The Special Tahsildar (La) Unit – ... vs J.Jayaraman
2023 Latest Caselaw 8017 Mad

                                                                                 A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                DATED : 11.07.2023
                                                         CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                           AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
                                      A.S.Nos.423 to 425 and 429 to 434 of 2021

            A.S.No.423 of 2021

            The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit – IV,
            Outer Ring Road Project,
            CMDA, Koyambedu,
            Chennai – 107.                                                      .. Appellant

                                                         Versus
            1.J.Jayaraman

            2.The Member Secretar,
              CMDA, Egmore,
              Chennai – 8.                                                      .. Respondents

Prayer in A.S.No.423 of 2021: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

                      For Appellant in all the appeals        : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Spl.GP. (AS)
                      For CMDA in all the appeals             : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
                                                              Assisted by Ms.Veena Suresh
                      For R1 in AS.Nos.423, 429,430,
                      and 431 of 2021                         : Mr.R.Amizhdhu
                                                              for Mr.V.Premkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                                                                                 A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.


                      and 434 of 2021                         : Mr.V.Stalin for M/s.Row & Reddy

                                                  COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The State, aggrieved by the awards made in references under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is on appeal.

2. The lands in question were acquired by the Government for the purpose of

formation of Outer Ring Road (ORR). A notification under Section 4(1) was issued

on 30.03.2007. An award came to be passed granting a sum of Rs.32/- per sq.ft. on

21.05.2010 in Award No.8/2010. The said award was challenged in W.P.Nos.10987

of 2015 etc. (batch), which came to be dismissed on 24.11.2015. The said dismissal

was challenged in various writ appeals in W.A.Nos.36 to 42 and 249 of 2016. The

said writ appeals came to be disposed of on 27.04.2017 by the Division Bench of this

Court and finally, on 12.06.2017, a Division Bench of this Court gave the following

directions in respect of the fixation of compensation:-

“11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and taking a humanitarian approach, keeping in mind the predicament to which the appellants have been put in their advanced age, while this Court is not inclined to touch upon the merits of the issue, the matter being resintegra, however, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

under the writ jurisdiction, is inclined to issue the following directions:-

i) The appellants are hereby permitted to withdraw the amounts that have been deposited to their credit insofar as acquisition relating to their lands is concerned in the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer, without prejudice to their rights to file appeal before the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law.

ii) The appellants are further granted liberty to file appeal before the Reference Court within thirty days from today claiming enhancement of compensation, if so advised. On such appeals being filed, any delay in filing the said appeals shall not be put against the appellants by the Reference Court, since the matter was subjudice before the higher forum.

iii) While considering the appeals for enhancement of compensation, the Reference Court is directed to take the guideline value as on 1st January, 2014, for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land and for arriving at a just and fair compensation.(emphasis supplied)

iv) On filing of appeals for enhancement of compensation, the Reference Court shall deal with the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

v) As a last chance, the appellants are granted time till 31st July, 2017 to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the respondents, who shall take physical possession of the lands in accordance with law.”

3. Thereafter, the references in question were made and they were numbered as

L.A.O.P.Nos.30 to 38 of 2018. The Reference Court concluded that the land owners

would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,842/- per sq.ft. In arriving at the said

compensation, the Reference Court relined upon a sale deed dated 09.12.2013, which

was marked as Ex.C1, and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2,300/- per sq.ft.

and upon deduction of 20% towards developmental charges, fixed the market value

of the land at Rs.1,842/- per sq.ft. It is this fixation which is questioned by the

appellants in these appeals.

4. Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

appellant, would vehemently contend that the 4(1) notification is of the year 2007

and therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in taking the value of a document

which was executed in the year 2013. He would further argue that even assuming

that the directions of the Division Bench are binding, then it should be the guideline

value as on 01.01.2014 and not the value reflected by a document, which has been

registered prior to that date. Drawing our attention to Ex.R2, which is a copy of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

guideline register, Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader, would

contend that the valuation was only at Rs.1,300/- per sq.ft. and not Rs.1,842/- per

sq.ft. He would also contend that no reasons have been assigned by the Division

Bench for shifting the date of the 4(1) notification to 01.01.2014 for the purpose of

arriving at the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the land owners would submit that

the judgment of the Division Bench being inter-parties would be binding on the

Government as well as the land owners. They would also point out that an attempted

appeals filed against the judgment of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.18089 to 18095 of 2019 have been dismissed on

29.07.2019 with out granting leave. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for

the land owners, the judgment of the Reference Court cannot be faulted, since it has

only followed the directions of the Division Bench.

6. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the

CMDA/second respondent, would contend that since the Special Leave Petitions were

dismissed at the stage of admission and not on merits, the Government would be

entitled to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench before us.

He would also rely upon judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

and others Vs. State of Kerala and another [(2000) 6 SCC 359] and Khoday

Distilleries Limited and others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare

Karkhane Limited, Kollegal [(2019) 4 SCC 376]. We are afraid we cannot accept

the said submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. Both

Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries recognised the power of the High Court to

review its own judgment when a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the

High Court has been dismissed without assigning any reason. Neither of the

judgments give a right to a party to the judgment of the High Court to assail it in

collateral proceedings.

7. Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench is of the year 2017 and the

special leave petition came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court in the year 2019.

Though 4 years have been lapsed, no attempt has been made by the State to seek

review of the judgment of the Division Bench. We reject the request of the learned

Additional Advocate General for an adjournment to enable the State to file a review.

We do not think we will be justified in granting such adjournment.

8. Turning to the merits of the case on hand, the direction issued by the

Division Bench extracted above is very clear and categorical to the effect that the

Reference Court should fix the compensation on the basis of the guideline value as on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

01.01.2014. Ex.R2, guideline value register, shows that the guideline value in the

area in question was Rs.1,300/- per sq.ft. for the period from 01.04.2012 to

08.06.2017. Learned Trial Judge had overstepped the directions of the Division

Bench and had taken note of a document that was executed on 09.12.2013 to fix the

market value at Rs.2,300/- and after deducting 20% towards developmental charges,

learned Trial Judge has fixed the value at Rs.1,842/- per sq.ft.

9. We do not think the Reference Court was right in taking the document dated

09.12.2013 as the basis for fixation the market value. A positive direction issued by

the Division Bench is binding both on the Government and land owners equally.

Therefore, the Reference Court ought to have fixed the compensation at Rs.1,300/-

per sq.ft. Adverting the deductions, we do not think that the Reference Court was

justified in making a deduction towards developmental charges. When the land is

acquired for laying a road, no developmental charge is required to be deducted.

Deductions are made when the vast lands are acquired for housing purposes.

10. In Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,

South Goa and others [2007 (9) SCC 447], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no

developmental charges need be deducted in a project where laying of railways and

roads are undertaken. In this very ORR project, a Division Bench of this Court in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

The Special Thasildhar, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road Project,Chennai

Metropoliton Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai -8 -Vs- Palin Reshma

Jacob & others Dated31-08-2015 made in A.S.Nos:574 to 583 of 2011 (Batch)

had held that no deduction should be made, since the purpose of acquisition is for

laying a road and in all these cases, only smaller extents have been acquired from all

the land owners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 269 and 270 of 2023

by order dated 10-01-2023 had confirmed the view of the Division Bench of this

court referred to supra. Therefore, the deduction of 20% made by the Reference Court

cannot be sustained.

11. In fine, all these appeals are allowed in part and the compensation is fixed

at Rs.1,300/- per sq.ft. Needless to say that the claimants would be entitled to all the

statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No Costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Special Government

Pleader and the Additional Advocate General will be entitled to separate fee for each

appeal.

(R.S.M., J.) (R.K.M., J.) 11.07.2023

rkm Index:yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

Neutral citation: yes/no

To

1.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit – IV, Outer Ring Road Project, CMDA, Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.

2.The Member Secretar, CMDA, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

3.Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.Nos.423 of 2021 etc.

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and R.KALAIMATHI, J.

rkm

A.S.Nos.423 to 425 and 429 to

434 of 2021

11.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis