The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Indira
2023 Latest Caselaw 3396 Mad

                                                                               A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                             DATED: 29.03.2023
                                                    CORAM
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
                                         A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021
                                                  and
                                        C.M.P.(MD).No.7574 of 2021


                The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                Aruppukottai,
                Virudhunagar.                                                     ... Appellant

                                                     Vs.

                Indira                                                             ... Respondent


                PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
                Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 made in
                L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arupukottai.


                                    For Appellant          : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar
                                                            Additional Government Pleader
                                   For Respondent          : Mr.G.Ganesan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/7
                                                                                  A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021




                                                  JUDGMENT

Challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal

(Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2014, dated 28.07.2017,

the appeal has been filed.

2. A total extent of 36.67 hectares of land was acquired for the purpose of

formation of an irrigation tank in Survey No.116/1 situated at Arupukottai

Taluk, Periyapuliyampatti Village.

3. 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 claimant claimed enhanced compensation mainly on the ground that the

acquired land is 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, she claimed enhanced compensation.

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

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the side of the claimant,

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.

5. The Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai,

after considering the documentary evidence adduced on the side of the

claimant, 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 appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. 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

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 this appeal.

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

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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.

8. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. In the light of the submissions made on either side, now the points for

consideration in this appeal 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?

10. 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

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

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

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/- .

11. 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

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

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

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.

12. 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.

13. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed and the award passed by

the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai in

L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2014, dated 28.07.2017 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,

the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

29.03.2023

akv

To

The Land Acquisition Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai.

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

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

akv

A.S.(MD).No.233 of 2021

29.03.2023

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