Madras High Court
G.Dhasarathan vs The Special Tahsildar (La) Unit Ii on 21 April, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21..04..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.Nos.498, 502, 508, 514, 516, 517, 518, 519,
520, 521, 522, 523, 525, 526, 527, 528, 530, 533, 535, 536,
537, 538, 540, 552, 979 of 2024, 573 & 574 of 2025
AND
C.M.P.No.7434, 7503, 7620, 7900, 7902, 7906, 7909,
7912, 7933, 7934, 7947, 7986, 7997, 8105, 8106,
8110, 8112, 8137, 8173, 8177, 8180, 8183, 8185,
8397, 9023, 26409 of 2024, 9996 of 2025, 9999 of 2025
.....
A.S.No.498 of 2025:
G.Dhasarathan
.... Appellant
-Versus-
1.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit II,
Kannankottai Village,
Gummidippoondi Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Department
Public Works Department,
Redhills, Tiruvallur District.
.... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 74 of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
praying to enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Principal District
Judge, Tiruvallur, order dated 22.02.2024 made in L.A.O.P.No.73 of 2019.
1 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
For Appellant in all : Mr.B.S.Jhothiraman
Appeal Suits
For Respondents 1 : Mrs.R.Anitha,
& 2 in all Appeal Special Government Pleader
Suits
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The appellants, who are the claimant(s) in the LAOP references before
the reference court, have come up with present appeal suits challenging the
inadequacy of the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court
(Principal District Judge) at Tiruvallur, by common order dated 22.02.2024
L.A.O.P.No.608 of 2021 and a batch of cases. The 1st respondent is the LAO
and 2nd respondent is the requiring body.
2. No cross-objections were filed either by 1st respondent/LAO or the
2nd respondent/requiring body as against the enhancement of compensation by
the reference court.
3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant(s) in
these appeal suits will be referred to as the claimants, while the 1st respondent
will be referred to as the LAO, and the 2nd respondent will be referred to as the
2 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
requiring body wherever the context so requires.
4. A vast extent of patta land situated in Kannan Kottai and Thervoy
Kandigai Villages, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District, including the
lands belonged to the claimants herein and several other landowners, was
proposed to be acquired for the formation of Kannan Kottai-Thervoy Kandigai
Reservoir.
5. Originally notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, were issued on different dates between 06.06.2013 and 24.07.2013
in the Tamil Nadu Gazettes declaring that the lands belonging to the claimants
and a few other landowners situated in Kannan Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai
Village were needed for a public purpose for the formation of Kannankottai
Thervoy Kandigai Reservoir Scheme Land Acquisition work and the same
were published in the official gazette and also in the local Tamil and English
daily newspapers. As it became necessary to acquire immediate possession of
the lands specified in the schedule to the respective 4(1) Notifications, the
Government invoked urgency provision under the provisions of sub-section (1)
of Section 17 of the LA Act and as such, enquiry under Section 5-A of the LA
Act, 1894, was dispensed with, invoking the emergency clause under Section
3 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
17(4) of the LA Act, 1894. Thereafter, declarations as required Section 6 of
the A Act, 1894, came to be issued. As there were legal tangles and writ
petitions and writ appeals at the instance of the claimants pending before this
court, the land acquisition proceedings had got delayed.
6. In the meantime, pending award enquiries in the acquisition
proceedings, the new Act called “The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”
[for short “RFCTLARR Act, 2013”] came into force with effect from
01.01.2014 and therefore, pursuant to the Government Orders and Executive
Orders, the acquisition proceedings were to be continued under the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in view of the specific provision under Section 24(1)
(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Accordingly, final awards were passed
block-wise in terms of the provisions contained in RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The
lands owned by the claimants are covered under Award Nos.3 of 2013 dated
16.04.2018; 4 of 2013 dated 03.04.2018; 4 of 2013 dated 30.04.2018; 5 of
2013 dated 12.04.2018; 5 of 2013 dated 01.06.2018; 7 of 2013 dated
09.04.2018; 1 of 2014 dated 09.04.2018; 1 of 2014 dated 16.04.2018; 1 of
2014 dated 24.04.2018; 2 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018; 3 of 2014 dated
17.04.2018; 4 of 2014 dated 16.09.2020; 5 of 2014 dated 17.04.2018; and 6 of
4 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
2014 dated 06.04.2018.
7. The details of the lands comprised in different survey numbers
situated at Kannan Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai villages, which had been
acquired from the claimants and at whose behest references were made for
enhancement of compensation (which had been taken as LAOPs), and the
details of the appeal suits filed by the aggrieved claimants over the inadequacy
of the compensation fixed by the reference court are as follows:
Sl Name Appeal L.A.O.P. Survey Extent of Award No.
No. Suit No. No. land & Date
No. acquired
(in Ares)
1 G.Dhasarathan 498 73 of 2019 201/7 0.06.5 5 of 2014
215/14 0.08.5 17.04.2018
215/15 0.02.5
Total 0.17.5
2 G.Dhasarathan 502 121 of 2020 171/7 0.19.5 3 of 2014
172/2 0.05.0 17.04.2018
172/4 0.11.0
Total 0.35.5
3 S.Baskar 508 5 of 2020 202/3 0.10.5 5 of 2014
17.04.2018
4 Vijayakumar 514 127 of 2020 161/2 0.11.5 1 of 2014
24.04.2018
5 M.Ravichandran 515 166 of 2020 287/3 0.09.0 3 of 2013
288/5A 0.05.0 16.04.2018
Total 0.14.0
6 G.Mohan 516 66 of 2019 286/5 0.06.5 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
7 Sekar 517 161 of 2020 295/13 0.06.0 2 of 2014
295/14 0.16.5 09.07.2018
295/15 0.06.0
320/0 0.10.0
Total 0.38.5
5 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
8 Sekar 518 210 of 2020 320/3 0.06.0 2 of 2014
320/7 0.09.5 09.07.2018
Total 0.15.5
9 G.Mohan 519 157 of 2020 152/4 0.09.5 4 of 2013
03.04.2018
10 G.Mohan 520 160 of 2020 152/5 0.09.5 4 of 2013
30.04.2018
11 Sanjeevi Naidu 521 67 of 2019 4/5 0.19.0 1 of 2014
09.04.2018
12 P.Selvam 522 180 of 2020 288/7 0.10.0 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
13 P.Selvam 523 218 of 2020 281/5 0.05.0 5 of 2013
282/3 0.12.0 12.04.2018
Total 0.17.0
14 D.Srinivasan 525 97 of 2020 179/4 0.20.0 5 of 2013
179/5 0.14.0 01.06.2018
185/2 0.07.5
Total 0.41.5
15 D.Srinivasan 526 108 of 2020 192/1 0.23.0 6 of 2014
192/4 0.03.0 06.04.2018
Total 0.26.0
16 M.Ravichandran 527 188 of 2020 153/3 0.04.0 4 of 2013
30.04.2018
17 Vijayakumar 528 181 of 2020 161/3G 0.13.5 1 of 2014
24.04.2018
18 G.Dhasarathan 530 93 of 2020 172/1 0.05.5 3 of 2014
171/6 0.08.5 17.04.2018
171/5B 0.08.5
1 0.22.0
Total
19 M.Ravichandran 533 114 of 2020 149/4 0.06.5 6 of 2013
06.04.2018
20 J.Beema Rao 535 190 of 2020 217/4 0.03.5 6 of 2014
217/8 0.14.5 06.04.2018
Total 0.18.0
21 Sekar 536 102 of 2020 320/5 0.09.5 2 of 2014
09.07.2018
22 Sekar 537 179 of 2020 323/8 0.10.0 1 of 2014
323/10 0.10.5 16.04.2018
Total 0.20.5
23 Sanjeevi Naidu 538 105 of 2020 151/3A 0.03.0 4 of 2013
151/4 0.25.0 30.04.2018
151/7 0.69.5
Total 0.97.5
6 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
24 Govindaraj 540 49 of 2020 330/3A 0.11.0 1 of 2014
330/3B 0.34.5 16.04.2018
330/7A 0.30.5
Total 0.76.0
25 P.Thukkaram Naidu 552 107 of 2020 270/2 0.03.0 7 of 2013
09.04.2018
26 J.Beema Rao 573 728 of 2021 179/1 0.03.5 4 of 2014
part 16.09.2020
179/2 0.22.0
part
Total 0.25.0
27 G.Mohan 574 192 of 2020 286/4 0.05.5 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
28 Thirupathi 979 203 of 2020 317/8 0.06.0 2 of 2014
317/18 0.04.0 09.07.2018
Total 0.10.0
8. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the 1st
respondent/LAO, the respective landowners sought reference to the authority
concerned individually, the Principal District Judge (Reference Court) at
Tiruvallur, to establish their claim for enhancement of compensation.
Accordingly, the 1st respondent referred the claim of the landowners to the
reference court under Section 64 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013.
9. The landowners claimed reference under Section 64 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 inter alia stating that the market value fixed by the
referring officer was too low and disproportionate to the prevailing market
value. The annual income from the land was not less than Rs. 1,50,000/- per
acre. The lands adjacent to the acquired lands were already converted as house
7 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
sites and are being sold at square foot rate. The acquired lands are situated near
the SIPCOT industrial park formed on the border of Kannan Kottai village, and
the SIPCOT has let out the lands on lease, and as per the lease deed vide Doc.
No. 5266 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 entered by SIPCOT with M/s. Metal
Powder Company Limited, the cost of the plot in Thervoy Kandigai Village
was fixed between Rs. 38.50 lakhs and 50.00 lakhs per acre. Therefore, as
per the said lease agreement, the market rate of the land in the village is
Rs. 1,23,578/- per are. Both the villages were brought within the CMDA limits.
Adjacent land was sold for Rs.500/- per square foot even before the notification
in the year 2013. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a farcical
manner, and no real enquiry was conducted. They are entitled to enhanced
compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, together with all statutory
benefits.
10. The LAO objected to the claim of the landowners for enhancement
of compensation inter alia, contending that there was no proof to support their
claim of Rs.50,000/- per cent as compensation. The market value claimed by
the landowners is too high. No sale transaction took place at the market value
in the vicinity as claimed by the landowners. The claimants are entitled only to
compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013
8 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
came into force only with effect from 01.01.2014. The landowners are not
entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits introduced under the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) Nos.663-16632/2018. The final awards passed shall be
construed to be awards for all purposes. The claimants have already been paid
compensation. The claim made by the landowners for awarding enhanced
compensation at Rs.500/- per square foot is unsustainable both in law and on
facts.
11.1 The reference court proceeded to conduct a joint trial in all original
petitions based on the memo filed by the claimants and endorsed by the learned
Government Pleader who appeared for the referring officer and the requiring
body, expressing his no objection to conduct a joint trial in all original
petitions.
11.2 During the enquiry before the Reference Court, oral and
documentary evidence were let in by the parties in the lead case in LAOP
No.608 of 2021. On the side of the claimant(s), K.B. Mahesh, the claimant in
L.A.O.P. No.608 of 2021, examined himself as C.W.1 and adduced Ex.C.1 to
Ex.C.14. On the side of the referring officer, the Deputy Tahsildar (LA),
Kannan Kottai - Thervoy Kandigai Reservoir Scheme, examined himself as
9 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
R.W.1; however, no documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the
claimants.
11.3. Altogether, 145 LAOPs were dealt with by the reference court
(Principal District Judge) at Tiruvallur jointly, and as already stated supra,
L.A.O.P.No.608 of 201 was taken to be the lead case.
12. The reference court has formulated the following questions to decide
the matters:
1) Whether the impugned awards passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer (Referring Officer) are fair and
just?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
3) Whether these claim petitions are to be allowed?
13.1 On appreciating the available oral and documentary evidence, the
reference court, by common order dated 22.02.2024, found that the market
values fixed by the 1st respondent/LAO were not just and fair. The reference
court held that the claimants were entitled to get compensation at the enhanced
market value together with all other statutory benefits for the enhanced
compensation as against the market value fixed by the referring officer.
10 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
13.2 The details of the market value fixed by the 1st respondent/LAO and
the market value determined by the reference court by common order under
appeal as against the market value fixed by the LAO in sofar as the claimants
who have preferred appeal suits are as under:-
Sl Appeal L.A.O.P. Market value Market value Award
No. Suit No. determined by determined Number &
No. the LAO by the Date
Amount in reference
Rupees court
Per Are Amount in
Rupees
Per Are
1 498 73 of 2019 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 5 of 2014
17.04.2018
2 502 121 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2014
17.04.2018
3 508 5 of 2020*
4 514 127 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 1 of 2014
24.04.2018
5 515 166 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
6 516 66 of 2019 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
7 517 161 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 2 of 2014
09.07.2018
8 518 210 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 2 of 2014
09.07.2018
9 519 157 of 2020 Rs.23,475/- Rs.29,640/- 4 of 2013
30.04.2018
10 520 160 of 2020 Rs.23,475/- Rs.29,640/- 4 of 2013
30.04.2018
11 521 67 of 2019 Rs.17,300/- Rs.29,640/- 1 of 2014
09.04.2018
12 522 180 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
13 523 218 of 2020*
14 525 97 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 5 of 2013
01.06.2018
11 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
15 526 108 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 6 of 2014
06.04.2018
16 527 188 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 4 of 2013
30.04.2018
17 528 181 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 1 of 2014
24.04.2018
18 530 93 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2014
17.04.2018
19 533 73 of 2019 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 5 of 2014
17.04.2018
20 535 190 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 6 of 2014
06.04.2018
21 536 102 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 2 of 2014
09.07.2018
22 537 179 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 1 of 2014
16.04.2018
23 538 105 of 2020 Rs.19,770/- Rs.29,640/- 4 of 2013
Rs.23,475/- 30.04.2018
24 540 49 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 1 of 2014
16.04.2018
25 552 107 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 7 of 2013
09.04.2018
26 573 728 of 2021 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 4 of 2014
16.09.2020
27 574 192 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 3 of 2013
16.04.2018
28 979 203 of 2020 Rs.22,240/- Rs.29,640/- 2 of 2014
09.07.2018
14. The main grounds urged in the appeal memorandum (s) are as
follows:
(i) The reference court has overlooked the
provisions of Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
(ii) The reference court has adopted the highest
12 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
of sale exemplars instead of adopting the method prescribed
under Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
(iii) The reference villages are 60 kilometers
away from the Chennai City and therefore, they come under
the category of rural area and as such the multiplier method
adopted by the reference court is not correct and it should
have been '2' instead of 1.25.
(iv) The claim of the claimants in some of the
cases for enhanced compensation for superstructure, wells /
bore wells, trees and other attachments to the acquired land
was not properly considered by the reference court. The
order of the reference court setting off the value of
superstructure and other assets and things attached to the
acquired land for the depreciation value of the acquired land
is against law.
(v) The reference court erred in not considering the
claim of the landowners for a direction to the authorities
concerned to make a provision for burial/cremation ground
with all facilities.
13 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
15. In the light of the above grounds, the points that arise for
consideration are:
(1) Are the claimants/appellants still eligible for
higher compensation?
(2) Whether the claimants, in some of the cases where
superstructure, wells/bore wells and trees were involved, are
entitled to get enhanced compensation thereof?
(3) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to
infrastructural amenities under RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
(4) To what other relief the appellants/claimants are
entitled?
16. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the
learned law officer on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.
17. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the
reference court has overlooked the provisions of Section 26(1) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which provides a mechanism for the assessment and
determination of the market value of the acquired land by the LAO based on
the approach which determines the highest amount, out of the two approaches
set out in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of the Section 26 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and has adopted the comparable sale method.
14 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
18. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants would further
submit that the claimants, who stood to lose their lands in view of the
acquisition and the acquisition had a significant impact in the livelihood of the
claimants; the claimants were therefore unable to mobilize funds for the
payment of court-fees as such they had to restrict the claim for enhancement of
market value at Rs.50,000/- per are as against the market value determined by
the reference court ranging between Rs.14,830/- and Rs.23,475/- per are.
However, if this court finds that the market value determined by the reference
court per are is on the lower side and the claimants would be entitled to higher
compensation, they are ready to pay the appropriate court-fees for the enhanced
compensation.
19. Per contra, the learned law officer appearing on behalf of the
respondents, while admitting the fact that the cases on hand come under
Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and as such, would fairly
concede that the entire approach of the reference court while assessing the
market value of acquired lands was wrong, as it had overlooked the provision
in Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
20. The law officer would further contend that the notifications for
acquisition of various extents of land in the cases on hand were issued between
15 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
06.06.2013 and 24.07.2013, and therefore Ex.C.1 lease deed cannot be taken
into consideration. Further, according to them, Ex.C.6 is a sale deed dated
16.12.2013 in respect of 1076 square feet of housing site comprised in
S.No.89/7 of Madharpakkam village, Gummidipoondi Taluk. This also cannot
be taken into consideration as it relates to post 4(1) notifications and that by
that time, considerable development had taken place in the area around the
SIPCOT.
21. The law officer would further contend that, Ex.C.5 is also a sale deed
relating to a small-sized housing plot. Though the transfer under Ex.C.5 was
made on 20.07.2012, which was long before the immediately preceding three
years of the year in which the acquisition of land was proposed to be made, it
also relates to the transfer of a small-sized housing plot measuring 1317 square
feet comprised in S.No.183/2A1A1 of Madharpakkam village, Gummidipoondi
Taluk. Therefore, Ex.C.5 sale deed also cannot be taken into consideration
since a large extent of land was acquired, and when the acquired land is vast, a
small extent of sale transactions, particularly the sale of small-sized housing
plots, cannot be taken into consideration for the assessment and determination
of the market value of the acquired lands.
22. This court has considered the rival submissions made on the
16 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
determination of market value of the lands acquired from the claimants
carefully.
23. The claimants are now left in the lurch after the State, in exercising
its eminent domain, compulsorily took away their agricultural holdings, which
were their sole source of income. No doubt, the acquisition of lands from the
claimants could have had a significant impact on their livelihood, especially
when they were dependent on agricultural land for their daily lives and
economies.
24. Deprivation of livelihood is a serious concern because it undermines
the abilities of the affected families, whose agricultural lands have been
acquired by way of compulsory acquisition, to meet basic needs and maintain a
decent standard of living. Therefore, undoubtedly, the claimants being land
losers and affected by the compulsory acquisition, must be compensated with
fair compensation.
25. At the outset, it is relevant to state here that the matters in issue are
covered by common judgment dated 28.03.2025 made in A.S.No.1091 of 2024
order dated 22.02.2024 preferred against the common order of the reference
court dated 22.02.2024 made in LA.O.P.No.608 of 2021 and a batch of cases.
26. This court by the said order recorded a finding that the neither the
land acquisition officer nor the reference court did adhere to the provisions of
17 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
Section 26(1) of the RFCTLAR Act, 2013 in determining the market value of
the acquired lands at Rs.29,640/- per are by adopting the comparable sales
method of valuation of land while fixing the market value instead of assessing
(a) market land value as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (b) average sale price for
similar type of land in the vicinity and adopting the highest of the values as
determined by Clauses (a) and (b) to be treated as the market value under
Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013. It is relevant to mention here that
as the acquisition in the instant cases does not involve private companies or
public-private partnerships, the provision of clause (c) would not apply. This
court further assessed the market value (guideline value) and average sale price
as provided under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and since average sale price assessed was higher than
the market value (guideline value) specified in the Stamp Act, this court
adopted the average sale price and determined the market value of the acquired
land at Rs.60,000/- per are as against the market value determined by the
reference ranging between Rs.14,830/- and Rs.23,475/- per are.
27. This court does not want to burden this judgment by extracting the
entire judgment, and it would suffice if the relevant portions of the judgment
were reproduced. They read as follows:
18 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
“37. Evidently, as already discussed supra, the
LAO had overlooked the provisions in Section 26(1) and
failed to adopt the method which assesses the highest
market value out of the options as provided under sub-
Section (1) of Section 26 of the RFCTLARR, 2013, more
particularly the options provided under clauses (a) and
(b). On this score the market value determined by the
reference court is not sustainable, and this court must
necessarily redo the assessment of the market value for
the determination of the market value of the acquired
land in terms of Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, for fixation of fair compensation.
GUIDELINE VALUE AS SPECIFIED IN
INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899:
38. Let us now assess the market value (guideline
value) fixed in respect of the lands as specified in the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds
in Kannan Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai village where
the acquired lands are situated. It is seen from the
available records that the guideline values vary for each
survey field. The highest guideline value, as could be
seen from the list mentioned above, is found to be
Rs.29,655/- per are. Though the lands were acquired in
different survey numbers under different acquisition
proceedings, indisputably, they were adjacent to each
other and are acquired for the same purpose.
39. In the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and
others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC
717], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it would
be unfair to discriminate between the appellants/land
owners and the land owners in the other references, when
lands located in two different villages in the same
neighbourhood are acquired simultaneously and for the
same purpose unless there are strong reasons.
40. In the light of the above settled legal position, for the
lands acquired from the claimants situated in Kannan
Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai village for the purpose of
19 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
formation of a new reservoir, in the absence of any
evidence from the respondents demonstrating strong
reasons, this court is of the considered view that showing
discrimination among the claimants would not be fair.
Therefore, as provided under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, based on the
materials available on record, this court concludes that
the guideline value of the acquired lands could be
assessed as Rs.29,655/- per are.
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
AVERAGE SALE PRICE:
41. Let us now assess the average sale price as
required under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 by considering the sale
exemplars registered for similar type of area in the nearby
village or nearby vicinity. In the instant case, though
acquisition was originally initiated under the LA Act,
1894 and notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act,
1894 were issued between 06.06.2013 and 24.07.2013, as
already discussed, on the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 coming
into force with effect from 01.01.2014, the market value
for acquired lands, will be assessed based on Section
26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act.
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
65. On a careful assessment of a total number sale
exemplars tabulated already in which the highest sale
price has been mentioned coupled with the other
available materials and keeping in mind the settled legal
position in this regard and also taking judicial notice, this
court is of the view that the sale price mentioned in the
sale exemplars under Serial Nos. 1 to 19 are not
indicative of actual prevailing market value, and
therefore, they must be discounted from consideration for
the purposes of calculating market value as provided
20 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
under Explanation-4. Therefore, the sale exemplars have
to be further reduced. When that is done so, as per
Explanations 1 & 2, the total available sale deed is hardly
28. They are tabulated as under:-
Sl.No. Ty Pa Sl. Value Do Doc.
pe ge No. in c.N Date
d No Ares o.
set .
Vo
lu
me
No
.
1. 1 229 67 73482 5962 14.12.2011
2. 1 231 88 68090 1487 21.03.2012
3. 1 228 49 61676 4016 07.09.2011
4. 1 225 18 61585 4311 27.10.2010
5. 1 228 50 60860 4017 07.09.2011
6. 1 229 61 60762 4912 31.10.2011
7. 2 498 280 59438 3077 04.06.2012
8. 2 306 17 57966 3071 28.07.2010
9. 1 231 87 55970 1486 21.03.2012
10. 1 225 17 54669 4310 27.10.2010
11. 1 224 5 54340 4914 31.10.2011
12. 2 496 257 54163 3496 31.08.2010
13. 1 225 15 54093 4308 27.10.2010
14. 2 497 273 54086 5291 18.11.2011
15. 3 685 108 54042 3639 17.08.2011
16. 4 776 52 54031 5962 14.12.2011
17. 2 497 275 53985 688 15.02.2012
18. 3 736 118 53956 642 17.02.2011
21 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
19. 1 188 79 53955 642 17.02.2011
20. 3 687 143 53929 1390 15.03.2012
21. 3 688 147 53921 1486 21.03.2012
22. 1 229 59 53910 4908 31.10.2011
23. 2 342 48 53900 3639 17.08.2011
24. 3 688 148 53897 1487 21.03.2012
25. 1 194 136 53846 1643 26.03.2012
26. 1 229 60 53056 4911 31.10.2011
27. 1 183 39 45969 3670 17.08.2011
28. 1 229 62 42237 4913 31.10.2011
66. With the above 28 bonafide sale exemplars,
this court has to assess the average sale price by
considering one half of the total number of sale deeds,
i.e., the first 14 out of a total of 28 sale deeds.
67. The guideline value has already been
determined by this court as Rs.29,655/-. The sale
transaction which indicates the highest market value was
already rejected by this court, as the market value of the
properties which were subject matters of those sale
deeds were found not to be indicative of prevailing
market value in the area. The project villages are part of
Gummidipoondi Taluk in Tiruvallur District and
situated near Gummidipoondi Town Panchayat.
Moreover, the project villages. Gummidipoondi is part
of the expanded Chennai Metropolitan Region,
bordering Chennai.
68. The market value is nothing but an amount
that a willing seller might expect to receive from a
prudent willing buyer if the land were sold on the open
22 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
market, which will be considered the market value. The
compensation must, therefore, be determined by
reference to the price which a willing vendor might
reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser as
on the date of the notification published under Section
4(1).
69. Considering all the above factors, particularly,
the industrial and housing developments in the project
villages where the SIPCOT Industrial Park was
established in 1983 itself; this court is of the view that
no vendor would have sold his property for a value less
than the guideline value. The market value in and
around the project villages would not have been less
than between Rs.40,000/- and Rs.75,000/- per are.
70. The available 14 sale deeds out of one-
half of total sale deeds (14 out of 28 already short-listed)
are tabulated hereunder for easy and better
understanding:
Typed
Value
Sl. set Page Sl. Doc. Doc.
in
No. Volume No. No. No. Date
AREs
No.
1. 1 229 67 73482 5962 14.12.201
2. 1 231 88 68090 1487 21.03.201
3. 1 228 49 61676 4016 07.09.201
4. 1 225 18 61585 4311 27.10.201
5. 1 228 50 60860 4017 07.09.201
6. 1 229 61 60762 4912 31.10.201
7. 2 498 280 59438 3077 04.06.201
8. 2 306 17 57966 3071 28.07.201
9. 1 231 87 55970 1486 21.03.201
10. 1 225 17 54669 4310 27.10.201
23 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
11. 1 224 5 54340 4914 31.10.201
12. 2 496 257 54163 3496 31.08.201
13. 1 225 15 54093 4308 27.10.2010
14. 2 497 273 54086 5291 18.11.2011
831180
Average sale price of one-half 59370
of the total number of sale deeds per are
(48 ÷ 2 = 14) in which the
highest sale price has been
mentioned works out to
Accordingly, the average sale price is assessed at
Rs.59,370/- per are.
71. Thus, it is evident from the discussions made
above, the average sale price assessed at Rs.59,370/- per
are is higher than the guideline value assessed. For
comparison and better understanding, the guideline
value and the average sale price are tabulated hereunder:
Guideline value Average sale Price
Rs.29,655/- per are Rs.59,370/- per are
The average sale price assessed at Rs.59,370/- may be
rounded up to Rs.60,000/- per are.
72. As already discussed above, the market value
(guideline value) of the acquired property is assessed at
Rs.29,655/- per are, and the average sale price is
assessed at Rs.60,000/- per are. Between these two,
whichever is the higher value has to be taken to be the
market value of the acquired land to determine the
market value as provided under sub-section (1) of
Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act. So, the average sale
price, which comes to Rs.60,000/- must be taken as the
market value rather than the market value (guideline
value) of Rs.29,655/- per are.
24 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
73. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired
land(s) is redetermined at Rs.60,000/- per are.”
28. Insofar as arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
claimants that the reference villages come under the category of rural areas and
therefore, the reference court ought to have adopted multiplier of 2 instead of
1.25 as per First Schedule is concerned, earlier, this court by judgment dated
28.03.2025 in A.S.No.1091 of 2024 and a batch of cases, after having
considered such arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants,
rejected the same on the ground that distance of the project from the urban
areas matters in the determination of multiplier factor and not the distance from
Chennai City. Since Gummidipoondi is a Town Panchayat as per the definition
made under clause (n) of sub-rule (1) to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Rules, 2017 and the project villages are situated within 30
kilometers from the urban area - Gummidipoondi Town Panchayat, the
reference court was right in adopting the multiplier of 1.25. The relevant
portions of the judgment of this court in that regard read as follows:
“78. Admittedly, the subject villages – Kannan
Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai are close to
Gummidipoondi. Gummidipoondi became a town after
it was declared a taluk in 1972. No doubt, the project
villages form part of Gummidipoondi Taluk in
25 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
Tiruvallur District. Gummidipoondi is admittedly a
town panchayat which does not include the project
villages. The villages Kannan Kottai and Thervoy
Kandigai do not fall under the category “urban area”,
and they are rural areas as per the TN Rules, 2017. The
project villages Kannan Kottai and Thervoy Kandigai
are situated 28 kilometers (approx.) and 25 kilometers
(approx.) away from Gummidipoondi Town Panchayat,
respectively.
79. The Government in its Order in G.O.(Ms)
No.300, Revenue & Disaster Management (LA-I(1),
dated 20th September 2017, notified in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette Extraordinary No.300, dated
21.9.2017 prescribed that in the case of rural areas, the
provision under Sl. No.2 of First Schedule of the said
Act first cited prescribes the factor by which the market
value is to be multiplied as 1 to 2 based on the distance
of the project from urban areas. Accordingly, the
multiplier factor has been issued in the G.O. third cited
and notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
fourth cited as given below:
Sl. Distance of the Factor by which
No. Project from Urban the market value is
Areas to be multiplied
(1) (2) (3)
1 Within 30 Kilometres 1.25 (i.e. 250%)
2 Beyond 30 Kilometres 1.50 (i.e. 300%)
and within 50
Kilometres
3 Beyond 50 Kilometres 2.00 (i.e. 400%)
80. In the light of the definition given under the
clause (n) of sub-rule (1) to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules,
2017, indisputably, the project villages fall under the
26 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
category of rural areas. Therefore, in respect of the
lands acquired in the project villages as per the First
Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 r/w Section
31(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the factor by
which the market value has to be multiplied will have
to be “1.00 and 2.00” based on the distance of project
from urban area as per G.O.(Ms) No.300, Revenue &
Disaster Management (LA-I(1), dated 20th September
2017, which was notified in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette Extraordinary No.300, dated
21.09.2017, and the factor by which the market value
is to be multiplied for a project area which is situated
within 30 kilometers from an urban area
(Gummidipoondi Town Panchayat) is 1.25 (250%).
81. The reference villages Kannan Kottai and
Thervoy Kandigai are part of Gummidipoondi Taluk in
Tiruvallur District. Gummidipoondi is a town
panchayat located at the outskirts of Chennai. It has a
mix of urban and rural characteristics. Gummidipoondi
is known for its industrial growth. SIPCOT industrial
park was established way back in 1983. The reference
court, considering the industrial and housing
developments in and around the project villages and
the proximity of the project villages to the urban area
and the Chennai City Corporation limits, has rightly
applied the multiplier factor ‘1.25” G.O.(Ms) No.300,
Revenue & Disaster Management (LA-I(1), dated 20th
September 2017. This court does not find any illegality
in the same. Thus, this court is of the view that the
argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that
the reference court should have accepted multiplier
factor 2 considering the distance of the project villages
from Chennai is unfounded.
82. The claimants are entitled to have the market
value re-determined above multiplied by 1.25 as per
the FIRST SCHEDULE to the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013,
together with 100% and entitled to all other statutory
benefits provided under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.”
27 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
DEVELOMENT CHARGES:
29. Coming to the arguments advanced by the learned law officer in
respect of deduction of developments charges is concerned, after having
considered the arguments advanced on either side, earlier, by judgment dated
28.03.2025 made in A.S.No.1091 of 2024 and having taken note of the purpose
of acquisition, this court held that no deduction could be directed towards
development charges. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement of this court
read as follows:-
“89. Had the acquisition of lands been made for the
setting up of industries or the setting up of housing
colonies or other such allied purposes, a deduction
towards development (for keeping aside area/space for
providing developmental infrastructure and
developmental expenditure) could be ordered to be made
from out of the market value so determined to compute
the compensation for the lands acquired from the
claimants.
90. When the acquisition of lands was for the
purpose of the formation of a reservoir, the question of
wastage of land or reservation of a certain extent of land
for public amenities or road facilities would not at all
arise in the instant cases, as the lands were acquired for
the formation of a new reservoir and no strip of land is
required to be reserved for any public amenities, and as
such, no development charges need be deducted.
Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa [(2007) 9 SCC
447] and followed by C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Land
Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer, (2009) 11 SCC
28 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
75, no deduction could be ordered to be made towards
developmental charges from the enhanced market value
determined by this court.”
30. In the light of the detailed judgment passed by this court earlier in
A.S.No.1091 of 2024 and a batch of cases dated 28.03.2025, (i) the market
value of the land fixed by the reference court at Rs.29,640/- per are is liable to
be modified and the same has to be fixed at Rs.60,000/- per are; (ii) the
reference court was right in adopting the multiplier factor of 1.25, and
therefore, the finding of the reference court in that regard stands confirmed. The
arguments of the learned law officer regarding the deduction of development
charges cannot be countenanced, and no development charges could be directed
to be deducted. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
31. Admittedly, the acquisition in the instant cases was made under
Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 2014; however, no award was passed under
Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894. Thus, all provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, relating to the determination of compensation, would apply. The term
“compensation” includes market value for the superstructure and other
immovable property or assets attached to the land. Thus, the claimants are
entitled to compensation for buildings, other immovable property or assets
attached to the land and also trees.
29 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
32. Insofar as the market value for superstructure and other things
attached to the acquired land is concerned, the reference court recorded its
finding as follows:
9. Value for Superstructure : Further, as per the
Ex.P11, the Land Survey of the acquired lands in the
impugned village, in some of the lands, there are
superstructures like Well, motor pump and trees are in
existence. However, even though Ex.P11 Land survey
report reflects about the existence of trees and other
superstructure in many lands, to arrive at the amount
of claim, the respective claimants have not produced
any materials to fix the value for superstructures
mentioned above. In the absence of material
documents, this Court is not able to arrive at the value
of building / superstructure / trees in the respective
lands merely for existence of the same in some lands.
10. Depreciation Value : However, on
considering the depreciation value, since it is a
proposal for a reservoir scheme, the land has to be
levelled and some charges are to be deducted as per
the required norms, 20% depreciation value has to be
fixed.
11. Set off with each other : Equally, the
respondent has not placed any calculation to arrive
for depreciation value. In the event of inability to
30 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
arrive at the value of superstructures like wells, motor
pumps, etc. and trees in the absence of materials
placed by the claimants, it can be set off for the
depreciation value, so that neither depreciation value
is calculated nor valued the superstructure in the
respective acquired lands.”
33. To determine the market value of the superstructure and other things
attached to the land acquired, in the cases on hand except Ex.C.11-Land Survey
Report, no other expert evidence is available to ascertain the value of the same.
There is no specific evidence let in on behalf of the claimants in this regard. On
a careful perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, nothing was confronted to him in
the cross-examination regarding the value of the superstructures and other
things attached to the acquired land and also trees.
34. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants, he would fairly admit no evidence was adduced during
the enquiry before the trial court, except Ex.C.11 Land Survey Report prepared
by the 1st respondent/LAO. He did not press much on the enhancement of
market value for the superstructure and other things attached to the acquired
land.
35. In the absence of any expert evidence demonstrating the market
31 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
value of the superstructure and other things attached to the acquired land on the
date of notifications, this court has no other option except to confirm the
market value fixed by the LAO in the respective award.
36. In the light of the discussion made above, the finding of the reference
court regarding market value for the superstructure and other things attached to
the acquired land stands set aside, and whatever the market value fixed by the
LAO in this regard stands maintained. It is made clear that the claimants in the
respective petitions where the superstructure, buildings, wells/borewells, trees
and other things attached to the acquired land are not entitled to any enhanced
compensation.
37. The learned counsel, though, made an attempt to convince this court,
drawing attention to the THIRD SCHEDULE to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013,
and would submit that burial and cremation grounds were also subject matters
of acquisition and no provision as provided was made for burial and cremation
grounds, the learned law officer who had been present was not able to give any
reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants.
38. The LA Act, 1894, did not include provisions for resettlement and
rehabilitation (for short, “the R & R”) of the individual landowners displaced
by land acquisition. The LA Act, 1894, primarily focused on compensation for
32 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
the loss of land and not on the broader impact of land acquisition. It provided
only compensation to the landowners who were displaced, and it lacked
mechanisms to address the social and economic consequences of land
acquisition, particularly for those displaced and dependent on the land for their
livelihood. It primarily focused on the compensation for the loss of individual
immovable property, movable property, standing crops and trees.
39. When this court informed the learned counsel for the claimants that
in view of the specific provision contained in Section 24(1)(a) of the
RFCTLAR Act, 2013, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited v. Deepak Aggarwal [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644], only for
the determination of compensation, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, would apply, the learned counsel conceded the legal position. Therefore,
the claimants are not entitled to get any other relief under the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, except a fair compensation for their lands acquired by the state.
40. However, the State and the appropriate authorities shall ensure that a
common burial/cremation ground is provided in accordance with the provisions
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, because, the burial ground that was used by the
villagers — including the landowners who were affected by the acquisition,
33 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
was also acquired for the construction of a reservoir.
41. Similar view was taken by this court earlier in the judgment dated
28.03.2025 in A.S.No.1901 of 2024 and a batch of cases.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
Point No.4:
42. In the light of the discussions made above, the appellants/claimants
are entitled to get enhanced compensation calculated at the market rate
determined above together with all other statutory benefits. Thus, the appeal
suits succeed partly, and the common order of the reference court (Principal
District Judge) at Tiruvallur only insofar as the market value is concerned
requires modification, and in all other aspects, the common order and decree(s)
of the reference court (Principal District Judge) at Tiruvallur stand confirmed.
The market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per are from
Rs.29,640/- per are fixed by the reference court; the claimants are entitled to
get the market value multiplied by factor 1.25 as per Schedule I of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013; the claimants are entitled to 100% solatium; besides
the above, the claimants are entitled to all other statutory benefits provided
under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and as ordered by the reference court.
34 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
43. Except for the reliefs already granted herein above, the
appellants/claimants are not entitled to any other reliefs. This point is answered
accordingly.
In the result, the appeal suits are allowed in part
(i) The common order of the reference court with
respect to market value determined by the reference
court alone is modified and enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per
are from Rs.29,640/- per are insofar as the references
under appeal are concerned.
(ii) The common order of the reference court with
respect to payment of compensation for the
superstructure, wells/borewells, trees and other things
attached to the acquired land is set aside, and the
claimants in the respective claim petitions are entitled to
compensation for the superstructure, wells/borewells,
trees and other things attached to the acquired land at the
rate as fixed by the LAO in the respective awards. It is
made clear that the claimants in those cases are not
entitled to get any enhanced compensation.
35 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
(iii) The appellants/claimants in the cases for
compensation towards superstructure, wells/borewells,
trees, or other things attached, as the case may be, and
where a claim for enhancement of compensation in
respect of the same was made, are not entitled to any
compensation for the superstructures and other things, as
the case may be, and the award passed by the LAO in
that regard stands confirmed.
(iv) The common order and the individual
decree(s) of the reference court, in so far as the adoption
of the multiplier as per the First Schedule, solatium,
additional compensation and all other statutory benefits
are concerned, the same shall stand confirmed. The
compensation amounts, if any, already received by the
claimant(s) shall be deducted from the enhanced
compensation payable by the respondents.
(v) The 1st respondent or the authority concerned
in the State is directed to deposit the entire enhanced
compensation together with all statutory benefits
36 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
provided under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(vi) The learned law officer who represented the
respondents in the appeal suits is entitled to separate fees
for each of the appeal suits.
(vii) The appellants/claimants in the respective
appeal suits herein are directed to pay deficit court-fees
on the appeal suits within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(viii) The decree(s) in these cases shall be drafted
after the payment of deficit court-fees has been paid by
the respective claimants.
(ix) The local body concerned or the State shall
ensure that burial/cremation ground(s) is/are earmarked
in the reference villages for the use of the villagers and
notified.
(x) Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, both parties are directed to bear their respective
37 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
costs.
Consequently, connected CMPs are closed.
Index : yes / no 21..04..2025
Neutral citation : yes / no
kmk
Note: The Registry is directed to type out cause title for rest of the appeal suits
and issue certified copies to the parties.
38 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
A.S.No.498 of 2025 and a batch of cases
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
and
a batch of cases
21..04..2025
39 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 04:15:56 pm )
