Madras High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Balasubramaniam on 19 July, 2023
S.A.No.687 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
S.A.No.687 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.13629 of 2022
Land Acquisition Officer,
The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Omalur,
Omalur Post & Taluk,
Salem District – 636 455. ...Appellant
Vs.
Balasubramaniam ...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., 1908 r/w.
Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare
Schemes Act, 1978 against the judgment and decree dated
19.04.2022 made in LAOP CMA No.1 of 2021, on the file of the Sub
Court, Omalur, Salem District, modifying the Award No.5/1997-1998
dated 27.01.1998, on the file of the Special Tahsildar (ADW) and Land
Acquisition Officer, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.SP.Karthik, GA
For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
This Second Appeal itself is taken up for disposal, since the
issue involved in this appeal is in a very narrow compass. The extent
of 4.07 acres of land belonging to the respondent was acquired for the
purposes of distribution of house sites patta for Arunthathiars living in
Gollar Street. The notification was issued on 24.07.1997 under the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978
[Act 31 of 1978] (hereinafter referred to as 'TN Act [31 of 1978]'. The
award came to be passed on 27.01.1998, granting a compensation of
Rs.60,000/- per acre. The total compensation awarded with solatium
came to Rs.2,81,974/-. Claiming compensation is too low, the land
owner preferred an appeal in LA CMA No.7 of 1998 in the Sub Court
Sankari and the same was transferred to Sub Court, Mettur and
numbered as LA CMA No.39 of 1999 and upon constitution of Sub
Court at Omalur, the said appeal was transferred to Sub Court, Omalur
and numbered as LA CMA No.1 of 2021.
2. In the said appeal i.e., LA CMA. No.1 of 2021, the learned
trial Judge upon consideration of the documents filed before him,
particularly, the sale deeds and release deeds, which were marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2022
Exs.P1 to P7, concluded that the compensation awarded is too low.
The learned trial Judge fixed the market value for the acquired land at
Rs.13,864.80/- per cent, after deducting 30% towards development
charges determined the compensation at Rs.9,705.36/- per cent. The
trial Court granted 30% solatium relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India
reported in 2002 (2) LW 39 and interest at 6% per annum from the
date of taking possession till the date of deposit. Aggrieved over the
same, the State has come up with the above Second Appeal. The only
question of law that has been framed in this appeal is as follows:-
“Whether the trial Court is right
in awarding 30% solatium when the
respondent / claimant is entitled only to
15% solatium as per Section 7(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan
Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [Act 31 of
1978]?”
3. We have heard Mr.SP.Karthik, learned Government
Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. Mr.Karthik, learned Government Advocate would invite our
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2022
attention to the provision of the TN Act [31 of 1978], particularly,
Section 7 (2) contend that acquisition being under TN Act 31/1978, the
trial Court was not justified in granting solatium at 30%. Section 7 of
the TN Act [31 of 1978] reads as follows:
“7. Determination of amount- (1)
The amount payable in respect of any land
acquired under this Act shall be the market
value of the land on the date of publication of
the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
2)In addition to the market value of
the land as provided above, the prescribed
authority shall, in every case, award a sum of
fifteen per centum on such market value as
solatium in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition.
3)The prescribed authority shall, after
holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner,
determine, by order, the amount payable under
sub-section (1). A copy of the said order shall
be communicated to the owner of such land and
every person interested therein.”
5. The learned trial Judge has relied upon Sundar's case
which arises out of the Central Act, namely, The Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [1 of 1894] and therefore, the award granting 30% solatium,
cannot be sustained. As per the provisions of the TN Act [31 of 1978],
the claimant is only entitled to 15% solatium. In view of the aforesaid
provision,the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the
appellant and the Second Appeal is allowed to the limited extent. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2022
award of the trial Court is modified and the solatium is reduced to
15%. In other respects, the judgment of the Sub Court, Omalur is
confirmed. It is stated that the appellant has deposited 50% of the
compensation amount. The respondent will be entitled to withdraw the
said sum. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining
compensation amount, within a period of four months from today and
on such deposit, the respondent / claimant will be entitled to withdraw
the same.
6. In the result, the Second Appeal is partly allowed.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.M.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
19.07.2023
DP
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Order : Speaking
Neutral Citation : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
DP
To
1.The Sub Court,
Omalur, Salem.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer,
The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Omalur,
Omalur Post & Taluk,
Salem District – 636 455.
S.A.No.687 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.13629 of 2022
19.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
