Madras High Court
The Assistant Commissioner vs The Land Tribunal on 20 July, 2023
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
The Assistant Commissioner
(Land Reforms), Madurai. .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Land Tribunal,
Chennai – 5.
2.Narendra Dairy Farm (Pvt) Limited
rep. By its Managing Director
V.Duraisinga Lakshmana Naicker ..
Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to
set aside the judgment of the Land Tribunal in L.T.C.M.A. No.27 of
1998 dated 29.04.1999, by confirming the order of Assistant
Commissioner dated 06.09.1985.
For Petitioner : Mr.Edwin Prabhakar,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.R.Pandia Raj for R2
R1 - Tribunal
ORDER
This revision challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in TRP No. 428 of
1991. TRP No.428 of 1991 was originally filed before this Court as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
W.P.No.10489 of 1998.
2. The said writ petition had sought for a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the
Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai and that of the
Land Tribunal, Madurai in MTCMA No. 7 of 1996 dated 06.06.1988.
The writ also sought for a mandamus to direct the first respondent
to work out the total compensation for an extent of 1,158.32 acres
of land treating the net annual income as 5,82,030.02 as
determined by the authorized officer (land reforms).
3. The writ proceedings stood transferred to the Tribunal
pursuant to creation of the Special Appellate Tribunal for Land
Reforms and was re-numbered as TRP No.428 of 1991.
4. The short facts leading to the revision are that the
second respondent's land was assessed by the Assistant
Commissioner (Land Reforms) and found there was excess holding
in the hands of the land owner.
5. As required by law, compensation have to be paid for
for the purpose of taking over of land. In pursuance thereof, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) fixed the compensation
after conducting a proper enquiry. He had conducted the enquiry
between 07.11.1984 and 09.11.1984, wherein, he had examined
(i) the land owner, (ii) tenants and (iii) the karnam of the village
and also received a report from the said Deputy Tahsildar (Land
Reforms).
6. Thereafter, he also conducted a field inspection. On the
basis of these figures, he arrived at the net annual income as
Rs.5,84,246.98. This was done as early as in the year 1974.
However, in the LTCMA proceedings, orders were passed holding
that the compensation amount is only Rs.4,02,032/-.
7. When the amount has already been fixed by the
Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), after the field inspection
and that order had become final as early as 1974, the power of re-
fixation is not available by reducing the same. It is not open to the
civil revision petitioner to repeatedly re-assess the value once the
value has been fixed and had attained finality.
8. Apart from that, the Tribunal had not gone into the
merits of the case and found that the fixation of Rs.50 per quintal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
of paddy translates into purchase of rice at Rs.50 naiya paise per
kilo gram. Such a fixation, even by 1974 standards, is an
amazingly low figure. Therefore, it interfered with the order of
fixation.
9. However, the Tribunal was careful enough to hold that
since the order has become final and as the Supreme Court in
C.A.No.2396 of 1991 had decided that the contesting respondents
are entitled to two times the annual value as compensation, the
same had to be re-worked by the respondents. In accordance with
the same, it had set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner
(Land Reforms) in reference No.3/86/DGL/A2 dated 06.09.1985
and remitted the matter for fresh calculation in accordance with
the fixation made in 1974.
10. I have perused the records and materials and I am
satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justified.
11. The rate of compensation having reached a finality in
1974 and the Supreme Court having held that the second
respondent is entitled to twice the compensation as net annual
value, without any fresh materials, the said value could not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
reduced twelve years thereafter.
12. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity and it is perfectly justified. In the said
circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order.
13. This civil revision petition stands dismissed. A direction
is given to the petitioner to comply with the order of remand within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. While re-calculating the amount, the petitioner can take into
consideration the amount of Rs.4,72,596.25/- which was already
paid to the second respondent on 30.12.1985. No costs.
20.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
The Land Tribunal,
Chennai – 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.No.1944 of 2003
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
