this Second Appeal is partly
allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the lower
Court fixing the market value at Rs.9,000/- per cent
is confirmed. However, the appellant is liable to pay
15% solatium with interest at 6% from the date of
taking possession. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ”
7. Following the said judgment dated 04.04.2018 made in
S.A(MD)No.93 of 2004, passed in similar facts and circumstances, the
same market value and the solatium which have been fixed by the
Tribunal, are liable to be confirmed by this Court.
8. A perusal of the order of the Court below would reveal
that after appreciation of evidence and documents relating to the market
value, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine
Thousand only) per cent as the land value and awarded solatium at 15%
out of the total value and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
date of possession or from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification, in
which, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality warranting
interference by this Court. Thus, the Second Appeal fails.
9. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the
judgment and decree, dated 01.07.2010 passed in L.A.C.M.A.No.3 of
2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi, are confirmed.
No costs.
28.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rm
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.
To
1.The Subordinate Court,
Paramakudi.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
rm
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.136 of 2013
(1/4)
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
