Madras High Court
S.Ravi @ Ravichandran vs The Union Of India on 17 October, 2022
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
S.Ravi @ Ravichandran ...Appellant
in A.S.No.954 of 2015
S.Manikavasagam ...Appellant
in A.S.No.955 of 2015
S.Selvam @ Selvaraj ...Appellant
in A.S.No.956 of 2015
1.S.Srinivasan
2.S.Venkadesh @ Venkadesan ...Appellants
in A.S.No.957 of 2015
-Vs-
1.The Union of India
represented by the Secretary,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2.The Deputy-Collector (Revenue)-
cum- Land Acquisition Officer,
Karaikal. ... Respondents
in all appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
Prayer in A.S.No.954 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.16 of
2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal.
Prayer in A.S.No.955 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.17 of
2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal.
Prayer in A.S.No.956 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.18 of
2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal.
Prayer in A.S.No.957 of 2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act against the Award dated 16.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.21 of
2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Narayanan
(in all appeals)
For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran
(in all appeals) Additional Government Pleader
Puducherry
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
All these appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees of the learned
District Judge, Karaikal in L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 21 of 2012 dated
16.10.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
2. Since all these appeals arise out of the Awards passed pursuant to a
Notification issued under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated
17.09.2007, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. It is
admitted that the date of publication of 4[1] Notification was on 15.02.2008.
3. An extent of 3.88.0 Hectares in Thennankudi Revenue Village of
Karaikal District belonging to various land owners was acquired for expansion of
Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Madura Village. An Award was passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 22.07.2011 and a Revised Award dated 05.09.2011 was
also stated to be passed in respect of the acquired lands.
4. As per the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per Are for the land acquired from the
claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 21 of 2012. Aggrieved by the quantum,
the land owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and the Reference Court, namely, the District Court at Karaikal,
entertained several Land Acquisition Original Petitions (L.A.O.Ps). Though the
Reference Court disposed of all the L.A.O.Ps by individual orders, the orders in
all the L.A.O.Ps' revealed that they are similar in nature. In all the cases, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/12
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.5,979/- per Are. Aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the Reference Court in the above Land Acquisition
Original Petitions, viz., L.A.O.P.Nos.16, 17, 18 & 21 of 2012, the above Appeal
Suits have been preferred by the land owners.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
acquisition proceedings though initiated under the Central Act, 1984, the
claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) in view of the fact that substantial
compensation was not paid before 01.01.2014. The learned counsel further
submitted that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by
passing the Award was not accepted by the claimants and therefore, the
proceedings which was initiated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 should not be treated as pending without payment of compensation and the
pendency of the reference cannot be cited to deny the benefit of new Act.
Therefore, it is submitted that the appellants are entitled to get compensation in
the manner contemplated under the Act 30 of 2013. Further the learned counsel
submitted that the sale exemplar reflecting highest market value should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/12
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
referred and that the Reference Court ought to have calculated the compensation
on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the claimants under Exs.C2 to C5
which reflect the sale price offered for nearby lands but instead relied on sale
data marked as Ex.R4.
6. With regard to the question of whether the Appellants can claim for
a higher compensation under Act 30 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
already settled the law with reference to legal principles of expanding the
application of Section 24 (2) to lapsed land acquisition proceedings. For
reference, Section 24(2) of the Act is extracted below:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–
...
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),
where an award under the said section 11 has been made
five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act
but the physical possession of the land has not been taken
or the compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
with the provisions of this Act”.
7. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
Ors. reported in [(2020) 8 SCC 129], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
below:
".........
363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue
as provided Under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013
under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings Under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to
inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other
words, in case possession has been taken, compensation
has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation
in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in
proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited
with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for
land acquisition Under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall
be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation Under
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not
been fulfilled, interest Under Section 34 of the said Act can
be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does
not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In
case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings
for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013
has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of
notification for land acquisition Under Section 4 of the Act
of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided Under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed
Under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit
of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is
complete by tendering the amount Under Section 31(1).
Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or
who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot
claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed Under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be
treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section
24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and
as contemplated Under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed
on taking possession Under Section 16 of the Act of 1894,
the land vests in State there is no divesting provided Under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
been taken there is no lapse Under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013
came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition
pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The
period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has
to be excluded in the computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new
cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act
of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-
barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings
nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of
taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of
deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.
..."
(Emphasis added)
In light of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear
that the petitioner, who has sought for higher compensation, cannot claim
compensation in the manner prescribed under Act 30 of 2013.
8. In the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur,
Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC)
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
“... 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.”
9. In the present case, the appellants have filed documents Exs.C1 to
C5. The learned counsel submitted that Ex.C1 is a document in respect of a land
and building, and the price offered by the purchaser is @ Rs.35,820/- per Are.
This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants. The document Ex.C1 does not reveal the value of land and
building separately. From the document it is also seen that the seller has quoted
the price for the building rather than the land that was conveyed under the sale. It
is admitted before this Court that documents under Exs.C2 to C5 are all in
respect of small plots of wet lands without reference to much development which
show the market value ranging from Rs.15,037/- to Rs.15,180/- per Are.
However, the Lower Court found that the Sale Deeds were executed by showing
the lands as Plots and not as wet lands and therefore discarded them. Since the
acquisition is for the purpose of agricultural research, this Court is of the view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
that the entire land is going to be used for research purpose and there need not be
substantial deduction. Since the comparable plots sold under documents Exs.C2
to C5 are sold as developed plots, some deductions towards development of the
acquired land in this suit is inevitable. This Court is of the view that 30%
deduction will be appropriate. It is seen that the acquired lands are within 3 Kms
from Thirunallar Saneeswar Bahawan Temple and other lands had been acquired
for establishment of ring road, rest for pilgrims etc., The Land Acquisition
Officer has admitted that several industries are around the acquired lands and this
Court has no hesitation to rely upon Exs.C2 to C5 which reflect the market value
for the lands as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4[1] of
the Land Acquisition Act.
10. The Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.5,979/- per
Are. Based on Exs.C2 to C4, the market value should be Rs.15,180/- per Are
less the appropriate deduction. Apart from the market value, the claimants are
further entitled to 30% solatium on this market value and 12% additional
compensation and interests as per the Land Acquisition Act.
11. In the result, the market value for the acquired land is fixed at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
Rs.15,180/- per Are less 30% deduction. Deducting 30% towards development,
the market value for the acquired lands will be Rs.10,626/- per Are. The
appellants are entitled to 30% solatium on the market value and 12% additional
compensation as per Section 23 [1A] of the Act. The appellants are also entitled
to statutory interest at 9% for 1 year from the date of possession and at 15% till
payment for the enhanced portion of the compensation amount as per Section 28
of the Act.
12. Therefore, the Appeal Suits are partly allowed as indicated above.
No costs.
[SSSRJ] [NMJ]
17.10.2022
cda
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
N.MALA, J.,
cda
To
1.The District Judge, Karaikal.
2.The Secretary,
The Union of India,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Secretariat,
Puducherry.
3.The Deputy-Collector (Revenue)-
cum- Land Acquisition Officer,
Karaikal.
4.The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
A.S.Nos.954, 955, 956 & 957 of 2015
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
