Madras High Court
B.Harri Prasad vs The Special Tahsildar on 18 February, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.4674 of 2025
Jothi Baskaran(died) [Rep. By LRS 1 and 2]
1. B.Harri Prasad
2. N.Sharmila ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Unit I
Outer Ring Road Project,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
Now having office at
K.M.M.C Building, Koyambedu Market,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 92
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Directing the respondents to pay the petitioners enhanced
compensation amount as awarded by the Honourable High Court Madras
Divisional Bench i.e. Rs.25,952/- percent. The Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition) Unit-I outer Ring road Project Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authorities M.M.C Building Koyambedu Market Koyambedu Chennai-92
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and The member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities
Egmore Cehnnai-600 008 are hereby requested to deposit into the Hon'ble
Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram in the above LAOP No.1258 of 2008 the
difference amount of Rs.25 952/- (Less) Rs.21 879/- equal to Rs.4 073/- per cent
with interest on solatium is to be given for petitioner acquired of 131 cents. The
petitioners are also entitled to receive difference amount of Rs.4,073/- percent
for the petitioner acquired land in the light of degree and judgement passed by
the Hon'ble High Court Madras Division Bench in A.S.No.386 of 2018 batch
cased with all other benefits as per Land Acquisition Act.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ram
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
for R1
Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali
Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents
to pay enhanced compensation to the petitioners as was awarded by the Division
Bench of this Court in AS No.386 of 2018 etc., dated 14.07.2022 based on the
representation made by the petitioners on 16.12.2024.
2. Heard Mr.J.Ram, learned counsel for petitioners and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for 1st respondent and
Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.
3. The main issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award was passed by fixing the
compensation at Rs.650 per cent. This amount was received by the petitioners
on protest. The case was referred to the Sub Court, Kanchipuram for
enhancement of compensation. The batch of cases were decided by the reference
court and an award was passed on 10.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the land
owners filed appeal before this Court in AS No.386 etc., of 2018. The Division
Bench of this Court by judgement dated 14.07.2022 enhanced the compensation
to Rs.25,952/- per cent.
4. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents seeking
for extending the enhanced compensation that was awarded to the neighboring
land owners. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has
been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that the petitioners have made the representation only on
16.12.2024 which is beyond the three months period prescribed under Section
28A of the Act.
6.In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners
brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in Narendra
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2017 9 SCC 426.
The relevant portions that were relied upon by the learned counsel are extracted
hereunder:
6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as
well viz. in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28-A of the
Act. This provision reads as under:
"28-A. Re-determination of the amount of
compensation on the basis of the award of the court.-(1)
Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the
applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the
persons interested in all the other land covered by the same
notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are
also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an application to
the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the
Collector within three months from the date of the award of
the court require that the amount of compensation payable
to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the court:”
7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid
provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other
evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose
land was acquired under the same notification.
8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid
provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those
landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose
land is acquired for public purpose should get fair
compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is
judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation,
benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not
approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
incorporated by the legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid
purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was
claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the
compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair
compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons
appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they
claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule
of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering
substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount
consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of
compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers
whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their
voluntary act to sell off their land. They were compelled to give
the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the
consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their
choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at
which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of
their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The
Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to
judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge
and appeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the
landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for
"fair compensation". Once such a fair compensation is
determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
away by the same notification should become the beneficiary
thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do
so would also amount to discrimination by giving different
treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical
grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned
judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.
7.In the considered view of this Court, Section 28A of the Act prescribes
for three months period to seek for enhancement of compensation and the said
provision does not provide for condoning the delay by operation of the
Limitation Act. However, the judgement of the Apex Court that was relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioners makes it clear that where the owners of
the properties fall within the same acquisition, if the compensation is enhanced,
the same has to be extended to the other owners also who did not approach the
Court. This is in view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial
legislation. This Court places reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court
and directs the 1st respondent to deal with the representation made by the
petitioners on 16.12.2024 and pass final orders, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.
18.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
rka
To
1. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Unit I
Outer Ring Road Project,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
Now having office at
K.M.M.C Building, Koyambedu Market,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 92
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
