Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (Land ... vs R.Gunasekaran on 16 June, 2022
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
and
Cross Objection No.49 of 2018
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021:
1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Radial Road Scheme,
Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer
and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District .. Petitioners
Versus
1.R.Gunasekaran
2.G.Walter Solomon .. Respondents
Cross Objection No.49 of 2018:
1.R.Gunasekaran
2.G.Walter Solomon ..Cross Objectors
Versus
1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Radial Road Scheme,
Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District.
Page 1 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
2.The Land Acquisition Officer
and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District ..Respondents
Prayer in C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.49 of 2016 dated
28.02.2017 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Chengalpattu.
Prayer in Cross Objection No.49 of 2018: Cross Objection filed under
Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and
judgment dated 28.02.2017 rendered in LAOP.No.49 of 2016, on the file of
Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, insofar it relates to
enhancement of compensation in A.S.No.312 of 2018.
For C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021:
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Chandrasekar
Special Government Pleader (AS Cases)
For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
For Cross Objection No.49 of 2018:
For Cross Objectors : Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekar
Special Government Pleader (AS Cases)
Page 2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
ORDER
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Radial Road Scheme,
Tambaram has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition questioning
the validity and correctness of the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in
LAOP.No.49 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court,
Chengalpattu. On notice, the respondents in C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021 have
filed the Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 praying to enhance the
compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 in
LAOP.No.49 of 2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the Civil Revision
Petition and Cross Objection shall be referred to as claimants and
respondents, as arrayed in LAOP.No.49 of 2016.
3. The claimants are the owners of the land comprised in Survey
No.44/4A1B in Alanthur Village, Chengelpet Taluk measuring an extent of
59 cents together with Borewell, Submersible Motor, Motor Room, Trees,
Shed and EB connection. According to the claimants, they purchased the
Page 3 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
aforesaid land by way of a sale deed dated 31.07.2006. While so, the
Government intended to acquire this land for the purpose of implementation
of a scheme called IT Express Highways Scheme, Tambaram and Radial
Road Scheme, Tambaram, inter alia to widen the road of Mahabalipuram.
For this purpose, the Government issued a notification dated 13.10.2008
and called upon the claimants to surrender lands in their possession. The
claimants objected to the proposed acquisition by stating that it is the only
property owned by them. The market value of the property facing IT
Express Way is more than Rs.3,50,000/- per cent. Therefore, if at all the
lands are to be acquired, the prevailing market value has to be considered.
However, considering the representation made by the claimants, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award, awarding a sum of Rs.1,216/- per
sq.meter.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants sought for a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, a reference was made
and it was taken on file as LAOP.No.49 of 2016. Before the reference
Court, the 2nd claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were
marked. On behalf of the respondent, Land Acquisition Officer-Wilford
Page 4 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
Kitchingh examined himself as R.W.1 and the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer was marked as Ex.R1.
5. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimants it was
contended that the lands acquired from them is situated in a bustling
locality surrounded by many commercial buildings. It is specifically stated
that there are many IT companies, commercial complex, schools and
colleges in and around the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer,
without taking note of the documents produced on behalf of the claimants,
has passed an award fixing the compensation at a meagre amount of
Rs.1,216/- per sq.meter. According to the claimants, such an amount
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is nothing but a pittance. The
Land Acquisition Officer failed to take note of the developments made in
the lands and the locational advantage of the acquired land that it was
surrounded by the commercially exploited nature of the buildings, while
determining the compensation. Therefore, it was vehemently contended
before the reference Court that the amount of compensation fixed by the
Land Acquisition Officer is very low. The reference Court, taking note of
the oral and documentary evidence submitted, came to the conclusion that
Page 5 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
the acquired land is abetting the main road. As per Exs.C2 and C3-sale
deeds the market value of the acquired land was Rs.3,00,000/- per cent.
While so, the reference Court concluded that atleast a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-
per cent ought to have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The
reference Court also considered Exs.C5, C6 and C7 to conclude that the
acquired land has been commercially exploited and is categorized as a
commercial zone. Taking note of the locational advantages and other
accessibility to the commercial establishments, the reference Court fixed a
sum of Rs.7,405 per sq.meter with 30% solatium alone with interest at the
rate of 12% on solatium. Feeling aggrieved, the present Civil Revision
Petition has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Civil Revision Petitioner would vehemently contend that a sum of
Rs.7,405/- per sq.meter fixed by the reference Court is onerous, excessive
and against all canons of law. According to the learned Special Government
Pleader, there is no justification on the part of the reference Court to
enhance the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The
reference Court erroneously relied upon Ex.C3-sale deed which does not
Page 6 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
relates to the subject matter of the property. But it covers the land in
Paiyanur Village. Therefore, the reliance placed by the reference Court
towards Ex.C3 is erroneous. The Land Acquisition Officer had collected
several sale transactions particularly, 184 transactions and zeroed in on
Serial No.36 there of to arrive at a sum of Rs.1,216/- per sq.meter. Further,
it was contended that the reference Court failed to give any deduction
towards development charges, but fixed a sum of Rs.7,405/- per sq.meter
which is palpably higher and disproportionate to the nature and extent of
the acquired land. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore,
prayed for reduction of compensation amount fixed by the reference Court
by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would
contend that even the sum of Rs.7,405/- fixed by the reference Court itself
is very low and in fact the reference Court ought to have fixed atleast a sum
of Rs.8,640/- per sq.meter. The reference Court did not take note of the fact
that subsequent to the acquisition of the lands, the remaining portion of the
land of the claimants was reduced into a triangular shape and it could not be
put to any use. For this purpose, appropriate compensation ought to have
Page 7 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
been awarded by the reference Court, but it fails to do so. Even as observed
by the reference Court atleast a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- ought to have been
fixed per cent, but having so observed the reference Court did not fix
enhanced compensation without taking note of the nature, classification and
locational advantages the acquired lands posses. Further, there is no
development charges warranted in as much as the lands acquired are fully
developed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend
that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is very
meagre and it is to be enhanced.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. The issue involved in this case is no longer res-integra
inasmuch as in connection with the very same issue, this Court has passed
an order dated 04.08.2021 in C.R.P.(NPD)No.654 of 2021. The relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:
“14. On considering the rival submissions made and
the documents relied on by the counsels on either side, this
Court proceeds to determine as to whether the compensation
enhanced by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Page 8 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
Chengalpattu in LAOP.No.51 of 2016 is excessive or
insufficient. The acquisition relates to the present revision
petition is for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express
Highway i.e. to widen the existing Old Mahabalipuram
Road into Six Lane. After the I.T. Companies came into
existence in the Old Mahabalipuram Road at Chennai, no
doubt, the value of the lands in and around the OMR has
increased manifold.
15. On perusal of the common award dated
15.07.2013 passed in Award No.9 of 2013 for arriving or
fixing the compensation at Rs.113/- per square feet or
Rs.1,216/- per square meter, it is seen that the authorities
have conducted a survey in the lands involved in the
acquisition and inspected the field sketch. As there was no
variation in the extent between the Public Notice under
Section 15(2) of the Highways Act and Draft Notice under
Section 15(1) of the Highways Act, notice under Section
16(2) was issued on 30.07.2010, which was prior to the
notification published in Part - II Section - 2 of the Extra
Ordinary Issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated
04.03.2005 by including the trees and other structures that
were present at the time of acquisition in the acquired lands.
For determining the amount as compensation, statistics were
gathered from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008 i.e. 3 years prior to
Page 9 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
the date of publication of 15(2) notification, from the Sub
Registrar Office, Thiruporur. There are 184 sales have been
taken place during the said period in Alathur Village. Out of
which, the land in Serial No.36, an extent of 0.59 cent
(25,724 sq.ft) in Survey Nos.44/4A, 44/4B, 44/4A1 (Wet
land) of Alathur Village, has been sold for Rs.29,00,000/-
vide Doc.No.6650 dated 31.07.2006, which was taken as a
data sale deed and worked out to Rs.113/- per square feet.
As far as the other sales are concerned, which were either
sold as house site or for lower amount, Land with building,
UDS, Combined sales. The authorities have concluded that
the sale in Serial.No.36 reflected the correct value of the
land and therefore it was taken as data land and the
compensation was fixed at Rs.113/- per square feet or
Rs.1,216/- per square meter for the lands under acquisition,
and they have rightly fixed the compensation to be paid for
the acquired lands to an extent of 40,186 square meters at
Rs.1,216/- per square meter or Rs.113/- per square feet.
16. It is further seen from the award that on reference
being made by the authorities, the claimant i.e. the
respective landowner has filed claimant-s side documents
before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu,
which are Exs.C1 and C2 Sale deeds dated 21.11.2007 and
24.11.2008. Ex.C1 Sale deed is with respect to the property
Page 10 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
in Survey No.237/3A1 to an extent of 51 cents and Ex.C2
Sale deed is with respect to the property in Paiyanur Village
which is adjacent to the Village in Survey No.222/10 to an
extent of 1.47 acres. Ex.C3 which is the document to show
that the claimant-s property abutting the main road of
Paiyanur Village was also marked before the Court below.
17. On evaluating the quantum of award passed by
the referring authority, it is observed that no reason has been
stated by the authority as to how the sale deed registered in
Serial No.36 among 184 sale deeds that were registered
between 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008 alone was taken as data
land for fixing the compensation. While entertaining the
petition, the authority has to give proper reason as to why
the particular sale deed was taken and recorded to be made
as a data land for fixing the compensation, but the award
passed by the Court below does not contain any such reason
for arriving or fixing the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per
square meter. Hence the order of the Court below certainly
needs interference of this Court.
18. On going through the Judgment and Decree
rendered by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu, this Court finds that Ex.C2 is the document to
Page 11 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
be considered as data land as far as the Additional
Subordinate Judge is concerned. The amount fixed by the
District Collector, Kanchipuram at Rs.1,216/- per square
meter for the acquired land is absolutely incorrect and
which is too low for the commercial zone that is situated in
the Old Mahabalipuram Road at Chennai. The first
respondent / landowner should be justly compensated for his
loss of land. The Learned Subordinate Judge, for enhancing
the compensation, has taken Ex.C2 which is the sale deed
dated 24.11.2008 with respect to the property in Paiyanur
Village which is adjacent to the land in question of
acquisition. The Ex.C2 pertains to the land to an extent of
1.47 acres and the land mentioned in Ex.C2 has been sold
for Rs.3,20,00,000/-. The Learned Subordinate Judge has
arrived at Rs.7,405/- per square meter as against Rs.1,216/-
fixed by the District Collector at Kanchipuram.
19. This Court is unable to accept the fixation of
compensation by the Learned Subordinate Judge for the
reason that as per Ex.C2, the land to an extent of 1.47 acres
(64033.20 sq.ft) in Paiyanur Village has been sold for
Rs.3,20,00,000/- viz., it has been valued at Rs.499/-
(3,20,00,000 / 64033.20) per square feet or Rs.5,370/- per
square meter. I afraid that how the Learned Subordinate
Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,405/- per
Page 12 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
square meter or Rs.688/- per square feet when considering
Ex.C2 or relying Ex.C2 for enhancing the compensation. If
Ex.C2 is considered as date sale deed, the above calculation
will come only to Rs.5,370/- per square meter or Rs.499/ per
square feet. There is no good reason stated by the Learned
Subordinate Judge while enhancing the compensation at
Rs.7,405/ per square meter when the data sale deed i.e.
Ex.C2 relied on by the Learned Sub Judge comes to only
Rs.5,370/ per square meter. In this regard, this Court is in
conformity with the Learned Subordinate Judge at
Chengalpattu for taking Ex.C2 Sale deed as data land for
fixing or enhancing the compensation. However, the amount
arrived at by relying on Ex.C2 as Rs.7,405/ per square meter
or Rs.688/ per square feet is incorrect.
20. This Court, only to this extent, is interfering with
the quantum of compensation enhanced by the Learned
Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu and the award passed by
the referring authority has to be interfered with as the award
is too low and there was no reason stated for relying the sale
in Serial No.36 out of 184 sales that have been taken place
during the period from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008. At the
same time, the Learned Subordinate Judge is also incorrect
from not taking the exact value from Ex.C2 for fixing or
enhancing the compensation.
Page 13 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the enhanced compensation by the Learned
Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu warrants interference
only with regard to the amount determined under Ex.C2 as
Rs.7,405/ per square meter instead of Rs.5,370/ per square
meter and in all other aspects the orders passed by the
Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu are confirmed
and which need no interference.
22. Accordingly, the compensation fixed by the
Learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu in
LAOP.No.51 of 2016 at the rate of Rs.7,405/ per square
meter is modified as Rs.5,370/ per square meter.
23. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.”
10. In the light of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed in terms of the order dated 04.08.2021 made in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.654 of 2021 and the Cross Objection filed by the Cross
Claimants/Objectors stand dismissed. No Costs.
16.06.2022
gbi
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Page 14 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
To
The Additional Sub-Judge,
Chengalpattu.
Page 15 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
S.KANNAMMAL, J.,
gbi
C.R.P.No.1518 of 2021
and
Cross Objection No.49 of 2018
16.06.2022
Page 16 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
