The Executive Engineer vs Sundararajan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5527 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5527 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2023

Madras High Court

The Executive Engineer vs Sundararajan on 6 June, 2023

                                                                            A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 06.06.2023

                                                        CORAM :

                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                           A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

                    In A.S.No.1077 of 2012 :

                    1. The Executive Engineer,
                       National Highways Scheme (LA),
                       Korattur.

                    2. The Special Tahsildar (LA),
                       National Highways Scheme,
                       Korattur, Tiruvallur District.             .. Appellants

                                                         Versus

                    1. Sundararajan
                    2. Krishnamurthy                              .. Respondents

In A.S.No.1078 of 2012 :

1. The Executive Engineer, National Highways Scheme (Land Acquisition), Korattur.

2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Korattur, Tiruvallur District. .. Appellants

Versus

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

1. Ellammal

2. Subramanian

3. Ganesan

4. P.S.Venkatraman

5. Kalyani

6. T.V.Lakshmi (Minor) rep. by Mother, fifth respondent

7. T.V.Kannan (Minor) rep. by Mother, fifth respondent

8. T.V.Menaka Devi (Minor) rep. by Mother, fifth respondent .. Respondents

Prayer in A.S.No.1077 of 2012 : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.303 of 1994, dated 20.10.2003 of Additional District Court (FTC No.IV), Poonamallee.

Prayer in A.S.No.1078 of 2012 : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.304 of 1994, dated 20.10.2003 of Additional District Court (FTC No.4), Poonamallee.

In A.S.No.1077 of 2012 :

For Appellants : No Appearance

For Respondents : Mr.S.Balasubramanian, for RR-1 and 2

In A.S.No.1078 of 2012 :

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

For Appellants : No Appearance

For Respondents : No Appearance

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Appeal Suits are filed against the common judgment of the

learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Poonamallee,

dated 20.10.2003 in L.A.O.P.Nos.303 and 304 of 1994.

2. An extent of 80 cents of land in S.No.48/2, 86 cents of land in

S.No.37/2 in Korattur village, Poonamallee taluk were acquired in the year

1986-87 vide Award Nos.1/86, dated 22.08.1986 and 1/87, dated

09.01.1987. A compensation amount of Rs.600/- per Cent was fixed by the

Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the above Land Acquisition Original

Petitions were filed praying for enhancement of the compensation amount

from Rs.600/- per Cent to Rs.20,000/- per Cent. The contention of the

Original Petitioners is that the entire area was a very developed area and

even before the acquisition, certain properties were sold at the rate of

Rs.25,000/- per Cent and therefore, they are justified in praying for

Rs.20,000/- per Cent.

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

3. The Original Petitions were resisted by filing a counter statement

stating that the Land Acquisition Officer has correctly awarded the market

price.

4. On the above said pleadings, the Reference Court took up both the

petitions for joint trial and on behalf of the claimants, one Krishnamurthy

was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the

authorities, R.Baskaran was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 was marked.

Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the case of the parties and finding

that in the judgment of L.A.O.P.No.767of 1987, which was marked as

Ex.A-3, which was in respect of similarly situated land, the Court had

enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000/- per Cent, allowed the above Land

Acquisition Original Petitions by enhancing the compensation from

Rs.600/- per Cent to Rs.4,000/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Appeal Suits are filed.

5. Even though the first respondent in A.S.No.1078 of 2012 has died

and the matter is pending for taking steps in respect of the said respondent,

considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court took up the

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

cases for hearing on merits. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted and

pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the Trial Court erred in enhancing the

compensation, that too exorbitantly. It is further pleaded that the Trial

Court has not given its reasons as to why it discarded the reasoning given by

the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the compensation at Rs.600/-. It is

also further pleaded that the Court below has not given any rebates /

reductions in respect of the present property which is smaller in extent.

Therefore, it is prayed that the appeals be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in A.S.No.1077 of 2012, would submit

that even though a sum of Rs.20,000/- was prayed for, only a sum of

Rs.4,000/- was awarded as compensation which again was not adequate

amount, but, however, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents /

claimants. He would submit that even though there is a huge lapse of time,

till date, the land owners are yet to realise the total amount due in respect of

the lands acquired.

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

7. I have considered the said submissions and perused the material

records of the case. The point for consideration is whether the Reference

Court was right in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,000/- per Cent ? It

can be seen that the land acquired is in Korattur village which is also a

suburban area of the Chennai City at the relevant point of time. Further, it

can be seen that while determining the market value, the Trial Court

considered the similarity between the subject matter property and the

property in the connected L.A.O.P.No.767 of 1987 and finding similarity,

the Trial Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000/- and adopted

and followed the fixation in the said award which was marked as Ex.A-3.

In that view of the matter, this Court does see the enhancement of

compensation as erroneous or excessive. As a matter of fact, the Trial Court

has awarded a reasonable compensation and there is no ground to interfere

with the same in the present Appeal Suits.

8. In the result,

(i) The Appeal Suits in A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012 fail and are

dismissed;

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

A.S.Nos.1077 and 1078 of 2012

(ii) The appellants are directed to deposit the balance compensation

amount along with interest awarded by the Trial Court within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(iii) Upon such deposit, the respective owners of the extents of the

lands are entitled to withdraw the entire sum along with accrued interest

without filing any formal application and only upon verification of the

identity;

(iv) It is needless to mention that the legal heirs of the first respondent

shall also directly apply to the Trial Court to disburse the amount due to

them;

(v) There shall be no order as to costs.





                                                                                              06.06.2023
                    Index       : yes
                    Speaking order
                    Neutral Citation : yes
                    grs

                    To