Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Gangatharan (Died) on 8 June, 2023
A.S.No.863 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.863 of 2010
The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare),
Vellore. .. Appellant
Versus
1. Gangatharan (Died)
2. Sambangi (Died)
3. Ranganathan
4. Mahadevan (Died)
5. Palani (Died)
6. Bakkiyanathan .. Respondents
RR-1, 2, 4 and 5 died. No steps taken and
accordingly, this Appeal abated for RR-1, 2, 4 and 5
vide Court order, dated 30.11.2021 made in A.S.No.863 of 2010
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to
set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2005, dated 30.09.2005 on
the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ranipet.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,
Special Government Pleader (A.S)
For Respondents : RR-1 to 5 - Died
: R6 - Notice served
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, dated 30.09.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of
2005, in and by which, the Trial Court had answered the reference under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby, enhancing the
compensation in respect of the land which is acquired from the respondents
/ petitioners from Rs.49.50 ps per Cent to Rs.350/- per Cent.
2. The case of the respondents / petitioners before the Reference
Court was that the land of an extent of Ac.1.38 Cents in S.No.570/2, Arcot
town, Arcot taluk, Vellore district was acquired and a sum of Rs.1,309.28 ps
was awarded in respect of each of the respondents / petitioners as
compensation. According to the respondents / petitioners, the area at the
time of acquisition itself was a developed area having potential of being
converted into residential sites. According to the respondents / petitioners,
the market value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs.20,000/- per
Cent. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
3. The Original Petition was resisted by filing counter statement
stating that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed the procedure and
taken into account of the correct data and has fixed the compensation.
When the compensation has been fixed on the basis of the available data, as
per the procedure, the respondents / petitioners were not entitled for
enhancement.
4. On the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following two
issues:-
(i) What is the market value of the land
acquired as on the date of the 4(1) Notification
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e., as on
25.02.1983?
(ii) What are the reliefs which the
petitioners are entitled to?
5. On the said pleadings, the second respondent / petitioner was
examined as P.W.1 and one Venkatesan was examined as P.W.2. The order
in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 1993, in respect of a connected matter, was marked as
Ex.A-1. There was no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the
appellant / respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
6. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the case of the
parties and after considering the fact that in a connected L.A.O.P, which
was marked as Ex.A-1, the market value is taken as Rs.200/- per Cent, after
considering the ground realities as to the location of the acquired land and
its potentiality etc., fixed the market value at Rs.350/- per Cent and allowed
the L.A.O.P accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal Suit is
laid before this Court.
7. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (LA)
for the appellant / respondent would submit that the Trial Court has fixed
the compensation amount at Rs.350/- per Cent without any basis
whatsoever. He would submit that there was no sale deed which was
produced or marked before the Trial Court so as to fix the market value at
Rs.350/-. Therefore, he would submit that when the market value has been
fixed without any basis, this Court should interfere. In any event, he would
submit that as fixed in the connected L.A.O.P, the compensation amount
should be reduced atleast to the sum of Rs.200/- per Cent as in Ex.A-1.
8. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents / petitioners
even though notice has been served. As a matter of fact, it is seen that four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
of the respondents / petitioners have also since passed away and the matter
is only posted for bringing their legal heirs on record. After considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proceeded to hear the case on
merits.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the
learned Special Government Pleader (LA) for the appellant / respondent and
perused the material records of the case. The only point arise for
consideration in this Appeal Suit is that whether or not the Trial Court is
right in fixing a sum of Rs.350/- per Cent as market value?
10. On a perusal of the records, it would show that the land was in
Arcot town itself. From the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it can be seen
that the land had potential and the other developments around the land have
been brought on record. There is no contra oral or documentary evidence
which was produced by the appellant / respondent. In that view of the
matter, when the Trial Court, after taking into consideration the potentiality
of the land, the value of Rs.200/- fixed in Ex.A-1, etc., and arrived at market
value of Rs.350/- per Cent, it cannot be said that it is perverse or excessive.
In that view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the submissions made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
by the learned Special Government Pleader (LA) for the appellant /
respondent.
11. In the result,
(i) This Appeal Suit is without any merits and is accordingly
dismissed;
(ii) If any further amount along with interest has to be deposited as
per the award of the Trial Court, the same shall be deposited within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(iii) The respondents / petitioners will be entitled to withdraw the
entire sum with accrued interest without filing any formal application and
only upon verification of the identity;
(iv) Only considering the time lapse, this Court is disposing off the
matter on merits without further adjourning the matter to implead the legal
heirs of the deceased respondents / petitioners and therefore, in respect of
any amount deposited, if the legal heirs file an application for withdrawal,
the same shall be permitted dehors the fact that they are not brought on
record in the Appeal Suit.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
08.06.2023
Index : yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
To
The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.863 of 2010
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
A.S.No.863 of 2010
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
