Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Kamatchiammal (Deceased) on 7 November, 2024
S.A. No. 1006 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. No. 1006 of 2011
and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012
The Special Tahsildar
Adi Dravidar Welfare
Erode. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Kamatchiammal (Deceased)
2. Muthusamy
3. Duraisamy
4. Ramasamy
Respondents 2 to 4 are residing at
Kanakkupillai Thottam
Muthu Reddiyur, Kalpavi Village
Bhavani Taluk. ... Respondents
[Respondents /Appellants 2 to 4 are
impleaded as per the order dated
11.06.2008 in I.A.No.132/2007)
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 13 of Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 31/78 read with
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 10.02.2011 made in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2005 on the file of the
Sub Court, Bhavani, Erode District, modifying the Award dated 08.02.2005
made in Award No.1/2005/A.Ni.A2/2003/A passed by the Special Tahsildar
(ADW), Erode.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 1006 of 2011
For Appellant : Dr.S.Suriya, AGP
For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Zeenath Begum
JUDGMENT
The second appeal has been preferred by the respondent in C.M.A. No.
5 of 2005, which has been filed by the appellant therein for setting aside the
acquisition proceedings of the Special Tahildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode
dated 08.02.2005 made in Award No.1/2005/A.Ni.A2/2003/A and enhanced
the compensation by fixing Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Sub Court has allowed
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre and thereby, fixed the total
compensation @ Rs.3,29,400/- along with 15% Solatium to the tune of
Rs.49,410/- along with 6% interest from the date of taking possession by
setting off the compensation of Rs.1,89,405/-, which has already been
received by the land owner.
2. Having aggrieved by the enhanced compensation, the Special Tahsildar
has preferred this second appeal by the following questions which are alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to be the substantial questions of law that would arise in this second appeal:-
“(1) Whether the lower Court justified to enhance the award
without assigning any convincing reasons to reject the
document relied upon by the appellant to fix the value of
the acquired land?
(2) Whether the lower Court enhanced the award based on
the documents those are irrelevant and unconnected the
acquired land?
(3) Whether the lower Court erred by discarding the
documents considered by the Appellant to fix the value
of the property and relied upon the documents produced
by the respondents those are irrelevant and unconnected
as far as the acquired land is concerned?
(4) Whether the Court has passed the award without
appreciating material the holistic fashion in the manner
known to law and thereby, fixed the compensation
excessively.”
3. In the impugned acquisition, 4(1) notification has been given on
30.09.2004 in respect of the respondents' land situated in T.S. No. 112/2 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kalpavi Village measuring to an extent of 3 acres 66 cents by the award dated
08.02.2005. The compensation was fixed @ Rs.1,89,405/-, which inclusively
of 15% Solatium.
4. Despite the Government has rightly relied on the data deed dated
03.06.2004 in respect of T.S. No. 41/6 and rightly fixed the compensation, the
Court has enhanced the same by relying on Exhibit A2, which is not correct.
The land transacted through Exhibit A2 is situated in Kuruchi Village, which
is far away from Kalpavi Village, where the acquired lands were situated. The
acquired land is classified as 8.3.5 in Kalpavi Village and the nature of the
land transacted through the sale deed relied by the Sub Court is classified as
8.2.4 in Kuruchi Village. As the quality of the land itself is different, the value
fixed by the Sub Court is also not correct. The data land relied by the
Government is exactly similar classified land falling under the category of
8.3.5. Hence, the award of the Sub Court should be set aside.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the Government relied on the Kist Assessment for fixing the market value
of the property and it is not correct. As per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act
31 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the amount payable
in respect of the any land shall be the market value. Hence, reliance cannot be
placed on the Kist Assessment.
6. On perusal of the orders of the Sub Court, it is seen that the sale deed
dated 09.02.2004 which has been marked as Exhibit A2 has been relied for
fixing the market value. Even though the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the appellant has been pointing out there is a
difference in classification of the data land and Exhibit A2 lands the fact
remains that the parameter for determining the market value of the land
should be done under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule (4) of the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules,
1979(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short).
7. According to Section 7(1) of the Act, the following procedure has to be
adopted for determination of the amount :-
“7. Determination of amount.—
(1) The amount payable in respect of any land acquired under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Act shall be the market value of such land on the date of
publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 4.
The above provision is stated that the determination of the amount of
compensation would be done on the basis of the market value and by
following due procedure. Apart from the market value, Solatium of 15% on
the market value should also be paid as per Section 7(2) of the Act. For the
benefit of better understanding Section 7(2) is extracted as under:-
“7. Determination of amount.—
(1) ....
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as provided
above, the prescribed authority shall in every case award a
sum of fifteen per centum on such market value as solatium in
consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.”
The method by which the market value as suggested under Section 7 of the
Act has been elaborated under Rule 4 of the Rules. In the said Rules, the price
paid for similar lands in the vicinity of the land acquired in the relevant point
of time have been suggested as the basis for the determining the market value.
The above Rule 4 would read as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“4. Determination of market value of the land.- The market
value of the land under sub-section (1) of section 7 shall be
determined in one or more of the following methods:-
(i) The price paid for similar land or portion of same land
in recent years after due allowance being made for lapse of
time, advantage of situation or any other possible differences
between the land sold and that proposed to be acquired.
(ii) The price paid for similar lands in the vicinity in recent
years.
(iii) The annual income from the land which may be
capitalised for a certain number of years of purchase, the
number of years being determined on the nature of the land,
the state of the money market and other relevant
circumstances.
(iv) The value of the land shall be subject to full assessment
including the value of trees, buildings, or crops standing
thereon in the normal condition in which it would have come
into the market at the time of publication of the notice under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sub-section (1) of section 4.”
Though the petitioner has stated that the Kalpavi Village in which the
acquired land is situated and the Kuruchi Village, which is the land conveyed
through Exhibit A2 are situated at a different vicinity. The fact was not
established.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant
has produced the Topographic sketch to show the Survey No.112/2 is situated
far away from Survey No.360/1. In fact, it is not even visible in the
Topographic sketch and only the data land which is Survey No. 41/6 alone
can be taken in the land in vicinity.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the other village where the lands transacted through Exhibit A2. The
subject matter of A2 is situated in the adjacent village and hence, by
production of the Topographic sketch of one particular village cannot be
claimed that Exhibit A2 has got no relevance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Even though these arguments are made before this Court the record
would show that the Government did not produce any document to establish
the fact that the Kalpavi village is situated far beyond from Kuruchi village
and it has no relevance. In fact, the appellant authorities also avoided the
witness box and did not subject themselves for examination in order to
establish the fact now submitted before this Court.
11. In such case, the Court has got no other impediment to rely on the oral
evidence of PW1 who has stated that the Kuruchi Village is just adjacent to
Kalpavi Village. In fact, the learned Special Judge has also appreciated the
fact that while fixing the compensation, the Government has taken into
consideration of the lowest value among 89 documents taken up
consideration. As the 89 documents which have been taken into consideration
were inclusive of the lands situated in Kalpavi village as well as the Kuruchi
village and transacted, the Sub Judge cannot be found fault relying on the
Exhibit A2.
12. The fact that the authorities have considered several sale deeds
registered in respect of the lands situated in both the Kalpavi village and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kuruchi village was not denied. So, it could have been safely presumed by the
Sub Judge that the Kuruchi village is the village within the vicinity of the land
acquired and relying it as the document for enhancing the compensation value
by fair appraisal. The said exercise has been done correctly by taking note of
the fact that the Government has fixed the market value only on the basis of
the classification of the land unmindful of the fact that the lands transacted in
the nearest vicinity during the relevant point of time can also be considered.
13. Since the learned Sub Judge has properly scrutinized the materials
produced before him and also taking note of the fact that the Government
itself has taken into account of the several documents, which have been
transacted in respect of both the villages and then selected the data land in
Survey No.112/2, I feel that the learned Sub Judge has properly appreciated
the materials and adopted the right method to determine the compensation by
enhancing it from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre. Since the
above order has been passed by fully understanding the import of Section 7
read with Rule 4 of the Act and Rules, I do not find any reason for
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
07.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Maya
To
1. The Judge,
Sub Court,
Bhavani, Erode District.
2. The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Erode.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
07.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
