Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (Adw)/ vs Narikuravan @ Chinnasamy on 6 November, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
S.A.No.276 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.276 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.8173 of 2023
1.The Special Tahsildar (ADW)/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Dharmapuri.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Dharmpauri.
...Appellants
Vs.
Narikuravan @ Chinnasamy
Arumugam (Power of Attorney)
...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land
for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 praying to set aside the judgment
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.276 of 2023
and decree dated 16.10.2019 made in C.M.A.(L.A.)No.68 of 2004 on the
file of Principal Sub-Court, Dharmapuri, modifying the Award
No.9/ADW/98-99, Na.Ka.No.529/98(A), dated 21.01.1999 on the file of the
Special Tahsildar (ADW) and Land Acqusition Officer, Dharmapuri.
For Appellants : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
*******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Principal Sub-Judge,
Dharmapuri made in C.M.A.(L.A.)No.68 of 2004.
2. An extent of about 0.31.5 hectares situate in S.Nos.662/2 and 665/2
of Podur Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District belonging to the
respondent was acquired for the purpose of provision of house sites to Adi
Dravida people residing in the said village under the provisions of Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [Act 31 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1978]. Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on
20.08.1998 and an award came to be passed on 21.01.1999. The land
acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.1,23,500/- per hectare.
Terming the compensation as too low, the respondent filed
C.M.A.(L.A.)No.68 of 2004 under Section 9 of the said Act.
3. Before the Sub-Court, the claimant relied upon the judgment of the
very same Court in C.M.A.(L.A.)Nos.8 to 11 of 2004, which related to
acquisition of lands for the very same purpose. The 4(1) notification thereat
was made on 17.08.1998, wherein the Court had granted a sum of
Rs.47.82/- per sq.ft as compensation. The claimant had also produced the
judgment of this Court in S.A.Nos.496 to 499 of 2005, wherein, the said
judgment in C.M.A.(L.A.)Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 was confirmed by this Court.
Apart from relying upon the said judgments, the claimant had also produced
other sale deeds, which were prior to the notification under Section 4(1).
The sub-Court adopted the said fixation and granted a sum of Rs.47.82/- per
sq.ft. as compensation. Aggrieved the State is on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. We have heard Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants would contend that the lands covered by the proceedings in
C.M.A.(L.A.)No.8 of 2011 situate in S.Nos.207/1 and 207/2 etc., are situate
far away from the acquired lands and the data land that has been chosen by
the land acquisition officer is situate in the very next survey field. She would
also contend that the deduction has been made only at 25%, which is far
below the normal deduction of 1/3rd. She would also rely upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Premalatha and
others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 745 to contend that the deductions for
development charges should be at least 40%.
6. Contending contra Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/ land owner would submit that the lands subject matter of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings in C.M.A.(L.A.)Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 is also situate within a
radius of 0.8 kms. from the acquired lands. He would also draw our
attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ram
M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of
Madras, reported in (1969) 1 MLJ (SC) 45 and a judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, to which one of us [The Hon'ble Mr.Justice
R.Subramaninan], is a party, in The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida
Welfare, Sathyamangalm Vs. Velusamy, dated 23.07.2024 in S.A.No.66 of
2010 to contend that when several exemplars are produced to show the value
of the land in vicinity of the acquired land, the land owner will be entitled to
the highest value reflected in those exemplars. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Special Tahsildar
(LA), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3, Tiruvallur Vs. Rathinareddi
reported in 2003-2-L.W.-267 in support of the said contention.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai And
Ors. vs Executive Engineer, Gujarat And Anr. reported in AIR 2001 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2424 to contend that when various extent of lands belonging to several
individuals is acquired and pooled together to form a larger extent of land,
in deciding the quantum of deduction, the Court must take into account the
lands acquired from each of the individuals and not the whole extent.
8. We have considered the rival submissions.
9. The land belonging to the respondent measures about 0.14.0
hectares in S.No.662/2. The total extent of land acquired for the scheme is
2.73.0 hectares. The land acquired from the respondent measures just about
1/10th of the total lands that have been acquired. The 4(1) notification is
dated 20.08.1998 and the award is dated 21.01.1999. Therefore, the crucial
date would be 20.08.1998. In C.M.A.(L.A.)No.8 of 2011, the land
measuring about 12.25 acres situate in S.Nos.207, 208, 214, 215 and 216 of
the very same village were acquired for the very same purpose viz., for
provision of house sites for Adi Dravidars and 4(1) notification in the said
case was made on 17.08.1998, that is, just three days prior to the
notification in the present case. Relying upon various exemplar sale deeds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that were placed before it, the sub-Court determined the compensation at
Rs.47.82/- per Sq.ft., after adopting deduction of 25% towards development
charges. This fixation of Rs.47.82/- per Sq.ft. was confirmed by this Court
in S.A.Nos.496 to 499 of 2004.
10. We have examined the location of the lands with the help of eye
evaluation sketch, which has been marked as Ex.C6/ Ex.R3. Of course, data
land that has been taken by the land acquisition officer is situate nearer to
the acquired land than the land covered by S.Nos.207, 208, 214 and 216,
which were subject matter of acquisition in C.M.A.(L.A.)Nos.8 to 11 of
2004. But, the lands in S.Nos.207, 208, 214 etc., are also situate within the
radius of 0.8 kms. from the acquired land and those lands have also been
acquired for the very same purpose viz., for providing house sites to Adi
Dravida people. The Authorities have found that those lands are most suited
for provision of house sites, as in the case on hand.
11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/
land owner the person who is affected by land acquisition or the person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whose land is acquired for the public purpose, would be entitled to highest
value when several exemplar sale deeds are produced. Therefore, we are
unable to fault the learned Sub-Judge for having accepted the valuation fixed
in C.M.A.(L.A.)Nos.8 to 11 of 2004.
12. Adverting to the contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader on the quantum of deduction, we find that the decision in Union of
India Vs. Premalatha and others (supra) turns on a slightly different facts.
The total extent of land acquired in the said case was about 46.89 hectares
and the exempler sale deed that was relied upon was for an extent of
1200 Sq.ft. Comparing the extent of land acquired with the extent of land
covered by the exemplary sale deed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court though it fit
to apply a deduction of 40%. In the case on hand, the exempler sale deeds
relied upon is for an extent of about 1475 ½ sq.ft, which means it is about
1.5 ares. The lands acquired from the respondent measures about 14 and 17
ares. Comparing the extent, we find that a deduction of 25% is just and
reasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment
of the Principal Sub-Judge. The appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.)
06.11.2024
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
To
1.The Principal Sub-Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW)/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Dharmapuri.
3.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
4.District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Dharmpauri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dsa
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
