Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) vs Chenniappan on 2 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
A.S.Nos. 407, 408, 409 & 410 of 2011
and
Cross Objection Nos. 54 of 2023 & 42 of 2024
A.S.No. 407 of 2011
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.).,
Salem - Karur New Broad Guage,
Railway Line Scheme, Salem. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Chenniappan
2.Chinna Gounder
3.K.Palanivel
4.P.Palanivel
Nos.1 to 4 are represented by their
Power of Attorney Natesa Gounder @ Natesan
5.Natesa Gounder @ Natesan
6. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction),
Southern Railway, Salem - 636 005. ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
against the judgment and decree of the I-Additional Sub-ordinate Judge,
Salem in LAOP.No. 3 of 2002 dated 29.11.2010.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Anita
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari for R1 to R5
M/s.P.T.Ramkumar for R6
COMM ON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in these appeals by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,
Salem - Karur New Broad Guage Railway Line Scheme is to the awards of
the reference Court made in LAOP.Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of 2002.
2. The land belonging to the respondents in all these appeals were
acquired for the purposes of laying an under pass cross for new Broad
Guage Line. The lands were situate at Pallapatti Village (Kandampatti)
which is a part of Salem Town even at the time of 4(1) notification dated
24.03.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 21.03.2001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
fixing compensation payable at Rs.47/- per square feet. Dissatisfied with
the award, the claimants / land owners sought for a reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Upon reference, the land owners filed claim statement seeking a
sum of Rs.400/- per square feet. In support of the contentions, the
claimants had produced sale deeds relating to properties in the vicinity
which were marked as Exs.C1 & C2. The Advocate Commissioner's report
and plan filed in LAOP.No. 77 of 2000 were also marked as Exs.C9 & C10.
While the claimants were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.3, one
P.N.Prabhakaran was examined on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer.
Exs.C1 to C19 were marked on the side of the claimants and Exs.R1 to R6
were marked on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. The reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence placed
before it, fixed the value of the land based on the exemplar sales at Rs.155/-
per square feet. It also deducted 20% towards development charges. Thus,
the compensation arrived at per square feet was Rs. 124/-. The reference
Court also awarded severance compensation at 25% of the entire market
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
value for the lands covered by LAOP.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2002 and at 15% for the
lands covered by LAOP.No. 7 of 2002.
5. The details of land acquired are as follows:-
AS.Nos. LAOP Nos. Survey Nos. Extent of Land
A.S.No. 407 of LAOP.No. 3 of 64 / 1A1A 0.11.55 Hectare
2011 2002
A.S.No. 408 of LAOP.No. 4 of 64 / 1A2A 0.18.0 Hectare
2011 2002
A.S.No. 409 of LAOP.No. 5 of 64 / 1A3A 0.16.0 Hectare
2011 2002
A.S.No. 410 of LAOP.No. 7 of 69 / 1B1 0.21.0 Hectare
2011 2002 69 / 1B2
69 / 1B4
69 / 4A
Total Extent 0.66.55 Hectares
Though an extent of 21 ares was the subject matter of LAOP.No. 7 of 2002,
the land is located in at least four survey numbers and it belongs to four
different persons. The Special Tahsildar is on appeal, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded.
6. While the claimants in LAOP.Nos. 4 & 7 of 2002 have preferred
Cross-objections seeking Rs.400/- per square feet, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned
Special Government Pleader appears for the appellant would vehemently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
contend that the Trial Court was not right in taking a sale deed of very small
extent as an exemplar sale deed to arrive at the value of large area of land.
She would also submit that the Trial Court was not justified in deducting
20% towards developmental charges, it should have been 30%, as it is
normally done, in cases where sale deed for a smaller extent of land is taken
as an exemplar to fix the value of large extent of land.
7. Contending contra, Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the
respondents in A.S.Nos. 407 & 409 of 2011 and Mr.B.Kumarasamy,
learned counsel for the respondents in A.S.Nos. 408 & 410 would submit
that this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that
there is nothing wrong in taking the value of a smaller extent also for fixing
the value of a larger extent of land, provided certain deductions are made.
They would also point out that the acquisition is to build an under-pass and
the entire land is utilized for the under-pass and the approach roads.
Therefore, there is no necessity for deduction of development charges. They
would also point out that the land acquired from each of the claimants is not
a very large extent so as to involve normalization, while sale deed of a
smaller extent was taken as an exemplar sale deed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
8. The learned counsel for the respondents / land owners would also
draw our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Vs. T.Sundaresan and Another made
in A.S.No.865 etc., batch of 2004 where, the Division Bench had
considered the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the land acquired
for the same project situate in the same village very near by to the acquired
land that is subject matter of these appeals to contend that the Division
Bench has upheld the valuation of Rs.120/- per square feet. Our attention is
also drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson
Fernandes Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer where, it has been held
that if land is acquired for the purposes like laying of railway track or for
laying road, the question of deduction for development charges does not
arise. We have considered the rival submissions.
9. It is not in dispute that the land covered by A.S.No.865 etc., batch
of 2004 were also acquired for the same project and they are situate in the
vicinity of the lands subject matter of these appeals. In the said judgment
dated 16.09.2011, the Division Bench had considered the location of the
lands and the relevant sale deeds and has come to the conclusion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
market value of the land would be Rs.120/- per square feet. We find that the
Division Bench has dealt with the question of development charges also very
extensively in the aid judgment. We therefore, do not see any reason to
delve independently into the evidence that is available on record in these
appeals.
10. Once it is not in dispute that the lands subject matter of appeals in
A.S.No.865 of etc.,batch of 2004 are similarly situate and they were also
acquired for the same project and the 4(1) notification is little earlier than
the 4(1) notification in the present appeals, I think we can safely adopt the
same reasoning in these appeals also. The trial court has on the basis of the
exemplar sale deeds arrived at a value of Rs.155/- per square feet. We donot
find any error in the said fixation made by the trial court. We therefore, fix
the valuation at Rs.155/- per square feet. As pointed out, since acquisition
for a railway under-pass with approach roads, we do not think, we should
deduct any amount for development charges. Therefore, the deduction
made by the reference Court at 20% is set aside. The claimants in A.S.Nos.
408 & 409 though have not field cross-objections would entitled to the same
compensation as awarded by us, subject to their paying deficit Court fee in
that appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
11. In fine these First Appeals are dismissed and the cross-objections
are allowed. The compensation is fixed at Rs.155/- per square feet in all the
Appeals. The claimants in LAOP.No. 4, 5 & 7 of 2002 would be entitled to
the severance compensation as awarded by the Trial Court on the increased
value of the land and all statutory benefits as are available to them under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
02.08.2024
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index: No
Speaking
Neutral Citation : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
To:-
1.The I-Additional Sub-ordinate Court,
Salem.
2.The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction),
Southern Railway, Salem - 636 005.
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.).,
Salem - Karur New Broad Guage,
Railway Line Scheme, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos. 407 of 2011 etc.,
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
KKN
A.S.Nos. 407, 408, 409 & 410 of 2011
and
Cross Objection Nos. 54 of 2023 & 42 of 2024
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
