Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Thambiran Padaiyachi on 9 March, 2022
A.S.No.692 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 09.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
A.S.No.692 of 2019
The Land Acquisition Officer
and Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankari ... Appellant
v.
1. Thambiran Padaiyachi
2. Muthu Padaiyachi
3. Tmt. Angayee
4. Tmt. A. Chandra
5. Tmt. Karumbayammal
6. Thaili @ Sukkupathi
7. Muthammal
8. Kannammal
9. Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital
Chennai.
... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside
the decree passed in LAOP No.7 of 1991, dated 07.10.2005 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Sankari
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Notice served – R1 & R2
Mr. N. Manoharan – R3 & R4
Mr. P. Jagadeesan – R5 to R8
Ms. S.Jayakumari - R9
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the award passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankari in
LAOP No.7 of 1991, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above
appeal.
2.1 An extent of land measuring 1.75 acres situated in Sankari
Village, Salem District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of
constructing E.S.I. Dispensary and staff quarters and E.S.I. Local Office
with Staff Quarters.
2.2 Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
was issued on 19.07.1985. After conducting enquiry under section 5A,
the Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award fixing the value of the
land at Rs.1,05,512.75. Challenging the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the claimants raised objections and sought for
enhancing the compensation. The mater was referred to the Reference
Court, viz., Subordinate Court, Sankari, under section 18(1) of the Act.
2.3 Before the Reference Court, on the side of the claimants, 3
witnesses were examined and 9 documents Exs.C-1 to C-9 were marked
and on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined
and 4 documents Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. Reference Court, by its
Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2005, enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 61,04,000/- together with solatium, interest etc.
2.4 The Reference Court, while coming to the conclusion that the
value of the land on the date of acquisition was Rs.80/- per sq.ft., took
into consideration the sale deeds marked as C-1 to C-3.
2.5 The Land Acquisition Officer, while fixing the value of the
land at Rs.1,05,512.75/- took into consideration the sale deed dated
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
13.06.1985, marked as Ex.R4 before the Reference Court. On a perusal
of Ex.R4, it could be seen that an extent of 55 cents was sold for a sum
of Rs.20,000/- by a sale deed dated 13.06.1985 in Survey No.132/3A.
3. It is not in dispute that the land in Survey No.132/3A is about
2 kms. away from the land sought to be acquired under section 4(1)
notification dated 19.07.1985. The claimants documents, marked as
Exs.C-1 to C-3 would establish that the value of the land would be more
than Rs.80/- per sq.ft. It is also pertinent to note that the land sold
under Exs.C-1 to C-3 situate within a distance of 100 meters from the
land sought to be acquired.
4. Taking into consideration the sale deed produced by the
claimants, the Reference Court, fixed the value of the land at Rs.80/- per
sq.ft., totaling Rs. 61,04,000/- for the extent of 1.75 acres in Survey Nos.
2241/2B2 and 241/2B3.
5. The appellant has not produced any contra evidence to establish
that the value of the land would be less than Rs.80/- per sq.ft.
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
6. The Reference Court, taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidences let in by both sides,fixd the value at Rs.80/- per
sq.ft. i.e. Rs. 61,04,000/- for the entire extent of 1.75 acres. Challenging
the award passed by the Reference Court, the State has filed the above
appeal.
7. Since the Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale
deeds produced by the claimants which were prior to the date of 4(1)
notification and that the lands which were sold under Exs.C-1 to C-3
are within the distance of 100 meters of the land sought to be acquired,
has rightly fixed the value a Rs.80/- per sq.ft. That apart, the Land Land
Acquisition Officer was not able to establish that the value of the land
would be less than Rs.80/- per sq.ft.
8. Since the claimants have established the value of the land
would be Rs.80/- per sq.ft. on the date of issuance of section 4(1)
notification by adducing oral and documentary evidences, we do not find
any error in the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. In
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
such view of the matter, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
09.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Rj
To
1. Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital
Chennai.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Sankari
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.692 of 2019
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
A.S.No.692 of 2019
09.03.2022
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
