Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs Ganesan on 30 April, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.257 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30..04..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.Nos.257, 232, 234, 238, 239, 241, 244, 246, 248, 251, 253, 261, 262,
263, 265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 273, 277, 279, 281, 282, 284, 287, 290,
292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310,
311, 317, 320, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 337, 338, 340,
341, 346, 350, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360, 364, 365, 366, 367,
368, 369, 370, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, 382, 383, 388, 389,
390, 391, 395, 397, 399, 403, 404, 406, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414,
415, 416, 419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 426, 429, 431, 433, 434, 436, 442,
443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 455, 461, 463, 464, 465, 469,
470, 472, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 243, 254, 256, 272, 313,
319, 348, 386, 394, 400, 405, 430,440, 457, 459, 462, 466, 235, 237, 247,
258, 259, 260, 266, 268, 300, 315, 316, 321, 333, 342, 343, 353, 363,
378, 393, 396, 398, 401, 413, 421, 425, 427, 439, 444, 453, 454, 467,
473, 487, 242, 428, 249, 252, 275, 276, 280, 283, 291, 314, 318, 323,
330, 336, 344, 359, 361, 380, 402, 408, 418, 432, 435, 437, 460, 471,
231, 245, 255, 274, 278, 285, 286, 288, 289, 301, 302, 335, 339, 345,
362, 371, 385, 392, 417, 438, 458, 468, 474, 475, 478, 485, 240, 250,
264, 294, 309, 312, 347, 351, 373, 441, 447 & 456 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.6423, 6331, 6382, 6395, 6399, 6405, 6409, 6411, 6413, 6416,
6419, 6429, 6432, 6433, 6434, 6439, 6440, 6442, 6433, 6443, 6446,
6450, 6454, 6455, 6456, 6458, 6462, 6465, 6467, 6468, 6472, 6471,
6473, 6474, 6475, 6482, 6479, 6483, 6484, 6487, 6486, 6490, 6491,
6499, 6506, 6509, 6511, 6513, 6515, 6516, 6518, 6520, 6524, 6626,
6628, 6631, 6633, 6658, 6661, 6665, 6667, 6682, 6668, 6674, 6675,
6677, 6681, 6684, 6685, 6686, 6689, 6690, 6691, 6693, 6695, 6704,
6707, 6708, 6710, 6714, 6716, 6722, 6795, 6796, 6797, 6799, 6804,
6806, 6808, 6812, 6813, 6815, 6816, 6818, 6820, 6821, 6823, 6824,
6825, 6826, 6829, 6830, 6832, 6833, 6835, 6860, 6839, 6840, 6843,
6844, 6846, 6853, 6854, 6856, 6858, 6859, 6872, 6861, 6862, 6863,
6871, 6878, 6886, 6881, 6882, 6887, 6888, 6889, 6898, 6895, 6897,
6900, 6899, 6902, 6903, 6408, 6420, 6422, 6444, 6495, 6504, 6660,
1 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
6737, 6803, 6810, 6814, 6841, 6851, 6874, 6877, 6880, 6883, 6387,
6390, 6412, 6426, 6427, 6428, 6437, 6438, 6476, 6498, 6503, 6507,
6619, 6641, 6644, 6666, 6680, 6709, 6802, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6822,
6831, 6836, 6837, 6850, 6855, 6864, 6867, 6884, 6890, 6950, 6407,
6838, 6414, 6417, 6448, 6449, 6453, 6457, 6466, 6497, 6501, 6512,
6521, 6624, 6654, 6676, 6678, 6713, 6811, 6817, 6828, 6842, 6845,
6847, 6876, 6891, 6326, 6410, 6421, 6447, 6452, 6460, 6461, 6463,
6464, 6477, 6481, 6622, 6629, 6656, 6679, 6692, 6734, 6801, 6827,
6849, 6873, 6885, 6892, 6894, 6896, 6939, 6404, 6415, 6435, 6469,
6488, 6492, 6659, 6664, 6694, 6852, 6857 & 6875 of 2025
.....
A.S.No.257 of 2025:
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
TACID, Oragadam Scheme,
Irungattukottai.
….. Appellants/Referring Officer
-Versus-
1.Ganesan
….. 1st Respondent/Claimant
2.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT – TACID Division,
No.19A, Rukumani Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
….. 2nd Respondent/Requisition Body
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying to
set aside the order dated 30.11.2021 made in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 by the learned
Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram.
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos.257, : Mrs.R.Anitha,
232, 234, 238, 239, 241, 244, 246, 248, Special Government Pleader
251, 253, 261, 262, 263, 265, 267, 269,
270, 271, 273, 277, 279, 281, 282, 284,
287, 290, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298,
299, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos.308, : Mr. T. Arun Kumar,
310, 311, 317, 320, 322, 324, 325, 326, Addl. Government Pleader
327, 328, 329, 331, 337, 338, 340, 341,
346, 350, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358
2 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 360, : Mr. P. Gurunathan,
364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369,370, 372, Additional Government
374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, 382, 383, Pleader
388, 389, 390, 391 of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 395, : Mrs. K. Aswini Devi,
397, 399, 403, 404, 406, 407, 409, 410, Addl. Government Pleader
411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 419, 420, 422,
423, 424, 426, 429, 431, 433, 434, 436,
442, 443, 445, 446 of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 448, : Mr. D. Gopal,
449, 450, 451, 452, 455, 461, 463, 464, Government Advocate
465, 469, 470, 472, 476, 477, 479, 480,
481, 482, 483, 243, 254, 256, 272, 313,
319, 348, 386, 394, 400, 405, 430, 440
of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 457, : Mr. C. Sathish,
459, 462, 466, 235, 237, 247, 258, 259, Government Advocate
260, 266, 268, 300, 315, 316, 321, 333,
342, 343, 353, 363, 378, 393, 396, 398
of 2025
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 401, : Mr. V. Ramesh,
413, 421, 425, 427, 439, 444, 453, 454, Government Advocate
467, 473, 487, 242, 428 249, 252, 275,
276, 280, 283, 291, 314, 318, 323 of
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 330, : Mr. N. Muthuvel,
336, 344, 359, 361, 380, 402, 408, 418, Government Advocate
432, 435, 437, 460, 471, 231, 245 of
For Appellant (LAO) in A.S.Nos. 255, : Mr. R.Siddharth,
274, 278, 285, 286, 288, 289, 301, 302, Addl. Government Pleader
335, 339, 345, 362, 371, 385, 392, 417,
438, 458, 468, 474, 475, 478, 485, 240,
250, 264, 294, 309, 312, 347, 351, 373,
441, 447 & 456 of 2025.
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in
A.S.No.257, 232, 234, 238, 239, 241,
244, 246, 248, 251, 253, 261, 262, 263,
265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 273, 277, 279,
3 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
281, 282, 284, 287, 290, 293, 295, 296,
297, 298, 299, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307,
308, 310, 311, 317, 320, 322, 324, 325,
326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 338, 341,
350, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360,
364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372,
374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, 382, 383,
389, 390, 391, 395, 397, 399, 403, 404,
406, 407, 409, 410, 411, 414, 415,
419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 426, 429, 431,
433, 434, 436, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448,
449, 450, 451, 452, 455, 461, 463, 464, Mr.G.Karthikeyan,
465, 469, 470, 472, 476, 477, 479, 480, : Senior Counsel for
481, 482 & 483 of 2025 Ms.A.Jagadeeswari
For Respondents 1 & 2 (claimants) in
A.S.Nos.337, 346 & 388 of 2025
For Respondents 1 to 5 (claimants) in
For Respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) in
A.S.Nos.412 & 416 of 2025
For Respondents 2 & 3 (claimants) in
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in : Mr.V.Anil Kumar
For 2nd Respondent (requiring body)
in A.S.Nos.257, 232, 234, 238, 239,
241, 244, 246, 248, 251, 253, 261, 262,
263, 265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 273, 277,
279, 281, 282, 284, 287, 290, 293, 295,
296, 297, 298, 299, 303, 304, 305, 306,
307, 308, 310, 311, 317, 320, 322, 324, : Mr.R.Viduthalai,
325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 338, 341, Senior Counsel for
350, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360, Ms.S.Magarani
364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372,
374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, 382, 383,
389, 390, 391, 395, 397, 399, 403, 404,
406, 407, 409, 410, 411, 414, 415, 419,
420, 422, 423, 424, 426, 429, 431, 433,
4 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
434, 436, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449,
450, 451, 452, 455, 461, 463, 464, 465,
469, 470, 472, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481,
482, 483, 243, 256, 272, 313, 319, 348,
386, 394, 400, 405, 440, 457, 459, 462,
466, 235, 237, 247, 258, 259, 260, 266,
268, 300, 315, 316, 321, 333, 342, 353,
363, 396, 398, 401, 413, 421, 425, 427,
439, 444, 454, 467, 473, 487, 242,
428, 249, 252, 275, 276, 280, 291, 314,
318, 323, 330, 344, 359, 361, 380, 402,
408, 418, 432, 437, 460, 471, 245,
255, 274, 278, 285, 286, 289, 301, 302,
335, 339, 345, 362, 371, 385, 392, 417,
438, 458, 468, 474, 475, 478, 485, 240,
250, 264, 294, 309, 312, 347, 351, 373,
441, 447, 456 & 292 of 2025
For 3rd Respondent (requiring body) in
A.S.No.337, 346, 388 and 231 of 2025
For 4th Respondent (requiring body) in
of 2025
For 5th Respondent (requiring body) in
A.S.Nos.412, 416, 343, 283 & 288 of
For 6th Respondent (requiring body) in
A.S.Nos.340 & 254 of 2025
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in
A.S.No.243, 256, 272, 313, 319, 348,
386, 394, 400, 405, 440, 457, 459, 462,
466 of 2025
: No Appearance
For Respondents 1 to 5 (claimants) in
For respondents 1 to 3 (claimants) in
For 4th respondent in A.S.No.283 of
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in : Substituted Service Ordered
5 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
A.S.No.235, 237, 247, 258, 259, 260, - Paper Publication
266, 268, 300, 315, 316, 321, 333, 342, Effected
353, 363, 396, 398, 401, 413, 421, 425,
427, 439, 444, 454, 467, 473 & 487 of
For Respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) in
For Respondents 1 to 3 (claimants) in
A.S.No.378, 393 & 453 of 2025
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in Notice Not served –
A.S.Nos.242 & 428 of 2025 Substituted Service Ordered
– Paper Publication
Effected
1st Respondent (claimant) 249, 252, : Died – substituted service
275, 276, 280, 291, 314, 318, 323, 330, ordered – paper publication
344, 359, 361, 380, 402, 408, 418, 432, effected
, 437, 460, 471 of 2025
3rd Respondent (claimant) in : Died – substituted service
A.S.No.283 of 2025 ordered – paper publication
effected
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in Died – substituted service
A.S.No.336 of 2025 ordered – paper publication
effected
For 1st Respondent (claimant) in
A.S.Nos.245, 255, 274, 278, 285, 286,
289, 301, 302, 335, 339, 345, 362, 371,
385, 392, 417, 438, 458, 468, 474, 475,
478, 485 of 2025 : Notice not served
For Respondents 1 & 2 (claimants) in
For Respondents 1 & 2 (claimants) in : Notice not served
For Respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.288 : Notice not served
of 2025
6 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
1st Respondent (claimant) in : Died – Steps due
A.S.Nos.240, 250, 264, 294, 309, 312,
347, 351, 373, 441, 447 & 456 of 2025
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The appellant in these appeal suits is the State. All these Appeal Suits arise out
of the common judgement dated 30.11.2021 and individual decree (s) passed by the
Land Acquisition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Kancheepuram [for
short, “the Tribunal”] in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of cases whereby the
tribunal determined the market value at the rate of Rs.8,720/- per cent and after
applying 20% deduction towards development charges, enhanced the market value at
Rs.6,976/- per cent as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- per cent
apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[for short, “the LA Act, 1894”]. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present
appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer.
2. The appellant in these appeal suits is the Referring Officer – Special
Tahsildar (LA), TACID, Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai. The private
respondent(s) is/are claimants and the Managing Director, SIPCOT TACID Division,
the official respondent is the requisitioning body.
3. These appeal suits are directed against the common order passed by the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram. There are 248 appeal suits
7 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
listed before this court. Of which, in 133 cases, as stated in the preamble of this
order, the claimant(s) in the appeal suits, as mentioned under Sl.Nos.1 to 27, 29 &
and claimants 2 and 3 under Sl.No.198 of the cause list, entered appearance through
counsel M/s.A.Jagadeeswari, P.N.Udhayakumar, D.Sathyanarayana, E.Karthik Raja
& K.R.Vinodhinee, and the claimant in the appeal suit, as mentioned under Sl.No.28
of the cause list, entered appearance through counsel M/s.V.Anil Kumar,
S.V.Sundara Rajan, B.Vasanthi & A.Samyuktha. In some cases, despite notice
having been served, none appeared in person nor entered appearance through
counsel, and in some other cases, the appellant/LAO could not serve notice, and in
yet another set of cases, the appellant/complainant or one of the appellants/claimants
was reported dead.
4. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases in so far as the contesting
private respondents/claimants. This court will make appropriate reference and
discussion on the merits in respect of rest of the cases at a latter part of this
judgement. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases as they relate to the
private respondents/claimants who contest the appeal suits filed by the LAO
challenging the enhancement of compensation. In the later part of this judgement,
this court will refer to and discuss the merits of the other categories of cases where
notice was served on the private respondents/claimants, but they had not entered
appearance; notice not served; and the claimant(s) reported dead.
8 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
5. Prior to moving forward, this court deems it appropriate to state that the
entire matter relates to acquisition of various parcels of land comprised in various
survey numbers in Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District,
for setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by State Industries Promotion
Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special
Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure
Development Limited (for short, “the TACID).
6. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant in these
appeals will be referred to as “LAO” while the private respondent(s) will be referred
to as “claimants” and the official respondent will be referred to as the “requiring
body” wherever the context so requires.
7. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal Suits, in common,
are as follows:-
(a) Each of the claimant(s) either individually or jointly owned / possessed
varying extents of land at various survey numbers located in Mathur village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
(b) A total extent of 159.03.0 Hectares of land in the said village were
proposed to be acquired by the State under the LA Act, 1894, at the instance of
State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) for setting up of
Industrial Development Complex by the SIPCOT and for setting up of Special
9 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Economic Zones by TACID.
(c) For the purpose of acquisition of lands, notifications under Section 4(1) of
the LA Act, 1894 were issued in the Tamil Nadu Gazette in the instant cases between
20.11.1998 and 05.10.2000 and the same were published in the local daily
newspaper. The acquisition was made by invoking the emergency clause under
Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894, and hence, after dispensing with the enquiry under
Section 5-A of the LA Act, 1894 declarations under Section 6 were issued on various
dates between 28.12.1998 and 15.07.1999. The details of Notifications issued under
Section 4(1) and Declarations issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect
of the 159.03.0 Hectares of land situated at Mathur village and acquired from the
claimants covered under different awards are as follows:
Date of Publication of Under
Notification under Section(6)
Award Section 4(1) of the LA Declaration
SI.No. Award Date
Number Act,1894 in the
Government Gazette
1. 1/2000 23.03.2000 07.12.1998 22.01.1999
2. 2/2000 15.03.2000 07.12.1998 09.02.1999
3. 1/2000 27.03.2000 07.12.1998 22.01.1999
4. 1/2000 23.03.2000 20.11.1998 28.12.1998
5. 1/2000 31.07.2000 20.11.1998 28.12.1998
6. 2/2000 15.05.2000 14.12.1998 09.02.1999
7. 6/2000 15.09.2000 14.12.1998 08.07.1999
8. 6/2000 08.06.2001 14.12.1998 08.07.1999
9. 3/1999 19.07.2001 14.12.1998 05.07.1999
10. 5/2000 09.03.2001 25.01.1999 06.05.1999
11. 5/2000 15.03.2001 25.01.1999 06.05.1999
12. 1/2001 03.05.2001 25.01.1999 02.06.1999
13. 3/2000 31.05.2000 27.01.1999 10.06.1999
10 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Date of Publication of Under
Notification under Section(6)
Award Section 4(1) of the LA Declaration
SI.No. Award Date
Number Act,1894 in the
Government Gazette
14. 6/2000 25.04.2001 27.01.1999 02.06.1999
15. 4/2000 15.02.2001 27.01.1999 06.05.1999
16. 2/2000 16.05.2001 27.01.1999 10.06.1999
17. 3/2000 31.05.2001 27.01.1999 10.06.1999
18. 5/2000 04.09.2000 18.02.1999 06.07.1999
19. 4/2000 15.06.2000 10.03.1999 15.07.1999
20. 7/2000 19.07.2001 10.03.1999 06.07.1999
21. 3/2002 17.11.2002 05.10.2000 13.11.2000
(d) Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), after due enquiry,
determined the compensation payable for the land at Rs.200/- by the above said
awards.
(e) Many Central and State Government Offices are located nearby the lands
acquired for the Oragadam Industrial Scheme besides several Nationalized and
Multinational Banking Institutions;
(f) The Government of India had proposed to form Greener International
Airport at Sriperumbudur. There is a proposal from the Government of Tamil Nadu
to lay a 200-foot road from Mamallapuram to Ennore Port via Oragadam, and the
ground-level work for the above two projects was already complete.
(g) The subject lands under acquisition were house sites. The sale exemplars
gathered by the LAO for fixation of market value of the acquired lands relate to
11 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
house sites and the lands were sold at square foot basis. While so, the market value
fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural lands is not fair and it is against
law as well.
(h) Purchase of house site in the vicinity of Orgadam or Mathur was not
affordable to a person of middle class. The LAO has not followed the principles laid
down under Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894 while fixing compensation for the lands
acquired from the claimants.
(i) Not being satisfied with the compensation as determined by the LAO, the
claimant(s) made his/their written objection(s) for enhancement of compensation
stating that acquired lands abutted Singaperumal Koil – Sriperumbudur State
Highway and is very close to National Highways (NH4) and Grand Southern Trunk
Road. The market value of the land covered under the acquisition at the time of 4(1)
notifications was not less than a sum of Rs.3,000/- per square feet.
(j) On such objections, the Referring Officer made individual reference(s) to
the Tribunal at Kanchipuram under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the
lands comprised in various survey numbers situate at Mathur village and the tribunal,
in turn, took those reference on file and assigned numbers to the references.
8. The Referring Officer opposed the claim petitions stating that the awards
were passed strictly in accordance with law. The counter affidavit filed by the LAO
was adopted by the requisitioning body. The Referring Officer inter alia contended
12 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
in his counter that the awards were passed considering the various aspects and
features of the lands acquired that were projected by the claimants. Public interest
outweighs the private interest. Since the compensation for the acquired lands was
fixed on the existing statistics, the claim of land owners that the value of the acquired
lands should be above the value determined by the LAO is incorrect and untenable.
9. The details of lands owned by the claimants comprised in various survey
numbers in Mathur Village, LAOPs assigned to the reference(s) made by the
Referring Officer at the behest of the claimants and the appeal suit numbers are as
follows: -
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
2025 2008
8.6.2001
09.03.2001
09.03.2001
09.03.2001
09.03.2001
sq.ft 09.03.2001
15.02.2001
8. 454 341 Tupendra Gupta 402/2A10 0.04.0 4/2000
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
13 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey
Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name in No &
No. Hectare Date
15.02.2001
11. 401 345 V.Radhakrishnamoor 402/2A12 0.05.5 4/2000
thi 15.02.2001
396/8 0.02.5 15.02.2001
13. 270 348 Mariya Anandan 402/1A1B 0.02.0 4/2000
15.02.2001
14. 429 349 Ethirajammal 396/2B, 0.06.5 4/2000
396/1A 15.02.2001
15. 478 350 Govindharajulu 402/2A5 0.05.0 4/2000
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
1.Therasa Kristy 15.02.2001
2.Jacob Arokiyaraj
3.John Vivek
4.James Ashok
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
402/48 15.02.2001
23. 365 360 Niranjan babu 402/2A1A 0.02.0 4/2000
402/2A3 0.04.5 15.02.2001
15.02.2001
25. 254 362 K.Abdullah (Died) 396/3 2400 4/2000
1.Asina Bee sq.ft 15.02.2001
2.Hilal
3.Naseem Banu
4.Jala
5.Ajiz Banu
26. 433 363 Somasundram 396/2A1A 0.02.5 4/2000
14 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
15.02.2001
27. 231 364 Vyjayanthi Mala (died) 402/2A9 0.04.5 4/2000
1.Radhakrishna Moorthy 15.02.2001
2.Venkata Sureshbabu
15.02.2001
29. 308 366 Edward Anthoni 395B/2 0.02.0 4/2000
Loys 15.02.2001
15.06.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
33. 428 370 Bagavath Singh 411/2A1 0.02.0 5/2000
22.09.2000
34. 298 371 Thoodore Daniel 411/1A 0.02.5 5/2000
411/2A1 0.02.5 22.09.2000
0.05.0
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
15 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
409/4 22.09.2000
408/2 0.01.0 22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
22.09.2000
57. 464 397 Kanagarathinam 411/2A1 0.02.0 5/2000
22.09.2000
414/2A1 0.01.5 18.01.2001
408/2 0.00.5 22.09.2000
411/2A1 0.01.0
Total 0.02.0
18.01.2001
61. 326 403 Vasanthakumari 404B/1A 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
65. 331 409 Revathi Hari Prasath 430 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
66. 249 411 Thiruvengadam 414/2, 0.02.0 1/2001
412/1 18.01.2001
16 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
67. 480 412 Usha 412/1A1 0.005
Total 0.02.0 18.01.2001
18.01.2001
69. 267 415 D.P.Rajendran 414/1A, 0.02.0 1/2001
414/2A1 18.01.2001
0.02.0
18.01.2001
430/1A 0.00.5 18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
414/2A1 0.00.5 18.01.2001
18.01.2001
77. 280 423 Sundari Ammal 412/1A1 0.01.5 1/2001
412/2A1 0.00.5 18.01.2001
78. 339 424 N.G.Kanniappan 414/2A1 0.01.5 1/2001
415/1A1 0.00.5 18.01.2001
413/1A 0.01.0 18.01.2001
80. 239 426 A.Lorthusamy 404A/1A 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
81. 354 427 N.Panneerselvam 404A/1A 0.01.5 1/2001
18.01.2001
82. 381 428 R.Dhanasekaran 430/1 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
83. 356 429 Mrs.A.Tamilkodi 412/1A1 0.03.5 1/2001
18.01.2001
84. 481 430 D.Ramalingam
415/2A6 0.00.5 18.01.2001
414/2A1 0.01.0 18.01.2001
86. 414 432 Rajam Baskaran 404/A2 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
17 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
18.01.2001
22.09.2000
18.01.2001
90. 311 438 R.Radha Krishnan 404B/1A 0.01.0 1/2001
414/2A1 0.01.5 18.01.2001
415/1A1 0.01.0
18.01.2001
414/2A1 0.00.5 18.01.2001
93. 240 443 T.G.Sreenivasan 404/A1 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
414/2A1 0.00.5 18.01.2001
415/1A1 0.01.0
18.01.2001
96. 294 447 Sundaravadivel 412/1A1 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
97. 303 448 Srinivasan.S 412/1A2 0.00.5 1/2001
414/2A3 0.01.5 18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
100. 418 451 Janakiraman 404A/1A 0.02.0 1/2001
18.01.2001
101. 363 452 Swamyam Prabha 508/1A1 0.01.5 6/2000
15.09.2000
102. 324 453 Chendamarai 516/1A1E 0.02.5 6/2000
Kannan 15.09.2000
103. 302 454 S.Siva Kumar 516/1A1A 0.03.0 6/2000
15.09.2000
08.06.2001
2B 15.09.2000
2B2 15.09.2000
107. 444 458 Kathavarayan 508/1P 0.02.0 6/2000
18 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
15.09.2000
108. 443 459 V.Subramaniam 516/1A1A 0.02.0 6/2000
15.09.2000
507/7A1 0.01.5 15.09.2000
15.09.2000
15.09.2000
15.09.2000
15.09.2000
15.09.2000
3B 15.09.2000
3A 15.09.2000
Subramaniam 508/1A1 0.01.5 15.09.2000
15.09.2000
119. 265 471 D.Varalakshmi 516/1A1A 0.03.0 6/2000
15.09.2000
31.07.2000
121. 435 476 Subburaj (died) 450/2A2 0.06.5 1/2000
1.S.Chinnathambi 31.07.2000
2.S.P.Kumar
3.S.P.Anandha
Kumar
122. 357 477 Subbaiyan 453/A 0.04.51/2000
31.07.2000
Parameswaran 31.07.2000
Khadar (died) 397A/4A 0.05.5 25.04.2001
1.S.A.Kadhar
2.Syed Imran Kadhar
3.Sayyada
Rubina Kadhar
19 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
125. 352 480 S.A.Khadar 401/1A1A 0.12.0 6/2000
25.04.2001
18.01.2001
127. 350 482 C.Pushpalatha 402/2A8 0.05.5 4/2000
15.02.2001
128. 346 483 Banumathy (died) 475/5 0.03.5 5/2000
1.Ganesan 09.03.2001
2.Arun
27.03.2000
130. 353 487 Amaravathy 472/1A1A 0.05.0 1/1999
27.03.2000
27.03.2000
132. 290 491 Santha James 472/1A1A 0.05.0 1/1999
27.03.2000
27.03.2000
27.03.2000
135. 277 496 ThirupuraSundari 472/1A1A 0.04.0 1/1999
27.03.2000
136. 343 497 Bangarusamy (died) 529/2A1A 0.04.5 7/2000
1.Kanchana 2 19.07.2001
2.Uma Maheshwari
3.Anand
4.Sumathi
137. 380 498 Deenadayalan 529/1A2A 0.04.0 7/2000
1A1 19.07.2001
138. 342 499 Ezhil Chezhiyan 529/2A1B 0.07.0 7/2000
19.07.2001
1A 19.07.2001
25.04.2000
16.05.2001
431/1 03.05.2001
25.04.2001
144. 269 506 Garajala Parvathy 399/1 0.02.0 06/2000
25.04.2001
20 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
pandian 400/5A 0.01.5 25.04.2001
146. 364 508 Katari Swamalatha 399 0.02.0 06/2000
25.04.2001
147. 251 509 Anisatti Maheswari 399/1 0.02.0 06/2000
25.04.2001
25.04.2001
149. 391 511 D.Chandramohan 399/1 0.02.0 06/2000
25.04.2001
150. 422 512 Sambasiva Rao 397A/4A 0.03.0 06/2000
25.04.2001
25.04.2001
27.03.2000
153. 344 517 Srinivasa Ragavan 412/1A1 0.05.5 1/2001
18.01.2001
430/1 0.02.0 18.01.2001
18.01.2001
18.01.2001
157. 377 523 S.Lourdhusamy 404A/2A 0.03.5 1/2001
18.01.2001
158. 412 524 Banumathi S.Kamdar 417/4 0.28.5
1.Sandeep S. Kamdar 429/3 0.08.0 16.05.2001
2.Poorna S. Kamdar Total 0.70.5
3.Seeman Nithish Naik
4.Seejal N Shah
159. 425 525 M.Anjaneyappa 491 0.02.5
15.03.2000
160. 283 526 V.Ranganatha 433/1A1 0.10.0 2/2000
Mudaliar (Died) 434/1A 0.05.0 16.05.2001
1.V.Devigi Bai 436/1 0.20.5
2.G.Thulasi Bai
3.R.Srinivasa
Mudaliar
4.G.G.Jaya Sures
161. 255 527 B.Venkatesan 387/2 0.00.5 4/2000
15.06.2000
21 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
15.06.2000
15.06.2000
164. 312 531 N.L.Suresh Babu 396/2A1B 0.02.0 4/2000
15.06.2000
165. 275 532 Baskaran 0.02.5
17.04.2002
166. 288 533 P.Girija (died) 457B/1A1 0.08.0 4/2000
1.Pagadala Gopala C 17.04.2002
Krishna
2.Pagadala Gopi
Chanth
3.Pagadala Kalpana
Naidu
4.Pagadala Renuka
17.04.2002
168. 336 536 M.Krishnaveni (died) 456/1 0.01.0 4/2001
1.T.A.Muniyan 17.04.2002
2.Palanivelan
3.Kalai Amudha
169. 487 538 S.Bakyalakshmi 456/1 0.01.0 4/2001
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
171. 469 540 P.V.Seshadri 464/3A12 0.01.5 4/2001
17.04.2002
172. 467 541 Shabjad Begam 456/19 0.01.0 4/2001
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
174. 468 543 Gopalakrishnan 457/1A 0.02.0 4/2001
457/1B 17.04.2002
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
177. 462 546 K.Viswanathan 464/3A2 0.02.0 4/2001
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
22 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey
Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name in No &
No. Hectare Date
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
182. 337 551 1.Vijaya Kumar 464/3A13 0.01.0 4/2001
2.Dhanasekar 465/25 0.00.5 17.04.2002
sq.ft 17.11.2002
sq.ft 17.11.2002
sq.ft 17.11.2002
186. 261 557 N.Pitchammal (Died) 439/3 167 3/2002
1.S.Ramgopal sq.mtrs 17.11.2002
Sq.ft 17.11.2002
15.03.2000
15.03.2000
190. 305 563 Srinivasan 478/1A1A 0.02.5 2/2000
15.03.2000
191. 284 564 P.Jayakrishnan 435/1 0.02.0 2/2000
(died) 15.03.2000
1.Kalyani
192. 319 566 Tamilarasi 491/1A1A 0.03.0 2/2000
15.03.2000
193. 322 568 Rajeswari 372/1A1A 0.02.85 2/2001
01.10.2001
194. 441 569 Arun Baskar 372/1A1A 0.02.5 2/2001
1 01.10.2001
01.10.2001
1 0.01.0 01.10.2001
15.05.2000
16.05.2001
199. 452 579 P.Thillai Palam 428/1D 0.04.5 3/2000
31.05.2001
23 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
200. 340 581 Santhilal J. 418/1A3 0.14.0
426/3B 0.05.5 31.05.2001
1.Banumathi 428/1A3 0.53.0
2.Sandeep Total 1.11.5
3,Poorna 1.11.5
4.Seema Nithish Naik
5.Seejal N Shah
201. 447 582 Sakkubai 396/10, 4800 4/2000
11 sq.ft. 15.02.2001
15.02.2001
15.02.2001
2AB 15.03.2001
18.01.2001
2A, Sq.ft 19.07.2001
Sq.ft 17.11.2002
208. 397 604 J.Subbulakshmi 408/1 0.02.0 5/2000
22.09.2000
sq.mtr 17.11.2002
210. 396 606 K.Parameswaran 516/1A2 0.02.0 6/2000
15.09.2000
413/1A 0.01.0 18.01.2001
22.09.2000
213. 463 609 Fanindranath Panday 516/1A5 0.02.5 6/2000
05.09.2000
214. 404 612 Anilkumar Singh 516/1A3 0.02.5 6/2000
05.09.2000
215. 485 614 A.Palanisamy 396/2A1A 0.02.0 4/2000
15.02.2001
216. 417 615 S.Vasantha 457B/1A1 0.02.5 1/2000
A 15.03.2000
sq.mtr
24 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No in &
No. Hectare Date
(Died) 17.11.2002
1.Samuel
Manogara
Pandiyan
2.Sunil Sam
3.Jeril John
218. 370 617 A.Lourdusamy 396/2B,1 0.02.0 4/2000
S 15.02.2001
15.09.2000
220. 470 619 S.V.Raghavan 411/2A1 0.01.5 5/2000
22.09.2000
221. 413 620 C.Thirunavakkarasu 529/2A1A 0.09.0 7/2000
1A 19.07.2001
15.02.2001
223. 474 622 A.N.Noor Mohamed 529/19 0.10.0 7/2000
19.07.2001
224. 430 625 T.Narayanan (died) 381/2A 0.02.5 4/2000
1.Kalyani 15.06.2000
2.Rajan
3.Vijayalakshmi
225. 359 629 S.Kamatchi 529/2A1A 0.03.0 7/2000
1A 19.07.2001
226. 402 631 Gopalakrishnan 529/1A2A 0.02.0 7/2000
1A 19.07.2001
15.06.2000
228. 351 633 S.Pandurangan 529/1A2A 0.04.5 7/2000
1A 19.07.2001
229. 375 639 Chokkalingam 411/2A1 0.02.0 5/2000
22.09.2000
sq.ft 18.01.2001
433/6, sq.ft 15.03.2000
15.02.2001
29, sq.ft 19.07.2001
25 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Sl. Appeal LAOP Appellant(s)/ Survey
Extent Award No.
No. Suit No Claimant(s) Name No
in &
No. Hectare Date
234. 361 645 K.Balasubramaniam 455/8 0.02.5 4/2001
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
17.04.2002
237. 379 649 A.M.Srinivasan 455/7 0.02.5 4/2001
17.04.2002
238. 355 651 M.R.Jagannathan 455/2 0.01.5 4/2001
17.04.2002
239. 472 653 S.Krishna Gandhi 464/3G 0.01.5 4/2001
464/3A1C 0.02.0 17.04.2002
465/9 0.02.0
240. 420 655 Sivagami w/o Satya 464/5 0.01.5 4/2001
Narayanan 17.04.2002
241. 393 656 1.Sivanandam (died) 464/3A7 0.01.5 4/2001
2.Parameshwari 17.04.2002
3.Radhika Olivannan
4.R.Ramya
242. 459 658 D.Karunagaran 464/3A1G 0.03.0 4/2001
17.04.2002
243. 328 659 S.Latha Srinivasan 464/3A4 0.03.0 4/2001
464/3A5 0.01.5 17.04.2002
464/3A1E 0.02.5
244. 264 661 Shankari Ammal 464/3N 0.03.5 4/2001
17.04.2002
245. 388 662 K.Srinivasan (died) 464/3A11 0.01.5 4/2001
1.S.Saraswathi 17.04.2002
2.K.S.Raghunathan
246. 415 663 R.Pasupathy 455/10, 0.03.5 4/2001
11 17.04.2002
22.09.2000
248. 423 1077 Leela W/o. Sampath 412/1A1 0.02.5 1/2001
18.01.2001
10. Since the issue was common and the awards relate to one single village,
the tribunal had proceeded to try all the claim petitions jointly and recorded common
evidence. During enquiry, common evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.460 of
2008. During enquiry, on the side of the claimant(s), one Ganesan, claimant in
26 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C.1 to C.9 were marked,
while, on the side of the LAO and Requiring Body, Tmt.Thenmozhi, Special
Tahsildar (LA) was examined as R.W.1, however, no document was marked on the
side of the LAO and Requiring Body.
11.1 The tribunal upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the available oral
and documentary evidence, proceeded to pass order/award.
11.2 The tribunal has formulated a lone question as to whether the claimants
are entitled to get enhanced compensation as against the market value fixed by the
LAO at Rs.200/- per cent?
11.3 The tribunal after having rejected Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 Lease Deeds dated
19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited,
based on the sale deeds marked under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 dated 09.10.1997 assessed
the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- and after applying a deduction of
20% towards development charges, determined the market value at Rs.6,976/- per
cent. The tribunal has further held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation
at the enhanced market value together with additional market value @ 12% from the
date of publication of 4(1) Notification(s) till the date of taking possession; 30%
solatium; 9% interest for one year from the date of taking over possession of the
acquired land(s); and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till date of deposit of the entire
compensation amount. It is this common order and decree(s) passed in the respective
27 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
references which are now under challenge in these appeal suits.
12. Heard both sides.
13. It is relevant to note that in respect of the lands acquired from the
claimants comprised in various survey numbers, different awards passed by the
LAO, however, most of the sale exemplars are one and the same in all the awards.
The learned counsel on either side shortlisted those sale deeds, tabulated hardly 250
sale exemplars and produced the same before the court for perusal. It is seen from the
tabulated statement that though not less than 200 sale transactions were considered
by the LAO for each of the awards, the total sale transactions taken into
consideration by the LAO were in all only 250.
14.1 The law officers appearing on behalf of the respective appellants would
submit that
(i) the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.8,720/- per cent is on the
higher side.
(ii) Though different notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894,
expressing the intent of the government to acquire the lands in Mathur Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were published between 20.11.1998
and 05.10.2000, the administrative sanction was made as early as on 09.05.1997.
Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds were executed on 14.10.1997 after the Government
had accorded sanction on 05.10.1997 for acquisition of the acquired land for the
28 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
setting up of an industrial development complex by one Mrs.Saraswathy Nair, who is
also a claimant in one of the references (L.A.O.P.No.600 of 2008) for her own
interest for the purpose of inflating the market value of the property in anticipation of
the acquisition proceedings in this case. The tribunal has failed to take note of the
fact that the said Saraswathy Nair has also laid a claim for enhancement of
compensation in respect of lands comprised in S.Nos.438, 439/1, 440/1, 440/5, 442,
451/1A, 451/1B, 451/2 & 452/A of Mathur village.
(iii) Mere acceptance of Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 in evidence by the court would not
mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed
would automatically be accepted. The court is granted discretion to be used
judicially, that is, after considering all the relevant factors, but the tribunal has not at
all exercised its judicious mind and has simply been swayed by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.6.
There was also no evidence available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 &
Ex.C.7 were comparable to the acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter
of the sale were abutting the main road and when a large chunk of land measuring
159.03.0 Hectares have been acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6
and Ex.C.7 whereunder only small-sized housing sites were sold.
(iv) The LAO had, himself, considered several sale deeds, overall, 250
different sale transactions that had taken place in a period of three years immediately
preceding the date of the 4(1) notifications, of which 249 sale transactions were
rejected by the LAO, finding those transfers relate to either housing sites, dry land or
29 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
natham land, and the LAO had taken into consideration a sale transaction vide
Doc.No.4444 dated 12.08.1996 whereby an extent of 72 cents of land was sold for
Rs.14,400/- which means that one cent of land was sold for Rs.200/-, which reflected
the transfer of agricultural land, and based on such sale deed, the LAO determined
the market value for the acquired land at Rs.200/- per cent. However, the tribunal,
going by the market value of small-sized house sites sold under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7,
assessed the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants to be Rs.8,720/-
per cent, and after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges, the
tribunal determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.6,976/- per cent.
Therefore, the order of the tribunal enhancing the market value of the acquired land
from Rs.300/- per cent as fixed by the LAO is not sustainable in law and on fact.
14.2 The learned law officers appearing for the respective appellants would,
without prejudice to their above submissions, strenuously submit that the tribunal has
failed to consider the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
deduction of development charges if the land is acquired for habitation or industrial
purposes. According to them, the tribunal has failed to consider the size and nature
of the lands acquired and the size and nature of the lands sold under Ex.C.6 and
Ex.C.7, and they would not be sufficient to form a reasonable basis to determine the
market value of a large chunk of land. This court, being an appellate court, can very
well re-examine the available sale exemplars and re-determine the market value of
30 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
the acquired land based on the highest of bona fide sale exemplars that reflect the
true potential and value of the land at the time of acquisition.
14.3. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO would, in
support of their contention that the market value determined by the tribunal was
based on the sale instances, which were in respect of individual plots of land much
smaller in comparison to the land acquired in Mathur village, and for a cut of
development charges ranging between 33 1/3% and 53%, placed much reliance on
the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Basavva v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer [(1996 9 SCC 640]; (ii) Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs
v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2012) 1 SCC 390]; and (iii) Union of India v.
Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745].
15.1 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
SIPCOT would also on his part strenuously submit that the market value as
determined by the tribunal at Rs.6,976/-per cent, after deducting 20% for
development charges from the market value assessed at Rs. 8,720/- per cent, is
significantly excessive and totally not indicative of the market value that existed on
the date of the 4(1) notifications. This court, being an appellate court, can re-
appreciate the entire evidence and redetermine the market value of the acquired lands
based on the other available highest bona fide sale exemplars which are comparable
31 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
by size and potentiality.
15.2 The size of plot of the land covered by the sales should be comparable to
the land acquired. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar
potential as that of the acquired land. Sale exemplars should reflect the true potential
and value of the land at the time of acquisition.
15.3 Mr.R.Viduthalai would further submit that the SIPCOT has spent more
than Rs.3000 crores to develop the lands acquired from the claimants, however, the
tribunal has failed to follow the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court,
which has consistently ruled that deductions are appropriate to cover the costs of
developing land when it is acquired for public use, more particularly for habitation
and industrial purposes, and cannot be used right away in its current condition.
15.4 Mr.R.Viduthalai while concluding his arguments fairly brought to the
notice of this court the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this court in A.S.No.710 of
2024 [The Special Tahsildar (LA) TACID Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai v. B.
Jayalakshmi] for the lands situated in Oragadam Village, which had also been
acquired for the industrial development purposes as in the present cases, wherein this
court affirmed the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,874/- per cent
after applying a cut of 20% towards development charges. According to him, the
32 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
location of the acquired land is one of the important factors in the determination of
market value. The Oragadam village is situated at the junction where the
Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil and Walajabad-Tambaram State Highways
intersect, whereas Mathur village is situated 2.5 km away from Oragadam village.
The data lands cannot be compared to the acquired land, as the data lands were
abutting the Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil State Highways. The lands in Mathur
village have less potential value compared to the lands in Orgadam village.
Nevertheless, he would point out the legal principle of uniform compensation,
regardless of land categorisation when every parcel of land from different villages
was acquired for the same purpose – an industrial development scheme.
15.5 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel would, in support of his
contention relating to the issue of percentage of deduction, placed reliance on the
judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dyagala
Devamma [Civil Appeal Nos.6986-6987 of 2018 dated 25.07.2018] & Sanath
Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another [Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of
2011 dated 12.09.2011]
16. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would
contend as follows:
33 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
(i) The tribunal has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land
at Rs.6,976/- per cent after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges on the
market value actually assessed at Rs.8,720/- per cent as the sale exemplars relate to
small-sized housing plots as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/-
per cent which is fair and just. It does not require any interference.
(ii) The contention of the learned senior counsel Mr R. Viduthalai appearing
for the requiring body that for the lands acquired from the Oragadam village, this
court upheld the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent, and
therefore, to maintain uniformity among the landowners who lost their lands to the
acquisition, the same market value being fixed is not legally sound. The market value
of the lands in each village may differ depending upon the proximity and
potentiality.
(iii) The market value of the acquired lands has to be determined with
reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a
willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification.
(iv) The arguments of the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the
appellant/LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring
body/SIPCOT sales under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 had been brought into existence only to
34 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
inflate the market value of the agricultural land in question is unfounded and
thoroughly baseless.
(v) Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 are registered sale deeds, and they carry a presumption of
genuineness. Nothing was elicited from C.W.1 during his cross-examination that
market value was inflated to get higher compensation. Therefore, the tribunal was
right in determining the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.C.6 and
Ex.C.7. Mere reason that the vendor in the sale exemplars is one of the claimants –
Saraswathy Nair, who made a claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of
her remaining lands, particularly in respect of the land measuring 0.95 hectares
comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village – by itself is not sufficient to doubt the
genuineness and bona fides of the sale transaction.
(vi) According to the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants,
R.W.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that the acquired lands are already
developed and 95% of the acquired land were house sites. In cases where small
pieces of land are taken into consideration for determining the value of large extent
of land, and when the acquired land are already developed, no development charges
could be ordered to be deducted, however, in the instant cases, the reference court
applied a cut of 20% which is justified and no interference is required in regard to
deduction of charges as well. In support of this contention, he relied upon the
35 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 (ii) Revenue Divisional Officer v.
Ismail Bhai [(2023 SAR (Civ) 49]; (iii) Balwan Singh v. The State of Haryana
[2022 SAR (civ) 941]; and (iv) Union of India v. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC
6556].
17. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the available
records carefully.
18. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeal suits are:
(1) Is the market value as determined by the
tribunal on the higher side and not representative of the
market value that prevailed on the date when the first
notification of a series of notifications under Section
4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, was issued?
(2) To what relief reliefs are the parties entitled?
19.1 The tribunal adopted the comparable sale method and based on Ex.C.6 &
Ex.C.7, it has assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- per cent
and after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges, it has determined the
market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent. Aggrieved over the enhancement of market
value from Rs.300/- as fixed by the LAO to Rs.6,976/- per cent, the referring officer
36 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
is before this court with the present appeal suits.
19.2 On the side of the claimants Ex.C.6 and C.7 sale exemplars, no other sale
exemplars was produced. Those sale exemplars were in fact considered and rejected
by the LAO as could be seen from the sale exemplars tabulated and produced by the
State as well as the SIPCOT.
19.3 Ex.C.6 is a sale deed dated 14.10.1997, vide Doc.No.5901 of 1997,
executed by Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power of Attorney – G.K.Nair in
favour of one Kuruvilla Varkey conveying 1800 square feet of housing site
comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. If we work out the
market value on square feet basis, it comes to Rs.20/- per square feet and in other
words Rs.8720/- per cent. Ex.C.7 is the other sale deed. This sale was also made on
the same day when sale under Ex.C.6 was made. This was the sale made by the very
same vendor-Saraswathy Nair represented by her husband G.K.Nair in favour of one
T.K.Manoj vide Doc.No.5901 conveying 1800 square feet of housing site comprised
in S.No.457/1A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. Thus, the value of land is
Rs.8720/- per cent.
20. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the referring officer and
the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body would
predominantly contend that Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars cannot be relied upon
37 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
because they were executed after the administrative sanction for acquisition was
granted on 09.05.1997. When the genuineness and bona fides of the sales had not
been proved by way of oral evidence, and further, there was also no evidence
available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were comparable to the
acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter of the sale were abutting the
main road and when a large chunk of land measuring 159.03.0 Hectares have been
acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 whereunder only a
small-sized housing sites were sold. Furthermore, according to them, the vendor in
those sale exemplars purportedly inflated the market value sensing the acquisition
proposed to be made. They further contended that the vendor in the exemplars under
Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 was also a claimant in L.A.O.P. No.600 of 2008 wherein she
made a claim for enhanced compensation for her lands comprised in different survey
numbers including the land in S.No.452/A (remaining portion of data land under
Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7).
21. It is the settled law that the burden of establishing the market value of the
lands is always on the claimants. Equally, the State must have been fair and
reasonable in compensating the displaced landowners. In Special Land Acquisition
Officer v. Karigowda and others, [(2010) 5 SCC 708], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized the dual onus on both claimants and the State in establishing the fair
market value.
38 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
22. The learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would, on the other
hand, contend that, Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 being registered documents carry a
presumption of genuineness of its contents. The referring officer had rejected those
sale exemplars merely on the ground that the land covered under the same were
house sites and not on any other grounds. When the same were produced in evidence
by C.W.1, LAO did not make any effort to rebut the presumption. Nothing was
elicited from C.W.1 to hold that the sale transactions under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were
not genuine and bona fide. Therefore, now, it is not open for the appellant/LAO to
question the genuineness and bona fide at the appellate stage.
23. The market value is the price that a purchaser is willing to pay for the
similar land to a willing seller. No doubt, a registered sale deed carries a presumption
of genuineness; such presumption is, however, rebuttable, and not absolute.
Admissibility of a document cannot vouchsafe the reliability of its contents.
24. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.
Narasaiah, [(2001) 3 SCC 530], a full bench of Hon’ble the supreme court (three-
judge bench) has held as follows:
“14. The words ‘may be accepted as evidence’ in the
section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to
accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the
39 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as
evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them
as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that
the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as
evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court
to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such
transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price
of the land concerned.”
25. The above said view in V.Narasaiah’s case (cited supra) was affirmed by
a five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cement Corpn. of
India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1284 at page 282.
The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows:
“35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A
of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of
genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable.
Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof;
it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the
presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the
presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the
court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when
in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that
the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not
be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a
transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question
is raised in this behalf.”
40 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
26. Thus, the law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and
evidentiary value of document produced under Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894
now is that the landowner who produces the certified copy of a sale transaction to
rely on the contents of the document need not examine the vendee or the vendor of
that document. However, the court is expected to apply its judicial mind to the
materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the
facts of the case and other relevant factors.
27. This court is informed that much before the notification proposing to
acquire the lands in Mathur village, the notification for the acquisition of lands in
Oragadam village for the setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by the
SIPCOT and for the setting up of Special Economic Zones by TACID had been
issued.
28. Even though the arguments advanced by the learned law officers appearing
on behalf of the LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
requiring body that the vendor of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, viz., Saraswathy, having sensed
the proposed acquisition in the Oragadam village and neighbourhood, purportedly
inflated the market value appears to be attractive to some extent, this court is unable
to acknowledge the same for the simple reason that, the market value has to be
determined by the court with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in
41 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
the same village where the acquired land is situated or in the neighbourhood, by a
willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of notification under Section
4(1) of the LA Act, 1894. Finding the most similar examples among the real
examples would require considering the proximity from both the time and situation
perspectives.
29. The claimants, during the trial, placed reliance mainly upon Ex.C.4 lease
deed, dated 19.08.2010 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Typres Limited in
respect of 2.12 Acres comprised in S.Nos.454/2B and 454/1C2 of Mathur Village
and S.Nos.31/23B, 31/1A2, 31/1B and 31/1C of Oragadam Village. As per this lease
deed, the market value of the land was Rs.48,000/- per cent. Similarly, the claimants
placed reliance on Ex.C.5 lease deed. This deed relates to lease of 1.99 Acres of land.
As per this lease deed, market value of the land was Rs.1,97,698/- per cent. Next, the
claimants relied upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds dated 14.10.1997 executed by
Mrs. Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power Agent G.K.Nair in respect of 1800
square feet of housing sites for Rs.36,000/- each in favour of Kuruvilla Varkey and
T.K.Manoj respectively. According to these sale transactions, a cent of land was
sold at Rs.8720/-
30. This court has meticulously gone through Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7 lease deeds
and sale deeds.
42 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
31. Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 are lease agreements entered by the SIPCOT with
M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited dated 19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 respectively relate to
post acquisition and much after the acquired lands have been well developed.
Therefore, these documents cannot be taken into consideration for the determination
of the market value of the acquired lands.
32. The location of the housing sites involved in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 would
only probablise the fact Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 were executed at the instance and for the
interest of the claimant Saraswathy in one of the references for the purpose of
placing reliance on an inflated market value of the property in anticipation of
acquisition proceedings in the instant cases. Except for Ex.C.6 and Ex.C7 no other
sale made for such higher market value. In the said circumstances, this court had a
doubt over the genuineness of the transaction in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. The tribunal has
failed to apply its judicial mind and notice the sudden inflation in the market value of
the land in Mathur Village. Further, it is seen that the lands covered by Ex.C.6 &
Ex.C.7 are small-sized housing sites. This factor was also not taken into
consideration by the tribunal while relying upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars.
33. On a careful perusal of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, this court is of the view that
lands covered by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 cannot be said to be comparable to the vast
extent of land acquired in Mathur village. As rightly pointed out by the learned law
43 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
officer(s) for the LAO and the learned senior counsel for the SIPCOT, the lands
covered by Ex.C.6 and C.7 were abutting the Sriperumbudur – Singaperumal Koil,
and they are also small-sized housing plots. Therefore, house sites covered by the
sale exemplars cannot be said to be similar to the acquired land which is situated on
the backside of the lands covered by sale exemplars. Although the lands covered by
the sale exemplars are comparable in size and type to the lands acquired from each of
the landowners comprised in various survey numbers, the acquired lands might not
have had the same potential as the lands covered by the sale exemplars. Frontage
land is typically worth more than back land when it comes to real estate pricing. This
is primarily because frontage land offers access to a road or street, which can be vital
for companies, residential projects, and other uses. The value of the land usually
drops as the distance from the road increases. Even if it is a small-sized plot, either a
commercial or housing plot, if it is abutting the highways, it has a greater value than
the back land. However, the belting method of valuation cannot be adopted in view
of the settled legal position that there could not be discrimination among the
landowners when various parcels of land have been acquired from different
landowners for a single purpose. There should be uniform compensation rates
irrespective of land categorisation when the entire land is acquired for a single public
purpose. [vide Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564].
34. Furthermore, merely because Ex.C.6 & C.7 carry a presumption of
44 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
genuineness and the LAO has not chosen to rebut such presumption, this court
cannot simply go by the said sale exemplars. A duty is cast upon this court to
ascertain the fact whether the sale transactions under ExC.6 and ExC.7 were genuine
and bona fide. On a careful comparison of sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7
with the other available sale exemplars, this court is unable to find any sale
transaction in 2007 at such a higher market value. The only other sale transfer was
in respect of 1980 square feet of land vide Doc. No. 5709 of 1997, about which
reference will be made at an appropriate place in this judgement. Therefore, this
court has no other option except to discount Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars, as
the lands covered under the same are not comparable to the acquired lands, and the
market value reflected therein is not indicative of the prevailing market value of the
property in the vicinity, and if they are taken into consideration to determine the
market value of the acquired land, certainly it would only lead to an inflated
valuation.
35. Except Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7, there are no other documents produced by the
claimant to establish the market value of the acquired land was not less than
Rs.3000/- per square feet in Mathur Village at the time of 4(1) Notification as
claimed by them in the respective references.
36. If the sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 are discounted, the next sale
45 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
exemplars which reflect highest sale price are sale deeds (i) vide Doc.No.5709 of
1997 dated 03.10.1997 executed by Parvathi represented by Power of Attorney
N.Muralidharan in favour of Vidhya Muralidharan conveying 1980 square feet of
land for Rs.35,000/- which means a cent of land was sold at Rs.7,707/-. It is seen
from the above sale deed that the Power Agent- N.Muralidharan is none other than
the husband of the purchaser-Vidhya. The said Vidhya Muralidharan, in turn, on
28.07.1998 sold the land purchased under Doc.No.3618 of 1998 in favour of
Srikanth and Mrs.Rangamani for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/- which means a
cent of land was sold at Rs.8,810/-.
37. It is seen from the sale deed vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 28.07.1998
executed by Parvathi represented by her Power Agent – N.Muralidharan in favour of
Vidhya Muralidharan that the said Parvathy had purchased it on 15.03.1995 under
registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1379 of 1995 from T.V.Ranganathan and Roslyn
Mary Pushpam for Rs.19,800/- which means a cent of land was purchased for
Rs.4,360/-. However, within a period of 18 months, she had sold her property for
Rs.35,000/- with an increase of 43.43% and within ten months thereafter, Vidhya
Muralidharan sold her property to P.Srikanth and S.Rangamani for Rs.40,000/- with
an increase of 12.5%. This court, going by the documents available on record, is of
the view that the market value reflected in the above sale deed is not in alignment
with the market value that prevailed then. It can be safely inferred that prior to the
46 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
4(1) notifications, if a smaller extent of land is sold out for an exorbitant price, it
would certainly be an indication that such transfers were effected solely for the
purpose of establishing inflation in the market value. In addition, this sale exemplar
is also liable to be discarded for the reasons assigned in respect of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7
sale exemplars.
38. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a citizen,
is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. In the instant cases, a vast
extent of land in the village – Mathur – had already been converted into house sites
by the time when the proposed acquisition was notified, and more than 95% of the
acquired land, as admitted by R.W.1 were house sites. Those house sites situated in
Mathur village had been acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial
development complex, and the lands under acquisition not only had potential value
but were also developed and situated in the already developed area. The adjacent
areas were also already developed. It was admitted by R.W.1 in the cross-
examination. The relevant portion of the cross examination of R.W.1 reads as
follows:-
“////////////jpUbgUk;g[J}h; kw;Wk; ,U';fhl;L nfhl;il
jpl;l';fSf;F kj;jpapy; xuflk; jpl;lk;
mike;Js;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lk;
mikg;gjw;F Kd;ng m';F bjhHpw;rhiyfs; kw;Wk;
47 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
gs;spfs; ,a';fp te;jd vd;why; rupjhd;/
mnjnghy; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf Mu;$pjk;
bra;ag;gl;l epy';fs; rp';fbgUkhs; nfhtpy; L:
jpUbgUk;g[J}h; khepy beL";rhiy xl;oa gFjpfs;
vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mnjnghy; jhk;guj;jpy; ,Ue;J
thyh$hghj; bry;Yk; rhiyapd; xl;oa gFjp
Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjp vd;why; rupjhd;/
xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l
epy';fSf;F mUfhikapy; $p/v!;/o/ njrpa
beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; mnjnghy;
brd;idapy; ,Ue;J bg';fS:h; bry;Yk; vd;/vr;/4
njrpa beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/
nkYk; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l
epy';fSf;F fpHf;fpy; kPdk;ghf;fk;. jhk;guk; nghd;w
tsu;e;j gFjpfs; cs;sd vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;fpy;
thyh$hghj; kw;Wk; fh";rpg[uk; gFjpfs; cs;sd/
bjw;fpy; rp';fbgUkhs; kw;Wk; br';fy;gl;L rhiy
cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ tlf;fpy; jpUbgUk;g[J}h;
cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf
epyk; Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt
mLf;F kho FoapUg;g[fs; fl;lg;gl;L ,Ue;jd
vd;why; rupjhd;/ epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s
epy';fSf;F mUfpy; cs;s rhiyfs; ngUe;J
nghf;Ftuj;J cs;s rhiyfs;s vd;why; rupjhd;/
jkpHf muR khky;yg[uj;jpy; ,Ue;J xuflk;
tHpahf vz;Qq}h; rhiyf;fhf epy Mu;$pj gzpfs;
eilbgw;W tUfpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/
jpUg;bgUk;g[J}upy; gRik tpkhd epiyak;
mikg;gjw;fhf Ma;t[ gzp eilbgw;W tUfpwJ
48 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go xuflk; jpl;;lj;jpw;fhf epy
Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt tsu;r;rp
mile;j gFjpfshf ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/
epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; bgUk;ghyhdit
tPl;L kidfs; vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go tPl;L
kidfs; kjpg;g[k; gd;kl';F cau;e;J ,Ue;jJ
vd;why; rupjhd;/
///// ///// ///// ///// /////
///// ///// ///// ///// /////
tpw;gid g[s;sptptu';fspd; go bgUk;ghyhd tPl;L
kidfs; 95 rjtPjj;jpw;F nkyhd tpw;gidfs;
tPl;L kid rk;ke;jkhd Mtz';fs; vd;why;
rupjhd;/ ,Hg;gPL epu;zak; bra;tjw;fhf eh';fs;
vLj;J bfhz;l epyk; tptrha epyk; vd;why;
rupjhd;/ …….”
39. It is seen from the award that the LAO had relied on the sale of agricultural
land made on 12.08.1996, whereunder an extent of 72 cents was sold for Rs.14,400/-,
which in terms of cent value worked out to Rs.200/-. Since the acquired lands were
substantially developed by the time when 4(1) notifications were issued, the market
value fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural land cannot be said to be
correct. The LAO fixed the market value of the purchased land using the lowest of
the sale exemplars and simply discounted all other sale exemplars on the ground that
they were house sites. When more than 95% of the acquired lands are house sites, the
49 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
LAO should have taken the highest of bona fide sale exemplars relating to the house
site which is comparable to the acquired lands.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the sale
exemplars must be genuine and representative of the market value. Except for the
documents (vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 03.10.1997 and Doc.No.3618 of 1998
dated 28.07.1998) and Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 there is no other sale made at such an
inflated rate. Therefore, the above-mentioned documents, vide Doc. Nos. 5709 of
1997 and 3168 of 1998, also cannot be taken into consideration, and they are liable
to be discounted from being relied on to determine the market value.
41. Therefore, this court has no other option to determine the market value of
the acquired land from other sale exemplars available, which were considered and
discarded by the LAO and to determine the market value of the acquired land. The
next 10 highest sale exemplars available as per the list of sale exemplars are as
follows: -
Sl.No. Survey Extent Document Date of Value of Value
Number in square feet Number Document land of per
(in rupees) cent of
land
(in
rupees)
1. 239/54A 1361 1150 05.03.1999 21704 6953
50 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
2. 414/2 1969 468 03.02.2000 28748 6366
3. 381/3,3B 3328 6168 20.12.1998 40700 6131
4. 381/3 3328 6606 30.12.1998 46592 6104
5. 438 1800 3492 11.07.2000 25000 6041
6. 239/54A 1890 3299 18.06.1999 15120 5800
7. 363/A 872 7470 24.12.1997 11336 5668
8. 432/1 2400 3725 24.01.2000 28800 5231
9. 381/5B 2430 1999 10.04.1996 26730 4799
10. 414/2 1969 5291 18.09.1999 28747 4429
42. On a careful consideration of the above sale particulars, this court finds
that under the sale exemplar found in Sl.No.1 - Doc.No.1150 dated 05.03.1999 it is
seen that a house site measuring 1361 square feet was sold for Rs.21,704/- by one
Alamelu Ammal in favour of Kasthuribai. This sale exemplar cannot be taken into
consideration as the sale in that deed is dated much after the first 4(1) notification
which was issued on 20.11.1998. The sale exemplars under Serial Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, & 6
also cannot be taken into consideration for the similar reason assigned herein above.
43. In the case of State of Punjab v. Hans Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in
respect of the land under acquisition or, in its absence, the bona fide sale transactions
proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of
the acquired lands possessing similar value may be taken for the determination of the
market value of the acquired land. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as
follows:
“4. ..............................It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale
51 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence
the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of
the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands
possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing
vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the
true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the
normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market
value."
44. Reverting to the instant cases, the next highest available sale exemplar is
at Serial No. 7 mentioned in the above tabular column. This transaction relates to a
sale of 872 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.363/A of Mathur village.
This house site was sold for Rs.11,336/-, and the value of the land in terms of cent
value is Rs.5,668/-. This house site is part of the approved layout and comparable to
the acquired lands, most of which were house sites. This sale exemplar, although
size-wise not comparable to the acquired lands. This sale exemplar also seems to be
genuine and bona fide, and the value for which the property was transferred is found
to be aligned with the market value prevailing in the vicinity on the date of
notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, i.e., 20.11.1998, in
respect of the lands covered under Award No.1 of 2000 dated 23.03.2000. Thus, it is
evident from the above said sale exemplars that the market value could have been not
less than Rs.6,668/- per cent on the date of 4(1) notification. Based on this sale
52 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
exemplar, the market value of the acquired land can be fixed. If so, the market value
of the acquired lands could be assessed at Rs.5,668/- per cent. Because the highest of
bona fide sale which has been relied upon to determine the market value of the
acquired land being smaller in extent, a reasonable percentage of deduction has to be
applied towards development charges.
DEDUCTION CHARGES:-
JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY MR.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL:
45.1 In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5
SCC 432, while reaffirming the view taken in the case of Trishala Jain v. State of
Uttaranchal [(2011) 6 SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held it would be
just and reasonable to allow deduction @ 20%. By applying the above method, the
market value for the acquired land is fixed at Rs 1,82,000/- minus Rs 36,400
(towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs 1,45,600/- rounded at Rs 1,45,000/- per
acre which is quite fair, reasonable and acceptable.
45.2 In the case of Balwan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. The State of Haryana
[2022 SAR (Civ) 941], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the value of
small developed plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of
undeveloped agricultural land, a cut towards deduction charges could be made
ranging from 20% to 75%.
45.3 In the case of Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai [2023 SAR
53 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
(Civ) 49 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1612], the Hon’ble Supreme Court denied the
deduction of development charges on the ground that the lands were acquired 40
years back and the compensation was decided by the LAO after litigating in courts
only at Rs.6/- per square yard for the lands in the heart of the city of Hyderabad,
where the cost of the land has been increased more than 100 times.
45.4 In the case of Union of India v. K. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC
6556], a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the value of small developed
plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of land, the purpose
of acquisition is also a relevant factor to be considered to apply a deduction towards
development charges.
JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE LAW OFFICERS:
46.1 In the case of Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 9
SCC 640], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
the purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining
the market value and the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken
into consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the deduction of 65%
towards development charges as the land under acquisition situated in an
undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development.
46.2 In the case of Chandrashekar (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer
54 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
[(2012) 1 SCC 390], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld a deduction of 55%
towards development charges on the ground that the exemplar sale transaction
pertained to a developed site, while the acquired land was totally undeveloped. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court also affirmed further deduction of 10% made by the
Karnataka High Court towards de-escalation and 5% towards the waiting period in
the absence of any challenge thereto.
46.3 In the case of Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC
745] upon which much reliance was placed by the learned law officers for the LAO,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its judgement in the case of Pitambar
Hemlal Badgujar v. Sub-Divisional Officer [(1996) 7 SCC 554] has held that the
courts may determine the compensation on square foot basis on case to case basis, if
there are no other sale instances available, however, subject to a reasonable
deduction towards development charges.
JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE
CLAIMANTS:
47. In the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma [(2018) 8 SCC 485],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deduction should be made keeping in
mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or
not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has further held that that while determining the market value of the large
55 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration
after making proper deduction in the value of lands especially when sale deeds of
larger parcel of land are not available.
48. This court is conscious of the principle of deductions towards development
charges. Deducting development charges is to account for the expenses and
resources required to prepare the site for its intended use, which typically includes
amenities and infrastructure. Such deduction must ensure that the landowner gets fair
compensation that reflects. The percentage of deduction of developments charges
may vary depending on nature of land, extent of development required and the
purpose of acquisition. However, there is no straight-jacket formula for the
deduction of development charges and it is now well settled that if the value of small
developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made
therefrom towards the development charges.
49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in the cases where
the highest sale exemplar which was the basis for the determination of market value
of the acquired land, a reasonable percentage of deduction towards development
charges should be applied based on the situation of land and the need for
development.
50. In the case of Sanath Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another
[Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011], the Honourable Supreme
56 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Court has held as follows:
“8. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is
undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved
deduction of ?rd of the market value towards development cost except
when no development is required to be made for implementation of
the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State
of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 278 : (2003) 1 SCC 354, this Court
held :-
"............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or
undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to
be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the
acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature,
location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area
required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as
to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may
be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on
the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the
land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that
land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep
ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in
developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is
fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for
developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is
such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence,
merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is
not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large
57 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the
developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed
area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side
abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned
development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage,
sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc.
However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by
virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the
percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required
may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors
which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut
in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be
in some cases it is more than ?rd and in some cases less than ?rd. It
must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area
and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The
fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not
ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be
valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are
acquired, as in this case, for development purpose."
9. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tej Bhojwani
v. State of U.P., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 551 : (2003) 10 SCC 525, V.
Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal
Revenue Officer, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 496 : (2003) 12 SCC
642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, 2004(2) RCR (Civil)
186 : (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad
Development Authority, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC
745. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, this
58 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Court held under :-
"Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive
the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to
the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between
the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large
undeveloped land is the "development cost". Two factors have a
bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail
price" as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is
decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the
area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly,
the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary
notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is
considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of
deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land.
The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be
applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where
the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for
example, having good road access or having the amenity of
electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is, percentage
of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of
development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But
under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition
play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards
development cost."
10. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High
Court ordained deduction of 53% of market value towards
development charges only on the ground that substantial amount was
59 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
spent for providing the facilities like road, power supply, water
supply drainage etc. for multinationals, NRI's and others who would
like to set up industries in the complex.
11. In our view, the reasons assigned by the High Court
increasing the percentage of deduction from 40 to 53 are legally
untenable. While determining market value of the acquired land, the
court must always bear in mind that in majority of cases the
acquisition of land deprives the land owner of his only source of
livelihood and sustenance. The acquiring authority and the
beneficiaries of acquisition can always recover the cost of land from
the allottees of plots. If the allotment is made to industrial
entrepreneurs, they will invariably pass on the cost of land to the
consumers of their products. Therefore, while increasing the
percentage of deduction from the market value determined by the
Reference Court, the High Court should have been extremely careful
and circumspect and should have, keeping in view the law laid down
by this Court, refrained from increasing the percentage of cut from 40
to 53, which resulted in depriving the landowners of their right to
receive just and reasonable compensation.”
51. Neither the LAO nor the requiring party established the need for
development contemplated and the possible expenditure of such development by
positive evidence to show that such development charges were justifiable.
52. The categorical admission by R.W.1 in his cross-examination, which has
been excerpted above in Tamil, would indicate that the acquired land was partially
60 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
developed, with good road access and having the amenity of electricity and water.
Considering the fact that the acquired lands are already substantially developed and
they had been acquired for the industrial purpose, and further development would
not cost much, 20% of deduction towards development charges and for smaller
extent of house site would be reasonable and justified.
53. In the light of the discussions already made, if 20% deduction is applied on
the assessed market value of Rs.5,668/- per cent, the market value of the acquired
land could be determined at Rs.4,535/- per cent.
54. The State for the purpose of setting up of an Industrial Development
Complex by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the
SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation
for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (for short, “the TACID”) acquired
a vast extent of lands from Oragadam, Mathur, Panrutti, Vallam, Panappakkam,
Karanithangal and Vaipur villages. As already stated above, not being satisfied with
the market value fixed by the LAO, each of the landowners requested for making a
reference to the tribunal for enhancement of market value. On such references, the
tribunal, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State is
before this court.
55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting claimants would
fairly bring to the notice of this court the details of the market value fixed by the
LAO and market value enhanced by the Tribunal. Those details are tabulated
61 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
hereunder for easy reference:
Village Market Value fixed Market value enhanced
by the LAO by the Tribunal
(per cent) (per cent)
Oragadam Rs.300/- Rs.4,754/-
Mathur Rs.200/- Rs.6,976/-
Panruti Rs.250/- Rs.4,560/-
Vallam Rs.230/- Rs.6,931/-
Rs.7,762/-
Rs.8,693/-
Panapakkam Rs.300/- Rs.2,700/-
Karanithangal Rs.300/- Rs.4,100/-
56. On appeal against the enhancement of the market value by the tribunal, the
State/LAO preferred appeal suits and this court, according to the learned senior
counsel for the contesting claimants, dismissed the same. The details of the appeal
suit numbers and date of disposal of the appeal suits are as follows:
Village Appeal Suit Date of Disposal
Number
Panruti 420 to 428 of 2016 30.09.2022
Oragadam 710 of 2024 and a 07.02.2025
batch of cases
Panapakkam 52 of 2025 and a 12.02.2025
batch of cases
57. Reverting to the cases on hand, as already discussed above, the market
62 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
value of the acquired land has been determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent
after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. This court, very
recently, in the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID Oragadam Scheme,
Irungattukottai v.1. B.Jayalakshmi [A.S.No.710 of 2024 dated 07.02.2025]
upheld the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. This
was after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges.
58. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 747, this
Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical
and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any
discrimination among the land owners and pay more to some of the land owners and
less compensation to others.
59. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC
564, the Honourable Supreme Court has as follows:-
“15. We have carefully considered the submissions made
on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to
interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic
approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the
subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate.
From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that
while the lands in question are situated in five different villages,
they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose
63 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a
stage of development and the different villages are capable of
being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in
Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands
was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the
belting method of valuation having regard to the local
circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made
out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of
any contemporaneous document, the market value of the
acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired
at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was
correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the
market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the
subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under
consideration…….”
60. Similar view was taken in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and others
v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717], wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while relying upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v.
Harinder Pal Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 565], has held as follows:
“When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the
same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands
situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora,
Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land,
64 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other
references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference
No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants
and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.
Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and
Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the
compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the
order passed in review is also to be set aside.”
61. This acquisition relates to Mathur village which is a neighbourhood of
Oragdam. In the case of acquisition of lands relating to Oragadam village, as pointed
out by the learned senior counsel for the requiring body and the learned senior
counsel for the contesting claimants, this court upheld the market value as
determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. If the landowners are awarded
compensation at the market value of Rs.4,535/- per cent, it would certainly amount to
discrimination among the landowners whose lands had been acquired simultaneously
for a single purpose – industrial development.
62. In the light of the principle of uniform compensation rates in land
acquisition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is inclined to match
the market value as determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent for the lands
acquired from the landowners in Mathur village with that of the market value as
determined at Rs.4,754/- per cent for the lands acquired in Orgadam village for the
very same purpose. The claimants are entitled to solatium and all other statutory
65 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
63. For the foregoing discussions, the order/award passed by the tribunal
requires interference insofar as the market value is concerned. The market value of
the acquired land is fixed at Rs.4,754/- per cent. The claimants are entitled to get
compensation at the rate of Rs.4,754/- per cent together with additional market value,
solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. Except the
modification made by this court to the extent indicated above, in all other aspects,
the common order and award of the tribunal shall stand maintained. This point is
answered accordingly.
64. During the course of the hearing of the appeals on the earlier occasion, it
was brought to the notice of this Court that some of the private respondent(s) have
not entered appearance through counsel despite service of notice; in a few other
cases, the service of notice by the appellant could not be effected on private
respondent(s) due to various reasons; and in some other cases, as noted already, it
was reported that the claimants died.
65. In the above circumstances, this court passed an interim order on
24.04.2025 directing the appellant/LAO to take out paper publication as regards the
pendency of the appeal suit(s) and also to enable the interested person, any legal heir
of the deceased claimants who are having interest in the compensation to get
66 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
themselves impleaded in the proceedings. On 29.04.2025, when the appeals suits
came up for hearing, no person came forward with a claim. Mrs R. Anitha, learned
Special Government Pleader, filed the paper publication taken out by the
appellant/LAO as directed by this court on 24.04.2025. This court had directed the
names of those private respondents to be printed on the cause list and posted the
matters on 30.04.2025.
66. It is pertinent to note that acquisition in this case was initiated in a phased
manner, and notification(s) under 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 were issued between
07.12.1998 and 05.10.2000 which were followed by Section 6 declarations; after
award enquiries in each of the acquisition proceedings, separate awards were passed
between 15.03.2000 and 17.11.2022; not being satisfied with the market value fixed
by the LAO, the land owners made a claim for enhancement of compensation
individually and the same were referred by the LAO to the tribunal. The tribunal
took on file those reference in 2008 and disposed of the same by a common
judgement dated 30.11.2021 made in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of
references. Thereafter these appeals came to be filed in 2023 and the appellant/LAO
was able to get the appeal suits numbered only in February/March, 2025. Almost 24
years have elapsed after the acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The
landowners could have been moved out of the addresses originally furnished in the
reference(s). The appellant/LAO was unable to complete the service of notice.
67. It is evident that the interests of the absent parties, falling under three
67 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
distinct categories, are adequately represented by the other landowners, who are
large in number. It is pertinent to note that learned counsel who appeared on behalf
of all the claimants before the tribunal had entered appearance before this court on
behalf of the claimant(s) only in respect of 134 appeal suits. The claim for
enhancement advanced by a larger number of landowners encompasses and reflects
the interests of the non-appearing parties.
68. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to their rights by their absence. In
order to sub-serve the cause of substantial justice, and bearing in mind the broader
principles of fairness and equity, this Court is of the considered view that the matter
may be proceeded with, treating the interests of the non-appearing parties as
effectively safeguarded.
69. In the case of Abdul Marim v. State of M.P. [AIR 1964 MP 171 (MP)], a
Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a reference proceedings
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not suit proceedings and
Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be read as creating a fiction for
deeming “proceedings before the court under the Act” as proceedings in any suit.
The relevant paragraph of the said judgement reads as follows:
“It is obvious enough that reference proceedings under
section 18 are not suit proceedings. An application for
reference under section 18 is not made by the person interested
to the Court but to the Collector asking him to make a
reference to the Court. The reference is made not by the party
68 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
but by the Collector albeit at the instance of the party. If the
reference proceedings had been suit proceedings, then there
would have been no necessity of inserting in the Act section 53
laying down that “Save insofar as they may be inconsistent
with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the
Court under this Act”. So also there would have been no need
to create the fiction embodied in section 26(2) that an award
made under section 18 shall be deemed to be a decree within
the meaning of section 2, clause (2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure. If the proceedings under section 18 of the Act had
been proceedings in a suit, then the Code of Civil Procedure
would have applied automatically and the award under that
provision would have been even without the aid of fiction a
decree within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It is noteworthy that section 53 of the Act has not
the effect of making “all proceedings before the Court under
the Act suit proceedings”. All that it does is to apply to the
proceedings before the Court under the Act the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure unless any of the provisions is
“inconsistent with anything contained in the Act”. It is one
thing to say that the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the
proceedings under the Act and very much another to say that
they are suit proceedings and consequently the Code of Civil
Procedure will apply to them. Section 53 cannot be read as
creating a fiction for deeming “proceedings before the Court
under the Act” as proceedings in any suit. It is thus plain that
Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to
proceedings under section 18 of the Act taking those
proceedings as suit proceedings in reality or fictionally under
69 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
the Code of Civil Procedure. Its applicability to proceedings
under section 18 of the Act can only be by virtue of section 53
and subject to the limitation contained in that section. The
limitation is that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure
intended to be applied must not be inconsistent with anything
contained in the Act. For the purpose of inconsistency it is not
necessary that there should be an express provision to the
contrary in the Act itself. It would be enough if the
applicability of a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure to
any proceedings before the Court under the Act would be
incompatible with the nature of the proceedings.”
70. The above said view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hemareddi (D) Through LRs. v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani [2019 SAR
(Civil) 690], where the Apex Court considered a similar issue involving abatement of
proceedings due to the non-impleadment of legal representatives. In that case,
though the High Court had held that the appeal abated in its entirety due to failure to
bring the legal heirs of one of the appellants on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that:
“...if the so-called procedural requirement is drawn from a
wholesome principle of substantive law to advance the cause of
justice, the same may not be overlooked.”
71. In the instant cases, the claimant(s) in some of the cases appear to
have died between the date of award passed by the tribunal and before filing of
the appeal suits by the LAO. The LAO was able to get the appeal suits numbered
70 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
only in 2025 though they were filed in 2023 itself due to certain technicalities.
72. The death of the claimant(s) in some of the cases occurred after the
decree but before the appeal against the award of the tribunal are preferred and
before the service of notice in the appeal suits it is the duty of the LAO/appellant
herein to furnish details of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant.
However, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that
there are difficulties in getting the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased
claimants as the last whereabouts of such deceased claimants are not known and
it was reported that they moved out of their addresses furnished in the reference
long back.
73. The principle laid down in the said decisions squarely applies to the
case at hand which reinforces the view that procedural lapses should not defeat
the ends of justice, particularly when the substantive rights of absent parties are
adequately protected through effective representation by a larger number of
landowners.
74. This court is also of the view there could be no dismissal of the appeal
as abated as it would only cause hardship to the family of the landowners who
lost their lands due to acquisition for the purpose of industrial development.
Therefore, this court does not want to dismiss the appeal suit as abated insofar as
the cases where the claimant(s) were reportedly died.
75. Considering the fact that rights and interests of the claimants, who have
71 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
refrained from entering appearance either in person or through a counsel, despite
service of notice for the reasons known to them or could not enter appearance for
want of knowledge about the pendency of the appeal suits because of non-service of
notice as the case may be, and in some cases where the sole claimant died, are
adequately and effectively protected by other landowners involved in the case, this
court had proceeded to pass orders on the appeal suits without waiting for them to
come or waiting for the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s) to be impleaded in the
appeal suits.
76. The absent claimants are entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate
application(s) for withdrawal of the compensation amount as per law. Similarly, the
legal heirs of the deceased sole claimant in the respective appeal suits are also
entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate application(s) for withdrawal of the
compensation amount and the tribunal on proper enquiry on the legal heirship of the
deceased claimant(s) and proper identification by their counsel, pass appropriate
order for the release of the compensation in their favour as per rules.
77. The Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to identify the whereabouts of
the absent claimant(s) and notify them that the appeal suit(s) preferred against them
by the LAO has/have been disposed of and that they are entitled to the compensation
once it is deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.
78. The Government of Tamil Nadu is also directed to identify the legal heirs
of the deceased claimant(s) and their whereabouts and notify them that the appeal
72 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
suit(s) preferred by the LAO against the person(s) whose name(s) were registered in
the record as landowner(s) has/have been disposed of and that they, being the legal
heirs of the deceased claimant(s), are entitled to the compensation once it is
deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.
79. The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate responsible officers/staff
members, as may be necessary and required, to undertake the above exercise and
complete the same as expeditiously as possible.
In the result, the appeal suits are partly allowed and the common order/award
passed by the tribunal is modified to the following effect:
i) The market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,976/- per
cent as determined by the tribunal is modified and
reduced to Rs.4,754/- per cent insofar as the references
under appeal are concerned.
ii) The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the
reduced market rate together with, additional market
value, solatium and all other statutory benefits
provided under LA Act, 1894
iii) The appellant in these appeal suits or the authority
concerned is directed to deposit the compensation as
directed above, if not already deposited pursuant to the
73 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
orders of the reference court under appeal.
iv) The appellant/State is entitled to get the excess
amount, if any, deposited, returned subject to the
satisfaction of the decree amount(s).
v) The law officer(s) who represented the appellant in the
respective appeal suits, as well as the learned senior
counsel represented on behalf of the SIPCOT and the
learned counsel on record for the SIPCOT, who
assisted the senior counsel, shall be entitled to separate
fees for each appeal.
vi) It is made clear that the claimants are at liberty to
approach the reference court for withdrawal of the
compensation as directed above in accordance with
law.
vii) There shall be no order as to costs.
viii) The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate
responsible officers/staff members, as may be
necessary and required, to enforce the directions issued
in the preceding paragraphs of this judgement.
74 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
The impugned common order and individual decree(s) are modified to the
extent indicated above and in other respects the same shall stand confirmed.
Consequently, connected CMPs are closed.
Index : yes / no 30..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.
75 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
and
a batch of cases
30..04..2025
76 of 76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
