Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar [La vs Dharani on 7 January, 2022
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021 & CMP.Nos.15939,
15953, 15981, 15994, 16027, 16046 & 16088/2021
[Virtual Mode]
The Special Tahsildar [LA]
Unit-I, Outer Ring Road Project
CMDA, Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Appellant in
all the Appeals
Vs.
1.Balammal .. R1 in
AS.No.333/2021
2.G.Ravichandran .. R1 in
AS.No.335/2021
3.C.Chithirai .. R1 in
AS.No.336/2021
4.Bhanukesavan [died]
1.Dharani
2.Pachaiammal @ Menaka .. R1& R2 in
AS.No.337/2021
5.Devan .. R1 in
AS.No.338/2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
6.S.Sivakumar .. R1 in
AS.No.341/2021
7.Rathinasabapathi .. R1 in
AS.No.343/2021
8.T.Padmini .. R1 in
AS.No.346/2021
9.The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Chennai. .. R2 in
AS.Nos.333,
335, 336, 338,
341, 343 &
346/2021 &
R3 in AS.
No.337/2021
Common Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in LAOP.Nos.22/2015,
1232/2008, 1228/2008, 71/2009, 1229/2008, 1237/2008, 1231/2008 and
20/2015 dated 01.09.2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Kancheepuram.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Ravichandran, AGP
For R1 in AS.Nos.
335 to 338, 341 &
343/2021 : Mr.R.Rajesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(1) Since common issues are involved in all the above Appeal Suits
relating to compensation for the lands acquired for the formation of
Outer Ring Road Project by CMDA, though the said acquisition
was split by issuing different notifications, the above Appeals are
taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2) AS.Nos.337, 338 and 341/2021 arise out of the lands acquired by
issuing 4[1] Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.178, Housing and Urban
Development Department dated 19.04.2000 [published in the
Gazette on 10.05.2000] and AS.Nos.333, 335, 336, 343 and
346/2021 arise out of the acquisition of lands by issuing 4[1]
Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.347 of the very same Department
dated 06.08.2001 [published in the Gazette on 22.08.2001].
(3) Several parcels of lands were acquired by issuing Notification under
Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.347
dated 06.08.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 19.04.2000. The
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the year
2002 and 2001 respectively. In respect of the Notification covered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
by G.O.Ms.No.347, Award No.6/2003 dated 05.09.2003 was
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value for
the land at the rate of Rs.899/- per cent. The Land Acquisition
Officer though referred to a Sale Deed dated 27.03.2001 which was
in respect of a large tract of lands, there is no reference to the
location of the properties covered by the Sale Deed which was
relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, to fix the compensation.
In respect of the lands covered by G.O.Ms.No.178 dated
19.04.2000, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer vide Award
No.5/2033 was based on the Sale Deed dated 17.06.1998, which
was three years prior to the date of the 4[1] Notification. The Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at
the rate of Rs.600/- per cent.
(4) Aggrieved by the compensation / market value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the claimants have preferred Petitions under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition
Officer referred the dispute to the Civil Court for just compensation.
Accordingly, all the petitions were taken on file by the Reference
Court, namely, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation fixed by the
Reference Court in the LAOP proceedings, the above Appeal Suits
have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer/
(5) Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel filed Vakalat for some of the
claimants in AS.Nos.335, 336, 337, 338, 341 and 343/2021. With
regard to the claimant in AS.No.333 & 346/2021, notices are yet to
be served. Considering the facts noted by this Court on the merits
of the appeals and the position that already 20 years had gone, this
Court is inclined to take up all the appeals for hearing and dispose
of the same on merits.
(6) As stated earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market
value @ Rs.600/- per cent in respect of parcels of lands acquired
under G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 19.04.2000. The same Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.899/- per cent by
referring to a Sale Deed dated 22.08.2001.
(7) The Reference Court fixed the market value @ 19120/- per cent
uniformly for all the lands covered by both Notifications. It is to be
seen that the Reference Court has considered a few judgments of
the Apex Court and found that the market value of the acquired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
lands should be assessed on the basis of the document-Ex.C1 which
reflects a sum of Rs.28,752/- per cent. Deducting 33 1/2% towards
development charges, the market value was fixed at Rs.19,120/- per
cent. Aggrieved by the quantum enhancing market value for the
acquired lands from Rs.600/- and Rs.899/- per cent to Rs.19,120/-
per cent, the above Appeal Suits have been preferred by the Land
Acquisition Officer.
(8) Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant referred to the documents which are
available on record and contended that the Reference Court failed
to consider the sale exemplars that are relevant for deciding the
market value. He also contended that the claimants have valued the
property as ''house sites'' whereas the lands are classified as ''wet
lands'' which are unfit for development as house sites. Learned
Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation/market value based on
the sales statistics which were in respect of large tract of lands
whereas the Reference Court has relied upon the sale exemplars
which are for an extent of one ground [2400 sq.ft.]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
(9) It is also submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader
that as the acquired lands are claimed as wet lands, the said lands
cannot be valued on the basis that the acquired lands are house
sites. Apart from the grounds urged above, the learned Additional
Government Pleader further submitted that the order of the
Reference Court is not sustainable in law as the said Court has
failed to give proper deduction towards development charges.
(10) Per contra, Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants in AS.Nos.335 to 338, 341 and 343/2021 has pointed out
that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market
value/compensation without considering the relevant documents.
(11) In the instant cases, it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer
fixed the compensation at a very low rate without considering the
potentiality of the land and other advantages. It is to be seen that
many of the lands belonged to the claimants are plots in approved
layouts. There was an amendment by State in Section 23. It has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Smt.Saraswathi Devi V. U.P.Government [AIR 1992 SC 1620]
that the market value should be determined according to use to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
which the land was put on the date of notification under Section
4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also settled that while
assessing the market value, the factors relating to proximity of
developed colony and other facilities are to be kept in mind. The
Reference Court has referred to a few advantages after considering
the evidence adduced by the claimants and the admission of the
respondents during oral examination.
(12) It is admitted that the acquired lands are situated on the westrern
side of Tambaram. The Village in which the lands are located is
within 1 Kilometer from Tambaram Municipal limits. It is stated
that 200 feet Inner Ring Rod entering Koyambedu is also running
nearby the acquired lands. Several educational institutions, theme
park, Colleges are located surrounding the acquired lands.
Hospitals, Professional Colleges, Orphanage and Health Centre are
also located in the village adjoining the acquired lands. The village
is within the CMDA limits.
(13) In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the case of the
claimants that the acquired lands are part of approved layouts,
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
cannot be disregarded. Having regard to the deduction, the Lower
Court has rightly deducted 33 1/2% of the value shown in the
document towards development charges. It has been held in several
cases that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed
with reference to several factors like potentiality of the land,
nearness to the developed area, advantages and convenience, the
development that had taken place already in the nearby locality, the
market value shown in the sale exemplars which are in respect of
properties located in the same vicinity of the acquired land etc. In
the present cases, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed
compensation for certain lands at the rate of Rs.899/- per cent by
relying upon a Sale Deed without indicating the location of the
property covered by the data Sale Deed. The Sale exemplar taken
by the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 17.06.1998. Out of
around 1190 Sale Deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition
Officer, 1146 Sale Deeds are pertaining to house sites and were
discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
(14) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v.
Collector of Madras reported in 1968 (2) SCJ 869 : 1969(1) MLJ
45 : 1969(1) An.WR 45 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that where the Sale deeds pertain to different transaction are
relied upon by the Government, it would be fair to rely upon the
document which represents the highest value unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course. The relevant portion of
the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“It seems to us that there is substance in the first
contention of Mr.Ram Reddy. After all when land is
being compulsorily taken away from a person he is
entitled to say that he should be given the highest
value which similar land in the locality is shown to
have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into
between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near
about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that
the transaction represented by Ex. Rule 19 was a few
months prior to the notification under Section 4, that it
was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered
into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller.
The land comprised in the Sale Deed is 11 grounds
and was sold at Rs.1951 per ground. The land covered
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
by Rule 27 was also sold before the notification but
after the land comprised in Ex.Rule 19 was sold. It is
true that this land was sold at Rs.1096 per ground.
This, however, is apparently because of two
circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs.500
per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other
that the land comprised in it is very much more
extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever
that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where
sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are
relied on behalf of the Government, that representing
the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless
there are strong circumstances justifying a different
course. In any case we see no reason why an average
of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case.”
(15) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Thakarsibhai Devjibhai And Ors. Vs Executive Engineer,
Gujarat reported in AIR 2001 SC 2424 wherein, it the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the issue whether sales statistics can be
discarded based on the distance alone between the land covered
under the sales statistics and the acquired land, when there is
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
evidence available to indicate that the land acquired has the same
advantages compared to the land covered by the sales statistics. In
paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
“As we have said above the High Court fell
into error by reducing the quantum of
compensation on this basis. The reduction has
been made for two reasons, one that the present
acquisition is of larger area and the second the
distance between the land under acquisition and
Ex.16 is about 5 kms. With reference to question
of acquisition being of a larger area, the error
is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of
each land owner, It could not be said that the
acquisition is of a larger area. Largeness is
merely when each land holders land is clubbed
together then the area becomes large. Each
landownes holdings are of small area. Even
otherwise visioning in the line with submission
for the State we find Ex.16 is about two hectares
of land which cannot be said to be of small piece
of land. So far the other question of distance
between the two classes of lands, that by itself
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless
there are some such other materials to show that
quality and potentiality of such land is inferior.
However, distance between the land under
Ex.16 and the present land even if they are 5
kms. apart would not be relevant, the relevancy
could be, their distances from the Viramgam
town. We find, as per map produced by the State
the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away
from it, while the land under Ex.16 is about two
kilometers away from it. This difference is not
such to lead to reduce the rate of compensation,
specially on the facts of this case. In the present
case, as we have recorded above, it has been
found that the quality including potentiality of
land between Exh.16 and the present one are
similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of
the State to find difference between the two. In
view of this, the interference drawn by the High
Court for reducing the compensation by Rs.10/-
per sq.mtr. cannot be sustained.''
(16) As regards AS.Nos.333, 335, 336, 343 and 346/2021, these
appeals are covered by G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 19.04.2000 and the
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of
R.600/- per cent based on the Sale Deed dated 17.06.1998. This
cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
Court should accept the highest market value reflected in the data
Sale Deed unless there are strong circumstances which would
indicate that the market value of the acquired land cannot be
decided on the basis of such sale exemplars which are two years
prior to 4[1] Notification. Having regard to the fact that the lands
are located in a developed area surrounded by several educational
institutions, Government Offices and other convenience, the Court
has to necessarily consider the sale exemplars which are in respect
of the lands having similar features.
(17) The Reference Court in these cases, relied upon two documents
which are marked as Exs.C1 and C2. As per Ex.C1, the market
value of the acquired land is Rs.28,752/-. After deducting 33 1/2%
towards development charges, the market value was fixed at the
rate of Rs.19,120/-. Having regard to the location, convenience and
other features, this Court is unable to fix the market value less than
the one fixed by the Reference Court. The lands were acquired for
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
formation of Outer Ring Road Project by the Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority. The entire lands acquired are to be utilised
for that purpose. Therefore, even the deduction of 33 1/2% is on
the higher side. The Notification under Section 4[1] of the Land
Acquisition Act, was issued way back in the year 2001. The land
owners appears to be holding small extent of 1 or 2 grounds as they
had purchased the property as house sites. In such circumstances,
the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by treating
the lands as agricultural wet lands cannot be sustained. The
Reference Court has properly considered the materials available on
record and fixed the just compensation. Hence, all the Appeal Suits
are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
(18) In the result, all the Appeal Suits are dismissed confirming the
judgment and decree passed in LAOP.Nos.22/2015, 1232/2008,
1228/2008, 71/2009, 1229/2008, 1237/2008, 1231/2008 and
20/2015 dated 01.09.2018 by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Kancheepuram. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(19) Though Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel has filed Vakalat only in
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
respect of the claimants in AS.Nos.335 to 338, 341 and 343/2021,
he rendered valuable assistance to this Court in deciding these
appeals.
(20) Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant in all the appeals, is entitled to receive
separate fee for each of the Appeal Suits.
07.01.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Kancheepuram.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338, 341, 343 & 346/2021
AS.Nos.333, 335 to 338,
341, 343 & 346/2021
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17
