Madras High Court
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Sumithrai on 27 March, 2023
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.4429, 4435, 4434, 4431, 4432, 4433, 4425, 4428 of 2022
A.S.(MD).No.124 of 2022
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellant
Vs.
Sumithrai ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2016 made in
L.A.O.P.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arupukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sakkaravarthi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since the issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, they have
been taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal,
Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai in L.A.O.P.Nos.17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34 and
48 of 2011, dated 04.11.2016, these appeals have been filed.
3. A total extent of 36.67 hectares of land was acquired for the purpose of
formation of an irrigation tank in various Survey Numbers viz., S.Nos.134/2,
124/5, 121/2, 119/2, 298/1A2, 123/2A, 287/2, 118/2 and 124/3 situated at
Arupukottai Taluk, Periyampuliyampatti Village.
4. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 14.10.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award
on 08.10.2007, fixing the value at the rate of Rs.209/- per cent and Rs.51,690/-
per hectare. Not satisfied with the award amount determined by the Land
Acquisition Officer, a reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
The claimants claimed enhanced compensation mainly on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
acquired lands are situated near Arupukotti – Virudhunagar State Highways.
Besides that, the area is already included within the Municipal limit 30 years
back and there are several developments took place including factories and
house sites etc. Besides that, within 1 k.m., a Medical College Hospital and a
new bus stand have come up. Hence, they claimed enhanced compensation.
5. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the side of the claimants,
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and on the side of
the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.
6. The Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai,
after considering the documentary evidence adduced on the side of the
claimants, enhanced the compensation from Rs.209/- to Rs.5,000/- per cent and
deducted 30% for developmental charges and ultimately fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. Challenging the same, the
present appeals have been filed by the appellant.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
acquired land is situated within the vicinity of the area, which has already been
acquired in the year 2004, for the purpose of construction of fertiliser godown
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
and model land value has been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the
value. However, the Tribunal has given undue importance to the sale deeds and
fixed the compensation in excess. Hence, he prayed for allowing of these
appeals.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that
the Land Acquisition Tribunal not only taken note of the admitted facts, but
also taken note of the developments made nearby places and in fact, R.W.1 in
his evidence also admitted that various developments took place in the acquired
land. Hence, the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal does not require
any interference.
9. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. In the light of the submissions made on either side, now the points for
consideration in these appeals are (i) whether the Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction in fixing the enhanced compensation? and (ii) whether the Tribunal
has fixed the enhanced compensation without any evidence on record?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
11. It is not in dispute that an extent of 36.67 hectares of land was
acquired for the purpose of construction of an irrigation tank. The evidence
adduced before the reference Court clearly established that the acquired land is
situated very near to Virudhunagar - Arupukottai State Highways. Further, the
evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, which was admitted by R.W.1,
clearly indicates that there are several development taken place in the nearby
places, including factories and other commercial entities also come up. It is
also established before the Tribunal that the acquired land included within the
jurisdiction of the Municipality 30 years back. That apart, the Tribunal took
note of Exs.P1 to P6/sale deeds. On a perusal of the sale deeds, the Tribunal
found that even several transactions took place right from 2003 and 2004, prior
to 4(1) Notification. The evidence of P.W.2/Document Writer, who prepared the
documents has also spoken about the value of the property. According to him,
the documents have been registered on the guideline value fixed by the
Government. Therefore, the documents registered earlier even prior to the
acquisition show that the guideline value of the property is much more. The
Land Acquisition Tribunal considering the above documents, enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent and deducted 30% for
developmental charges and ultimately fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.
3,500/- .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
12. A perusal of the entire evidence particularly the admission made by
R.W.1 reveals that there are various developmental activities took place nearby
places. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation without even
collecting any documents for three years which is not in accordance with law.
Further, the model land which relied upon by the Acquisition Officer is also
situate at a distance of 4 k.ms. from the acquired land, which is also established
on record.
13. In such a view of the mater, the Tribunal fixing the compensation
based on the documentary evidence and also developments took place even
prior to Section 4(1) Notification which cannot be said to be abnormal and
excessive. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in these appeals.
14. In the result, these Appeal Suits are dismissed and the award passed
by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai in
L.A.O.P.Nos.17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34 and 48 of 2011, dated 04.11.2016 is
confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader is entitled to claim fees
for every appeals separately, despite a common judgment is passed.
27.03.2023
akv
To
The Land Acquisition Tribunal
(Subordinate Court),
Aruppukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
A.S.(MD).Nos.124 to 131 of 2022
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
