Madras High Court
N.Rajendran vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 January, 2022
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.01.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Appeal Suit No.202 of 2019
1. N.Rajendran, S/o Narayanaswamy Reddiar
2. R.Prathap, S/o N.Rajendran
Vaidegi (died), W/o Rajasekar
3. Kavitha, D/o Rajasekar .. Appellants
Vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Maduranthakam. .. Respondent
Appeal Suit (First Appeal) filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the
judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2018 made in L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2011 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam.
For appellants : Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan
For respondent: Mr.S.Ravichandran, Addl.G.P. (A.S)
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.Raja, J)
This appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2018
made in L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Madurantakam.
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
2. On the earlier occasion, we had passed a detailed order on 20.12.2021
and for convenience and better appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder:
"A Status Report has been filed today by Mr.G.Sugumar,
Deputy Tahsildar, Cheyyur Taluk, Madurantakam Division,
Chengalpattu District, taking a stand that earlier Notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') dated 12.08.1992 was not withdrawn.
After the above Notification issued by the Government, since
there was no change in the revenue records in respect of the land
in question, the same were in the name of the appellants.
Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit-3,
Mamallapuram to Puducherry Road Scheme, Chengalpattu had
issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 3(a) of the
National Highways Act for the Survey No.637/2A2 of Mugaiyur
Village in the year 2018, but, later on, it was fund that the above
Survey number had already been acquired. Therefore, on
realising the fact that the original 4(1) Notification dated
12.08.1992 was not withdrawn, Section 3(a) of the National
Highways Act was given up and the respondent proceeded with
the earlier Notification dated 12.08.1992.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent submitted that when the Award was passed on
14.09.1995 fixing Rs.250/- per cent, after the judgment passed in
Writ Appeal No.2890 of 2003 dated 17.08.2006, the respondent
deposited the award amount before the Sub Court,
Madurantagam on 28.04.2008, ignoring Section 3(a) of the
National Highways Act. Now, the land is required for broadening
the highways. Therefore, the matter may be taken up for
disposal, on merits and in accordance with law.
3. Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that the appellants, being the poor
agriculturists, made to lose a prime land, having an extent of 36
cents covered in S.No.637/2A situated at Mugaiyur Village,
Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram, in view of the Notification issued
under Section 4(1) on 12.08.1992 followed by Section 6
declaration. When the respondent had deposited the Award
amount at the rate of Rs.250/- per cent, the Tahsildar prevented
the appellants from touching both the land and also the
compensation on the ground that 4(1) Notification dated
12.08.1992 was going to be withdrawn.
4. In this regard, it is useful to refer Section 11(A) of the
Act, which is given as under:
"11-A. Period within which an Award shall be made:
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
The Collector shall make an Award under Section 11
within a period of two years from the date of the
publication of the declaration and if no Award is made
within that period, the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said
declaration has been published before the
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1984, the Award shall be made within a period of
two years from such commencement."
5. A perusal of the above provision, shows that if an
Award is not passed by the Collector within two years from the
date of publishing the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the
entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
When it is an admitted case of the respondent that they have not
permitted the land owners to receive the land till 28.04.2008, on
which date, they have deposited the money allowing the
appellants to receive the same, it goes without saying that the
entire land acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed for the
reason that when 4(1) notification was issued on 12.08.1992,
although Award was passed on 14.09.1995, the respondent did
not allow the appellants to receive the money and they
themselves admitted that they have deposited the money only on
28.04.2008 at the rate of Rs.250/- per cent. Therefore, we are of
the view that the stand taken by the appellants that there was a
confusion created by the respondent, could be seen from the
Status Report filed today (20.12.2021), wherein, we are able to
see that the respondent was under the impression that the earlier
Notification issued on 12.08.1992 was withdrawn, which was not
correct. As a result, the appellants land owners were not paid
with the compensation and this could also be seen that the
respondent deposited the amount only on 28.04.2008, which is
about 16 years from the date of 4(1) Notification. However, the
Trial Court, in paragraph 3, considering Ex.C1 - Certified copy of
the Sale Deed dated 01.02.1987 executed in favour of one
Dhakkammal, Ex.C2 - Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
06.12.1993, Ex.C3 - Certified coy of the Sale Deed dated
05.02.1990, Ex.C4 - relating to sale of the property in
S.No.636/3 with extent of 20 cents and Ex.C5 - Certified copy of
the objection letter given by the first claimant to the RDO with
regard to the valuation of the property under acquisition, has
enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent
with 30% solatium along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum on solatium from the date of taking possession i.e.
16.09.1992. Since the Trial Court has enhanced the
compensation on the basis of the market value existed in the year
Page No.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
1992 and the respondent deposited the amount only o
28.04.2008, the respondent is hereby directed to get instructions
with regard to the market value prevailed in the year 2008.
6. Post the matter on 11.01.2022 for passing further
orders."
3. Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent, again went back to the old argument that the appellants are not
having locus-standi to bring up this appeal on the ground that they had sold
away the land in question to a third party. He further submitted that the market
value of the land in question prevailing in the year 2008, can be produced either
before this Court or before the lower Court, if the matter is remanded. On a
perusal of the same, a final call can be taken in the matter for determining the
solatium, interest, costs, etc., and the total compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants also, in reply, submitted that the
appellants are senior citizens and the first appellant is aged about 80 years and
the appellants have been fighting out the case for several decades, namely for
the past 30 long years. Inspite of the fact that the land belonging to the first
appellant, has been acquired by the respondent for laying an extension road
from Chennai-Cuddalore by way of four way lane, till date, the respondent has
not come up with the compensation.
Page No.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
5. When the respondent has issued the Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act on 12.08.1992, followed by the Declaration under
Section 6 on 09.09.1993 and thereafter, an Award was also passed by the District
Collector on 14.09.1995 fixing Rs.250/- per cent as compensation and thereafter,
the respondent also had deposited the Award amount before the Sub-Court,
Madurantakam on 28.04.2008 after the judgment was rendered in Writ Appeal
No.2890 of 2003, dated 17.08.2006. These points have already been discussed
by us in the earlier order dated 20.12.2021 as extracted supra.
6. Now, the admitted legal position shows that after the Award was
passed on 14.09.1995, fixing Rs.250/- per cent as compensation, even that
money was not permitted to be withdrawn by the land owner till 2008 on raising
a doubt that the land acquisition proceedings have been withdrawn in respect of
the land belonging to the appellants. This being the admitted position of both
parties, the learned counsel for the appellants mounted pressure on us to either
fix the market value of the land as on date or to quash the entire land
acquisition proceedings themselves on the premise that no compensation has
been paid to the land owner till 28.04.2008, that is, for a long period of 16 long
years from the date of Section 4(1) Notification dated 12.08.1992.
Page No.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
7. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent, justifying the land acquisition proceedings, submitted that the land
in question had been acquired for expansion of Chennai-Cuddalore four lane
Highway for public purpose and the road/lane has also been laid.
8. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent also submitted that the appellants are not having locus-standi to
come to this Court, since they had sold away the land in question and if the
amount of compensation is fixed in their favour, the subsequent purchaser may
also create some problem and may make further claim. This argument does not
carry any merit, the reason being that when once the respondent pays the
compensation to the land owner in respect of the land in question covered in the
relevant survey number, the question of repayment to the subsequent purchaser
will not arise. No such argument can be entertained by the Court also.
9. Therefore, balancing the arguments advanced by both parties, we
directed by order dated 20.12.221 that the compensation for the land acquired,
shall be fixed on the basis of the market value prevailing in the year 2008.
Again, admittedly, both parties sought permission of the Court to adduce
evidence before the L.A.O.P. Court to establish their respective case, after
remanding the matter to the Court below.
Page No.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
10. Immediately, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
when the first appellant is aged about 80 years, under one pretext or the other,
the respondent has been protracting the matter and even when the appeal is
filed before this Court, the appellants have paid Rs.1,51,620/- as Court Fee, and
therefore, the same amount should be paid as costs to the appellants by the
respondent, with a further direction to the Court below to dispose of the matter
on merits and in accordance with law, within three months.
11. We also find some merits in the above argument of the appellants.
When the appellants have come before this Court aggrieved by the lesser
compensation fixed by the LAOP Court, without adverting to the market rate
prevailing in the year 2008 in respect of the land in question, inasmuch as, after
the Award was passed on 14.09.1995 fixing Rs.250/- per cent as compensation,
admittedly, the appellants were not permitted to withdraw the money on the
premise that the land acquisition proceedings were withdrawn, but
subsequently, on verification, it was found that the land acquisition proceedings
were not withdrawn, and therefore, the payment of compensation on the land
acquired, was unreasonably delayed only on account of the ignorance of the
appellants/land owners.
Page No.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
12. Therefore, we direct the respondent to pay the said sum of
Rs.1,51,620/- (Rupees one lakh fifty one thousand six hundred and twenty only)
(paid as Court fee by the appellants while filing this appeal) within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
13. We have gone through the records to find out as to whether the
amount of compensation has been justly fixed or not, but no where the Court
below had taken care to fix the compensation on the basis of the prevailing
market value in the year 2008. Therefore, we are constrained to remand the
matter.
14. As the parties claimed that they have sufficient evidence to produce
before the LAOP Court with regard to the market value prevailing in the year
2008 in respect of the land in question, we remand the matter back to the LAOP
Court (Sub-Court, Madurantakam), giving liberty to both parties to adduce
evidence in respect of the market value of the land in question prevailing in the
year 2008.
15. We further direct the LAOP Court to dispose of the matter on merits
Page No.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, keeping in mind that the first appellant is
now aged about 80 years and that he should be allowed to see the light of the
result of the case.
16. It is needless to mention that the LAOP Court is directed to fix the
amount of compensation at the market value prevailing in the year 2008 and
thereupon, solatium, interest, costs, etc., shall be fixed accordingly.
17. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is allowed and
remanded. No costs.
(T.R.J) (D.B.C.J)
11.01.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
cs
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
Page No.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 11.01.2022
in A.S.No.202 of 2019
T. RAJA, J
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
cs
A.S.No.202 of 2019
11.01.2022
Page No.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
