Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer And vs Muthusamy Udayar (Died) on 13 November, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
S.A.No. 76 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No. 76 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos. 1802 of 2022 & 19786 of 2023
The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Having Office at Jawans Building,
Salem Town, Salem Taluk,
Now at Collectorate,
Salem - 636 001. ...Appellants
Vs.
Muthusamy Udayar (died)
1.Ramasamy
2.Muthammal
3.Selvambal
4.Sumathi ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme, 1978 r/w. Section 100 of the Code of
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 76 of 2022
Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed by the I-Additional
Sub-Court, Salem in L.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2001 vide Order dated 05.09.2019
modifying the Award No.10/1997-98 dated 13.03.1998 passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildhar (ADW), Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Siddaharthan, Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.K.Raja for Mr.N.Kolandaivelu
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in the appeal is to the judgment of the Sub-Court, Salem
made in L.A.C.M.A.No. 2 of 2001.
2. An extent of land measuring about 5.52 acres in Survey No.85,
Minnampalli Vilage was acquired by the State for provision of free house
sites to Adi Dravidars living in the said village. A notification under 4(1) of
Act 31 of 1978 was issued on 13.03.1998, granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- per
acre. Terming the compensation as too low, the land owners / respondents
herein filed an appeal in L.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2001 under Section 9 of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Act, 31 of 1978) before the Sub-Court, Salem.
2.The land owners relied upon the sale deed dated 21.02.1995 in and
by which, an extent of about 1312 and 1/2 Sq.ft., was sold for a sum of
Rs.25,000/-. The land owners also filed Ex.P2 to demonstrate that lands in
and around the acquired lands situate in Survey Nos.82 & 83 of the said
village have been sold as house sites. Therefore, the acquired land should
also be valued as house sites for the purpose of determination of
compensation.
3.The State, however, resisted the claim contending that the sale deed,
Ex.P1 is beyond a period of one year from the date of 4(1) notification and
therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for acquisition. This claim
was rejected by the Trial Court and it concluded that the land covered by
Ex.P1 is situate in the very adjacent survey number and hence, that would
offer a sale guide for determination of the value of the acquired lands. The
learned Sub-ordinate Judge also took into account the fact that the lands
around Survey No.85 were house sites before acquisition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge took that circumstance to conclude
that the land in Survey No.85 has potential for being converted into house
sites. The very purpose of the acquisition was also taken into account by
the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. On the above conclusions, the learned Sub-
ordinate Judge fixed the value of the land at Rs.19/- per Sq.ft., based on
Ex.P1 and after deducting 33% towards development charges arrived at the
compensation of Rs.12.73/- per Sq.ft. The Court also awarded 15%
solatium and 6% interest on the enhanced compensation. A compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded for the Well that was situate in the
acquired land. Aggrieved by the above enhancement, the State has come up
with this appeal.
5. We have heard Mr.R.Siddaharthan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Mr.R.Siddaharthan, learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the Land Acquisition Officer is required to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
determine the amount of compensation as on the date of publication of the
notice under Sub-Section 1 of Section 4. He would also point out that the
Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into account Ex.P1 because it was
beyond a period of one year from the publication of 4(1) notification. No
doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken sale deeds which were within
a period of one year, anterior to the date of the 4(1) notification and has
ignored the others. We do not find a statutory backing for such action of the
Land Acquisition Officer.
7. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has concluded that the fact that
Ex.P2 is beyond the period of one year from the date of the notice will not
make it unreliable. The learned Sub-ordinate has rendered a specific finding
that since the land covered by Ex.P1 is situate next to the acquired land and
a perusal of Ex.P2 demonstrates that the lands in the vicinity of the acquired
land have been sold as house sites. Therefore, we are unable to fault the
Trial Court for having come to the conclusion that Ex.P1 can be taken as a
safe guide for fixing the value of the land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant
would contend that the learned Sub-ordinate Judge was not right in granting
separate compensation for Well. Though Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel for the
respondents / land owners would contend that even the Land Acquisition
Officer has granted separate compensation for the Well and therefore, the
learned Sub-ordinate Judge was right in granting separate compensation for
the Well. We do not think, we can sustain the grant of separate
compensation for the Well in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda
reported in (1996) 6 SCC 124 held that no separate compensation is
allowable for the Well, since compensation is paid for the land occupied by
the Well also.
9. In view of the above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme court,
we find that grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the Well cannot be
sustained. The Trial Court has also taken care to deduct 33% towards
development charges as Ex.P1, sale deed is for a smaller extent compared to
the area of the land acquired. The statutory benefits like solatium and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interest have also been awarded in conformity with the provisions of the
Act. We therefore, see no reason to interfere with the fixation of the land
value as made by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge.
10. In fine, this Second Appeal is partly allowed. The award of
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the Well alone is set aside. The award is
confirmed with other aspects. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.)
13.11.2024
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index: No
Speaking
Neutral Citation : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
KKN
To:-
1.The I-Additional Sub-Judge,
Salem.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Having Office at Jawans Building,
Salem Town, Salem Taluk,
Now at Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.
and
C.M.P.Nos. 1802 of 2022 & 19786 of 2023
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
