R.Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu
2023 Latest Caselaw 9979 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9979 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 August, 2023

Madras High Court

R.Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2023

                                                                                  W.P.No.7989 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 09.08.2023

                                        CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                                W.P.No.7989 of 2020



                     R.Subramanian                                      ... Petitioner


                                                          Vs

                     1.State of Tamil Nadu
                       Rep by its Secretary to Government
                       Housing and Urban Development Department
                       Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

                     2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board
                       Rep by its Managing Director
                       Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

                     3.The Executive Engineer & Administration Officer
                       Coimbatore Housing Unit
                       Tamil Nadu Housing Board
                       Tatabad, Coimbatore - 641 012.                 .... Respondents



                     Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to calculate
                     the difference in land cost on the basis of judgment dated 11.10.2017 made
                     in A.S.No.168 of 2004 and execute the sale deed by considering the
                     petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2018, within a time frame.


                    1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      W.P.No.7989 of 2020



                                    For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Anandhamurthy
                                                           for Mr.S.Kousik

                                    For Respondents      : Mr.V.Manoharan
                                                           Additional Government Pleader for R1

                                                          Mr.D.Veerasekaran for R2 & R3


                                                         ORDER

The petitioner is an allottee of a HIG tenement by the Tamil Nadu Housing

Board (TNHB) in Coimbatore. At the time of allotment, TNHB had quoted

a tentative price, which the petitioner has paid. This Court is informed that

the acquisition of lands by TNHB was allocated under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and later it became the subject matter in

A.S.No.168 of 2004, and few cross-objections filed in that. On 11.10.2017,

this Court had fixed the cost of land at Rs.6,000/- per cent, based on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.9688 to 9693 of 2014,

which batch also arose from the same land acquisition. It is in this context,

paragraph No.11 of the said judgment of this Court in A.S.No.168/2009 is

relevant, and it is reproduced :

"11. According to the appellant / Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7989 of 2020

compensation without any valid reason from Rs.80/- per cent to Rs.5,000/- per cent. According to the respondents / landowners, the Reference Court ought to have awarded costs in favour of the claimants as their land have been acquired by exercising the power of "Eminent Domain" pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 23.03.1983 and the claimant had to litigate for determination of compensation payable for the lands acquired for over 20 years suffering not only mental agony but also compelled to meet the litigation expenses including the legal practitioners fee and other incidental expenses. However, in the present case, though the Reference Court had held that the market value would come to Rs.17,790/- and after deducting 40% towards development charges, it would come to Rs.10,674/- and after deducting half of the amount, to give some relief to the allottees since representation has been made by the Housing Bank to fix the nominal value of the land, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Though the appellant and cross-objectors contending their arguments forcibly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the respondents / cross objectors also would be entitled to Rs.6,000/- per cent, since the similarly placed landowners, have been granted Rs.6,000/- per cent for the very same acquisition viz., for construction of Housing Unit by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7989 of 2020

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that since TNHB has not provided it

with final costs to be paid, he has now come before this Court, seeking a

direction to that effect.

3. Heard Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the

first respondent and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for

TNHB.

4. The learned counsel for TNHB submitted that he needs to ascertain if any

further appeal is preferred against the decree in A.S.No.168 of 2004.

5. This Court wonders how at all TNHB can go in an appeal when the

Supreme Court has taken a final view on the costs of lands in the same

acquisition.