Madras High Court
Pazhani vs The Collector on 1 August, 2024
C.R.P. No. 1074 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.R.P. No. 1074 of 2021
1. Pazhani
2. Ramesh ... Claimants / Petitioners / Appellants
Vs.
The Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram. ... Referring Officer / Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, to set aside the decree and judgment dated
19.09.2017 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 77 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
For Petitioners : M/s. S.Padma
For Respondent : Mr. C.Sathish
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order
dated 19.09.2017 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 77 of 2010 on the file of the I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, wherein, the petitioners herein
have filed petition challenging the Award made under Section 18 read with
Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was dismissed by
confirming the compensation amount fixed by the Referring Officer. Against
which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the land in R.S.
No. 672/10B for an extent of 0.10.0 ares and in R.S. No. 714/1B for an extent
of 0.04.0 ares in Thirukovilur Taluk. The respondent acquired the above said
lands for formation of road through proceedings in No. B2/6258/2004 dated
08.11.2005. The Referring Officer fixed the amount for a sum of Rs.33/- per
square feet but the actual value is Rs.100/- per square feet. The claimants
have received the said amount with protest with regard to the amount fixed by
the respondent at the rate of Rs.33/- per square feet. The guideline value of
the above said lands and house sites is Rs.1080/- per square metre. The same
respondent fixed the rate as Rs.61/- per square feet through proceedings in
Na.Ka.B2/14995 dated 26.08.2004 that was not accepted by the petitioners
since the guideline value is Rs.100/- per square feet. Already the
petitioners/claimants were filed writ petition in W.P. No. 7666 of 2009 before
this Court and the Court was passed order dated 24.04.2009 directing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent to refer the matter to appropriate Court. The above said house
sites are very near to the National Highways and State Highways and there are
Government Officials very near to the said house sites. The Referring Officer
is failed to furnish the accurate guideline value certificate and awarded only
lesser value of Rs.33/- per square feet. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled
to get higher compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent is
to be modified.
3. According to the respondent, the properties were acquired from the
claimants for construction of Thirukovilur Byepass Road and the
compensation was awarded taking into consideration of the locality, irrigation
facility, Tharam and potentiality of the property and also after duly
considering the claim to be made by the claimants in the future. The claimants
themselves inflated the market value. The Referring Officer perused the
relevant records considered the data sale deeds from 01.01.2001 to
31.08.2003 and the market value was fixed as Rs.55,000/- per acre and fixed
as Rs.33/- per square feet. Therefore, the Trial Court correctly dismissed the
petition by holding that the award passed by the Referring Officer is in terms
of the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the petitioners, CW1 and CW2
were examined and Ex.C1 to C6 were marked and on the side of the
respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 to R4 were marked and Court
witness CW1 was examined and Ex.X1 and X2 were marked. The Trial Court,
after considering the evidences adduced on either side, confirmed the order
passed by the Referring Officer.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that
the lands of the petitioners were acquired by the respondent for forming of
road and the Referring Officer has fixed the meagre rate as Rs.33/- per square
feet but in fact, the market value is Rs.100/- per square feet. Even as per the
respondent in the earlier proceedings in Na.Ka.B2/14955 dated 26.08.2004,
the guideline value fixed at the rate of Rs.61/- per square feet but now for
these properties, only fixed at the rate of Rs.33/- per square feet and the same
is liable to be enhanced. In order to prove the case, CW1 and CW2 were
examined and as per the documents filed by the petitioners, the guideline
value of the property is Rs.100/- per square feet. Therefore, the order passed
by the Trial Court is liable to be enhanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
would contend that the properties of the petitioners were acquired by the
respondent for forming road and the Referring Officer has fixed the market
value of the properties as Rs.33/- per square feet based on the sale deeds for
the periods from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2006. The documents filed by the
petitioners are self serving documents and after notification, they in order to
get more compensation, created the documents. Therefore, those documents
are no way helpful to decide the claim of the petitioners. The Trial Court,
after considering the evidences adduced on either side, correctly dismissed
the petition by confirming the order passed by the Referring Officer.
Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8. In this case, there is no dispute in respect of the ownership of the
properties and the claimants are the owners of the properties and the
properties were acquired by the respondent. According to the petitioners, the
guideline value of the properties is Rs.100/- per square feet and according to
the respondent, the guideline value of the properties is Rs.33/- per square feet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, the Referring Officer has fixed the above said rate as Rs.33/- per
square feet. In order to prove the case, on the side of the petitioners, CW1
and CW2 were examined and Ex.C1 to C6 were marked and on the side of the
respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 to R4 were marked and Court
witness CW1 was examined and Ex.X1 and X2 were marked. The petitioners
side evidences reiterated the contention that the property value is Rs.100/- per
square feet and the respondent side evidences denied the said value that those
documents were self served documents. On perusal of the Court witness/CW1
and Ex.C1, it reveals that the Sub Registrar, Thirukovilur has issued
certificate by stating that the value of the property in S.F. No. 714/1 from
01.01.2004 to 31.12.2006 is Rs.61/- per square feet. The said Sub Registrar
was also examined as CW2 and he also stated the guideline value of the
properties as Rs.61/- per square feet. The Court witness was also examined as
CW1, who is the present Sub Registrar of Thirukovilur and he stated that the
guideline value of the properties is Rs.33/- per square feet but while
registering the properties, stamp duty will be collected on the basis of sale
deed which have been registered for higher value and Rs. 61/- was stated as
guideline value in the letter issued to the Claimants. Therefore, the evidences
shows that the guideline value of the properties is Rs.61/- per square feet. The
Trial Court failed to consider the above said evidences and confirmed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order passed by the Referring Officer that the guideline value fixed as Rs.33/-
per square feet. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is
unsustainable and this Court based on the evidences, fixed the guideline value
of the properties as Rs.61/- per square feet and also the petitioners are entitled
to solatium at 30 %.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
petitioners are entitled to compensation as follows:-
(i) The compensation fixed by the Referring officer at the rate of
Rs.33/- per square feet is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.61/- per square feet
with 30% solatium along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on solatium.
(ii) Any sum already paid towards the compensation has to be deducted
from the total sum if it is already received by the claimants.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to get the additional market value at the
rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act to the date of passing of the award.
(iv) Further the claimants are entitled to 9% p.a. interest on the excess
amount for the 1st year from the date of taking possession and 15% p.a.
interest for subsequent years till the date of deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v) It is further ordered that, the claimants are entitled for the cost of the
proceedings.
(vi) It is further ordered that, except the above mentioned claims, with
regard to other aspects, the determination for the Land acquisition officer is
confirmed.
(vii) Time for payment of the enhanced claim 2 months.
01.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
pal
To
The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.,
pal
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
