Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (Land ... vs Sundari Bai And Another on 19 February, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:451
A.S.No.314 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
A.S.No.314 of 2023
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Scheme
Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kancheepuram District .. Appellant
v.
1. Rajendiran
S/o K.N.Mudaliar
2. Managing Director
SIPCOT Limited
Egmore, Chennai .. Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of First Appeal filed under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2016
made in L.A.O.P.No.1298 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court at
Kancheepuram.
For Appellant :: Mrs.R.Anitha
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.314 of 2023
Special Government Pleader (AS)
For Respondents :: Mr.A.S.Vijay Anand for R1
Mr.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel for
Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy
for R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The appeal suit is preferred against the judgment and decree dated
14.06.2016 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in
L.A.O.P.No.1298 of 2008.
2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur
Scheme is the appellant in the first appeal, the claimant is the first
respondent and the beneficiary, namely, the Managing Director, SIPCOT
Limited, Egmore, Chennai-8 is the second respondent in the first appeal.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation amount of
Rs.150/- per cent and the said compensation amount was enhanced to a sum
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Rs.6,534/- per cent by the Trial Court. Challenging the said enhancement,
the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) preferred the present appeal suit.
4. Various grounds are raised by the appellant and the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission
that the issues raised in the present appeal suit were already decided by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), SIPCOT Unit, Sriperumbudur vs. Sundari Bai and Another
[2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2459] and the relevant paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of
the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court, cited supra, are
extracted hereunder:-
“10. Having regard to the above factors, we are of the
considered opinion that for fixing the land value as stated by us
earlier, it will be safe to rely upon the sale deed dated
1.12.1995 in respect of Survey No. 354/3 which land is also
located in the very same Katrambakkam village which was
marked as Ex.C.6 in the earlier batch of cases as referred
above. Though this document has not been marked in the
present case, we are inclined to take note of this document for
arriving at a fair market value, and there is no serious objection
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to this course
of action to be adopted. Further, the acquisition covers an area
of 117 hectares, and hence we are of the view that in order to
apply a uniform sale value, a moderation can be made to the
sale value covered by the said Ex.C.6. In our considered
opinion, the price of Rs. 4,600 per cent can be reduced by 20%
of the value by way of moderation. On that basis, if worked
out, the sale value comes to Rs. 3,680/- per cent. As stated by
us, the development of the land had to be made by the SIPCOT
after the acquisition for which Requisitioning Body had to
incur substantial amount. As held by the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in various decisions, having regard to the extensive
development that had taken place after the acquisition, we are
of the considered opinion that the percentage applied in respect
of Aaraneri village which is also located 34 K.Ms. away from
City of Chennai, can be applied to the case on hand. In that
case, for development charges 43% was deducted for arriving
at the net market value of the land. Applying the same
principles and the rate of reduction at 43% on the sale value of
Rs. 3,680/- applicable sale value works out to Rs. 2098/- which
can be rounded-off to Rs. 2,100/- per cent.
11. As far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for
the claimants are concerned, we find that since the same were
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
involved in the special facts of those cases, the same cannot be
applied to the facts of the present case.
12. To sum up in the result, all the appeals are partly allowed
as indicated below:-
(a) the land value in all these appeals are fixed at Rs. 2,100/-
per cent with 30% solatium.
(b) the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of 12%
per annum, from the date of notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, till the date of Award of the
Referring Officer, or taking possession of the land, whichever
is earlier;
(c) the claimants are entitled to 9% interest for the first year
from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% for
every subsequent year, on the amount calculated as market
value till the date of deposit;
(d) Any excess amount deposited, after satisfying the above
award, is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant in all the
appeals.
(e) Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and learned
counsel appearing for SIPCOT shall be entitled to separate fees
for each of the Appeals;
(f) there shall be no order as to costs.
(g) All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent/claimant made a submission that the development charges are to
be reduced and even enhancement is to be made as done in other land
acquisition proceedings.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that such contentions
deserve no consideration at this length of time, in view of the fact that in
respect of the very same acquisition, the enhancement granted by the Trial
Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court with certain
modifications, as stated supra. Thus, this Court has to follow the same in
order to maintain consistency in the matter of award of just compensation to
the respondent/claimant, who is similarly placed.
7. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
the case of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT Unit,
Sriperumbudur vs. Sundari Bai and Another [2009 SCC Online Mad 2459]
has decided the very same issue in respect of the acquisition proceedings in
the same location, the said Division Bench order is to be followed in the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of the first respondent/claimant in this appeal suit.
8. The appellant as well as the second respondent are directed to settle
the compensation and all other benefits to the first respondent/claimant,
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
9. Accordingly, the appeal suit stands partly allowed in terms of the
orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, cited supra.
Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.11523 of 2023 & 3279 of 2025 are closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 19.02.2025
ss
To
1. The Subordinate Judge
Kancheepuram
2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Scheme
Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kancheepuram District
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Managing Director
SIPCOT Limited
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
19.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
