Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs Dhanasekar on 1 August, 2024
C.R.P.(NPD)No.340 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.340 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.2856 of 2023
The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project
Virudhachalam .. Petitioner
Vs.
Dhanasekar .. Respondent
Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
L.A.O.P.No.560 of 2013, dated 21.08.2017, on the file of the learned
Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by
the learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP cases at Cuddalore in
L.A.O.P.No.560 of 2013 dated 21.08.2017.
Page No 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. When the revision came up for disposal, I entertained a doubt
whether it is maintainable, since the Award granted by the Sub Court in
L.A.O.P. proceeding amounts to a decree.
3. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner would draw my attention to the
judgment of this Court in A.S.No.512 of 2011, dated 07.04.2016, to the
effect that an Award passed under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 is
not susceptible to an appeal in the same terms as an Award passed under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. He would also draw my attention to a judgment of this Court in
Rev.Petn.No.98 of 2016, dated 30.01.2019, to press on the point that when
an order is passed under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, an appropriate
remedy is only by way of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Page No 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Being satisfied with the maintainability of the revision, I now
proceed to deal with the merits of the case.
6. It is the submission of Mr.T.Arunkumar that the property is an
agricultural land for which the trial Court has fixed the value in terms of
square feet instead of fixing the value in terms of cents. He would state that
for agricultural lands, the quantification should be in 'cents' or in 'acres' but
not in 'square feet'. On this short point, he would urge that the order passed
by the learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases be set aside and
the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition be restored.
7. I have carefully gone through the order and through the records
available.
8. The undisputed facts are that the lands were acquired pursuant to a
notification issued by the Government on 08.04.2003. The purpose of
acquisition was for creation of a by-pass road in Virudhachalam, and also
for creation of access roads in Virudhachalam Town and Taluk, Cuddalore
District.
Page No 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. A perusal of the Award passed by the Collector, dated 23.03.2009,
would show that this property is covered in Item No.8 of the said Award.
Item No.8 was originally under the Survey No.49/3B, and subsequently,
after the creation of the Town of Virudhachalam, it was given Town Survey
No.27/7, Block No.6, Ward 'G' of Poonthottam Village, Virudhachalam
Taluk, Cuddalore District. Since the said property has come under the town
survey, it is clear that it was no more treated as an agricultural land but was
treated as a land within the town of Virudhachalam. The Collector had
passed an Award on the basis of a sale deed registered on 13.03.2008 for
R.S.Nos.53/5 and 53/2 to an extent of 12 cents. The said property had been
sold for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. If this is converted in terms of square feet,
then the value per square feet only comes to Rs.4.58/- per sq.ft.
10. Not being satisfied with the amount fixed by the District Collector
in terms of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, a reference
was sought under Section 20 of the said Act.
Page No 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The reference was originally taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.5 of
2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Virudhachalam. Thereafter, it
stood transferred to the file of the learned Special Subordinate Judge for
LAOP cases at Cuddalore and re-numbered as L.A.O.P.No.560 of 2013.
12. During the course of trial, the claimant examined himself as
P.W.1, and marked his title deed to the property as Ex.P1. The Special
Tahsildar did not even grace the witness box nor did he file any records
before the Special Court. As there was no co-operation either from the
petitioner or the respondent, the learned Special Judge following the verdict
of the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India
[(2002) 2 SCC 242] proceeded to fix the compensation on the basis of the
available records. She also perused the Award on the basis of which the
reference had been made. She found that the Award Officer had not even
enclosed the village map in the Award for the purpose of comparing the
location of the land under acquisition and the land whose value had been
taken as reference for the fixation of value.
Page No 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. It is settled position of law that while determining the market
value of the land under acquisition, the Court has to see the value of those
lands that are similarly situated with the same potentiality, fertility and
quality as of the acquired land. Unless and until this exercise is done, it does
not satisfy the requirements of granting a just and fair compensation to the
land owner.
14. The learned Judge had called for a report from the Joint Sub-
Registrar of Virudhachalam in order to ascertain the market value. The Joint
Sub-Registrar had sent a report stating that the guideline value pertaining to
the lands acquired for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2012 was
Rs.100/- per Sq.ft. The learned Judge took this value into consideration, and
fixed the value of land at Rs.100/- per Sq.ft. No exception can be taken to
the procedure that has been adopted by the learned Special Subordinate
Judge.
15. Insofar as the trees are concerned, she accepted the Award of the
District Collector, since no evidence had been let in by the
claimant/respondent herein as to the value of the trees or their age.
Page No 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, she passed an order fixing the value of the land at Rs.100/-
per Sq.ft., and insofar as the trees and other structures on the property are
concerned, she fixed the value for them at the same rate as fixed by the
District Collector.
16. Mr.T.Arunkumar would submit that the impugned order is
vitiated on two grounds. The first ground, as pointed out above, is that it is
an agricultural land. This argument does not stand a moment's scrutiny,
because even the Award Officer had reflected in his Award that the property
under acquisition was in town survey, though it was classified as dry.
17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Subordinate Judge,
the Award Officer did not even enclose the village plan in order to show that
the reference sale deed is connected with the land under acquisition. The
learned Judge with the available materials had came to the conclusion that
the value of land is Rs.100/- per Sq.ft., and I do not find any reason to
interfere with the same.
18. The second point urged by Mr.T.Arunkumar is that the LAOP had
Page No 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been dismissed for default on 09.07.2015 and restored only on 15.06.2017,
and therefore, for this period, the Court ought not to have granted interest.
The Supreme Court speaking through the judgment of Justice K.T.Thomas
in Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 242]
had clearly and categorically held that the land acquisition proceeding is not
in the nature of the suit but a reference to the Court. He had also held that a
reference cannot be dismissed for default but the Court would have to
proceed with the available materials and answer the reference. Hence, the
argument of Mr.T.Arunkumar that the period from 09.07.2015 to
15.06.2017, the period during which the LAOP proceeding had been
dismissed for default and restored, ought to be excluded cannot be accepted.
The order of dismissal, dated 09.07.2015, itself is contrary to the verdict of
the Supreme Court, and therefore, the period during which the LAOP
proceeding was dismissed for default cannot be taken into consideration to
reduce the value of the land.
19. In the light of the above discussion, as the learned Special
Subordinate Judge had taken efforts on her own to ascertain the market
value, and had come to the conclusion that the value of land is Rs.100/- per
Page No 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sq.ft., I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore.
20. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.08.2024
mkn2
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Page No 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mkn2
To
The learned Special Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore
and
01.08.2024
Page No 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
