Madras High Court
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Radhakrishnan (Died) on 26 April, 2023
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5690 of 2023
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Radhakrishnan (Died)
2.R.Jamuna
3.R.Ram
4.R.Manoharan
5.R.Dhinakaran
respondents 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs.
of the deceased sole respondent vide Court order dated 26.04.2023
made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.5063, 5064 and 5066 of 2023 and 4811 of 2021
in A.S.(MD).SR.No.18978 of 2021.
... Respondents
PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 made in
L.A.O.P.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arupukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Sivaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal
(Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 2011, dated 20.10.2016,
the appeal has been filed.
2. An extent of 0.26.5 hectares of land in Survey No.287/3 and 0.17.5
hectares of land in Survey No.294/3 were acquired from the petitioner for the
purpose of formation of an irrigation tank in Periyapuliyampatti Village,
Arupukottai Taluk.
3. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 14.10.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award
on 08.10.2007, fixing the value at the rate of Rs.209/- per cent and Rs.51,690/-
per hectare. Not satisfied with the award amount determined by the Land
Acquisition Officer, a reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
The claimant claimed enhanced compensation mainly on the ground that the
acquired land is situated near Arupukotti – Virudhunagar State Highways.
Besides that, the area is already included within the Municipal limit 30 years
back and there are several developments took place including factories and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
house sites etc. Besides that, within 1 k.m., a Medical College Hospital and a
new bus stand have come up. Hence, he claimed enhanced compensation.
4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the side of the claimant,
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and on the side of
the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.
5. The Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai,
after considering the documentary evidence adduced on the side of the
claimant, enhanced the compensation from Rs.209/- to Rs.5,000/- per cent and
deducted 30% for developmental charges and ultimately fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
acquired land is situated within the vicinity of the area, which has already been
acquired in the year 2004, for the purpose of construction of fertiliser godown
and model land value has been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the
value. However, the Tribunal has given undue importance to the sale deeds and
fixed the compensation in excess. Hence, he prayed for allowing of this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that
the Land Acquisition Tribunal not only taken note of the admitted facts, but
also taken note of the developments made nearby places and in fact, R.W.1 in
his evidence also admitted that various developments took place in the acquired
land. Hence, the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal does not require
any interference.
8. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. In the light of the submissions made on either side, now the points for
consideration in this appeal are (i) whether the Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction in fixing the enhanced compensation? and (ii) whether the Tribunal
has fixed the enhanced compensation without any evidence on record?
10. It is not in dispute that an extent of 36.67 hectares of land was
acquired for the purpose of construction of an irrigation tank. The evidence
adduced before the reference Court clearly established that the acquired land is
situated very near to Virudhunagar - Arupukottai State Highways. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, which was admitted by R.W.1,
clearly indicates that there are several development taken place in the nearby
places, including factories and other commercial entities also come up. It is
also established before the Tribunal that the acquired land included within the
jurisdiction of the Municipality 30 years back. That apart, the Tribunal took
note of Exs.P1 to P6/sale deeds. On a perusal of the sale deeds, the Tribunal
found that even several transactions took place right from 2003 and 2004, prior
to 4(1) Notification. The evidence of P.W.2/Document Writer, who prepared the
documents has also spoken about the value of the property. According to him,
the documents have been registered on the guideline value fixed by the
Government. Therefore, the documents registered earlier even prior to the
acquisition show that the guideline value of the property is much more. The
Land Acquisition Tribunal considering the above documents, enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent and deducted 30% for
developmental charges and ultimately fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.
3,500/- .
11. A perusal of the entire evidence particularly the admission made by
R.W.1 reveals that there are various developmental activities took place nearby
places. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation without even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
collecting any documents for three years which is not in accordance with law.
Further, the model land which relied upon by the Acquisition Officer is also
situated at a distance of 4 k.ms. from the acquired land, which is also
established on record.
12. In such a view of the mater, the Tribunal fixing the compensation
based on the documentary evidence and also developments took place even
prior to Section 4(1) Notification which cannot be said to be abnormal and
excessive. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in these appeals.
13. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed and the award passed by
the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai in
L.A.O.P.No.37 of 2011, dated 20.10.2016 is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.04.2023
akv
To
The Land Acquisition Tribunal
(Subordinate Court),
Aruppukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
A.S.(MD).No.93 of 2023
26.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
