Madras High Court
K.Saravanan vs The Special District Revenue Officer ... on 13 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13..06..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
and
C.M.P.No.18733 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.3030 of 2023
&
C.M.P.No.18783 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.3033 of 2023
C.R.P.No.4009 of 2022:
K.Saravanan
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project,
Kumbakonam. ..... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
modify the Fair Award and Decretal Award dated 29.08.2022 mad by th
learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 2021 and allow the
civil revision petition by enhancing the value of the acquired land in terms of
Sections 26 and 27 of the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
For Respondent : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
1 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
C.R.P.No.4010 of 2022:
K.Sivakumar
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project,
Kumbakonam.
..... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
modify the Fair Award and Decretal Award dated 29.08.2022 made by the
learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2021 and allow the
civil revision petition by enhancing the value of the acquired land in terms of
Sections 26 and 27 of the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
For Respondent : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
C.R.P.No.3030 of 2023:
The Special District Revenue Officer,
Chennai-Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project,
Land Acquisition Officer,
Kumbakonam.
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
K.Saravanan
..... Respondent
2 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
Petition filed under Article 227of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside
the decree and judgement dated 29.08.2022 made by the learned District Judge,
Nagapattinam, in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 2021.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Mohammed Ismail
C.R.P.No.3033 of 2022:
The Special District Revenue Officer,
Chennai-Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project,
Land Acquisition Officer,
Kumbakonam.
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
K.Sivakumar
..... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
set aside the decree and judgement dated 29.08.2022 mad by the learned
District Judge, Nagapattinam, in L.A.O.P.No.160 of 2021.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Mohammed Ismail
3 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 4009 and 4010 of 2022 have been
filed by the claimants challenging the common order dated 29.08.2022 passed
by the learned Principal District Judge (Reference Court), Nagapattinam, in
L.A.O.P. Nos. 20 and 16 of 2021 respectively, on the ground of inadequacy of
compensation awarded for the lands acquired. On the other hand, the revision
petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 3030 and 3033 of 2023 have been preferred by the
State/Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai–
Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project, Kumbakonam, aggrieved by the
enhancement of compensation made by the Reference Court from Rs.41.40 per
square meter, as originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to
Rs.61.80 per square meter. The lands in question were acquired under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for the purpose of formation
of the Chennai–Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these revision petitions are
being referred to as Claimant(s) and Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) based on
their positions before the reference court.
3.0 The brief facts which lead to the filing of the civil revision petitions
are as follows:
4 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
3.1 An extent of 22201 square metres of land in Perunjeri village,
Kuthalam Taluk, Nagapattinam District, was the subject matter of acquisition
for the purpose of the formation of the Chennai-Kanyakumari Industrial
Corridor Project (for short, “the road project”).
3.2 A piece of agricultural (wet) land owned by the claimant (Saravanan,
son of Kumarasamy) in L.A.O.P. No. 20 of 2021, measuring an extent of 3000
square meters of land comprised in S.No.274/2 of Perunjeri Village, Kuthalam
Taluk, Nagapattinam District, was sought to be acquired for the purpose of the
road project.
3.3 A piece of agricultural (wet) land owned by the claimant (K.
Sivakumar, son of Kumarasamy) in L.A.O.P. No. 16 of 2021, measuring an
extent of 3015 square meters, comprised in S.No.274/3 of Perunjeri village,
Kuthalam Taluk, Nagapattinam District, was sought to be acquired for the
purpose of the road project.
3.4 Notification dated 12.06.2020 was issued by the Special District
Revenue Officer (LA), Kumbakonam, under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of
the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for the acquisition of a total extent of
22201 square metres of land in Perunjeri village, Kuthalam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District, including a portion of the land owned by the claimants
5 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
herein.
3.5. On 09.01.2021, a final award in Award No.37/2019-20 (RC
No.38/2020/A1) was passed by the LAO assessing the compensation amount
payable to the claimant(s) for the lands acquired from them at the rate of
Rs.41.40 per square meter besides other added benefits as provided under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the RFCTLARR, 2013”).
4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the LAO, the
claimants sought reference to the Principal District Judge (Reference Court) to
establish their claim for enhanced compensation.
5. The reference court took the references made by the authority on file
and assigned numbers as L.A.O.P.Nos.20 and 16 of 2021 respectively and
conducted a joint trial in both the claim petitions. During the trial, on the side
of the claimants, the claimant, Saravanan (L.A.O.P. No.20 of 2021), examined
himself as C.W.1, and in support of his claim for enhanced compensation, he
examined one Murugavel as C.W.2, Janardhan as C.W.3 and Devendran as
C.W.4 and marked Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.18. On the side of the LAO, no oral
evidence was adduced, nor was any documentary evidence marked.
6. The Reference Court, by its judgement dated 29.08.2022, held that the
6 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
claimants are entitled to compensation at the enhanced market value of
Rs.61.80 per square meter, as against the market value of Rs.41.40 per square
meter fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. As already stated supra, not being satisfied with the enhanced
compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the claimants have filed C.R.P.
Nos.4009 and 4010 of 2022 seeking further enhancement of compensation.
Conversely, the State and the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the
enhancement granted by the Reference Court, have filed C.R.P. Nos. 3030 and
3033 of 2023, seeking to set aside the judgement of the Reference Court and to
restore the compensation originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
8. Upon consideration of the grounds raised in the revision petitions and
on a careful perusal of the materials available on record, the following points
arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer has
correctly determined the market value of the acquired
land in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
(2) Whether there are valid and comparable sale
exemplars available within the meaning of Section
26(1)(b) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 so as to
determine the average sale price for fixing the market
7 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
value of the acquired land?
(3) What is the appropriate market value that the
claimants are entitled to, having regard to the statutory
criteria and materials placed on record?
9. This court heard Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail, learned counsel for the
claimants and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for LAO.
10.1 The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that sub-section (1)
of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 mandates that, for
determining the market value of the acquired land, the Reference Court must
assess both the market value notified under the Indian Stamp Act (commonly
referred to as the guideline value) and the average sale price of comparable
lands situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area, ascertained from
valid sale transactions. It was further submitted that the Reference Court is
required to adopt the higher of the two as the base market value. However, in
the present case, the Reference Court failed to properly apply the mandate of
Section 26(1), resulting in an erroneous determination of compensation. Such a
fundamental failure, according to the learned counsel, vitiates the award and
calls for the intervention of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
10.2 The learned counsel further contended that both the Land
8 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court misconstrued the statutory scheme
under Section 26(1), particularly clause (b), which requires the calculation of
the average sale price by taking into account one-half of the highest sale prices
from the recorded sale deeds of lands of similar type in the relevant vicinity
within the three-year period preceding the notification under Section 15(2) of
the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. However, both authorities erroneously
rejected the sale exemplars relating to Pandaravadai and Thathangudi villages,
which are proximate to the acquired land and relevant for determining
comparability. The learned counsel therefore urged this court to asses the
average sale price to be computed based on the top one-half of comparable
transactions from the said villages, and to compare the result with the
applicable guideline value and adopt whichever is higher, in accordance with
the statutory mandate under Section 26(1) of the Act to determine the base
market value of the acquired lands.
11.1 The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submitted that the total extent of land acquired from Perunjeri Village was
22,201 square feet. It was contended that no sale transactions involving similar
types of land had taken place either within Perunjeri Village or within a 1600-
meter radius thereof during the statutory reference period between 12.06.2017
9 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
and 11.06.2020. The sale deeds produced by the claimants pertaining to
Pandaravadai and Thathangudi Villages, it was argued, related to housing sites
and not to agricultural or similarly situated lands, and therefore, the Land
Acquisition Officer had rightly discounted them from consideration.
11.2 The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that,
while it is undisputed that Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lays
down the methodology for determining market value, including both clauses
(a) and (b), the application of Clause (b) is inapplicable in the present case due
to the absence of sale exemplars of comparable lands in the nearest vicinity,
particularly in Perunjeri Village or its adjoining villages, as required under
Explanations (1) and (2) to Section 26(1). It was pointed out that the guideline
value applicable to 'Nanja' (wet agricultural) lands in Perunjeri Village was
Rs.41.40 per square meter. However, the Reference Court, instead of relying on
this classification, erroneously adopted the higher guideline value applicable to
house sites in the same village, thereby fixing the market value of the acquired
land at Rs.61.80 per square meter. Such an approach, it was contended, is
contrary to the statutory scheme and unsupported by the nature of the acquired
land. Therefore, it was urged that the award passed by the Reference Court
warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
10 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
12. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
13. There can be no dispute that individual landowners who are deprived
of their property rights for public purposes must be adequately and fairly
compensated for their sacrifice in the larger interest of society. The object of
the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, is to ensure that such acquisition does not result in
unjust enrichment of the acquiring authority at the cost of the dispossessed
landowners. The compensation must, therefore, reflect the real value of the
land so acquired.
14. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santuka v. Collector [(1987) 1 SCC 587],
wherein the Court held that the market value of land represents the price which
a willing purchaser would offer to a willing seller for similar land in the open
market. The Court further emphasized that concessional or subsidised rates
offered to industrial units or specific entities do not reflect the true market
value and, hence, cannot be relied upon for determining compensation. The
Court underscored that the compensation awarded must accurately reflect the
prevailing market conditions to ensure that the landowners are justly
recompensed for their loss.
15. Thus, for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the
11 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
landowners, the market value of the acquired land must be computed in
accordance with Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. This necessarily
involves the application of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26.
Clause (c), which relates to consent-based acquisitions, would have no
application in the present case, as the acquisition has been made for a public
purpose, without consent, under the regular provisions of the Act.
16. It is a well-settled principle of law that the burden of establishing the
market value of the acquired land primarily rests with the claimants. At the
same time, the State bears an equally important responsibility to act fairly and
reasonably in awarding compensation, ensuring that the displaced landowners
are not subjected to injustice. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v.
Karidowda and Others, [(2010) 5 SCC 708], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
underscored this dual obligation, observing that while the claimants must lead
credible evidence to establish the prevailing market value, the State is equally
duty-bound to assist the court in arriving at a just and fair determination of
compensation, rather than merely opposing the claim on technical grounds.
17. The assessment and determination of market value under Section
26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, mandates a comparative analysis of two
key components: (i) the market value as per the guideline value, and (ii) the
12 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
average sale price of land for similar types in the vicinity, computed by taking
into account one half of the highest-priced sale deeds executed in the three
years preceding the date of notification. The higher of these two must be
adopted as the base market value. However, in the present case, it is evident
that the Reference Court did not adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed
under Section 26(1). Instead, it has determined the market value solely on the
basis of the normative guideline value, without undertaking the requisite
comparative assessment. This omission constitutes a legal infirmity, and
therefore, the award passed by the Reference Court warrants interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
18. With regard to the market value, as reflected in the guideline value
notified under the Indian Stamp Act for the registration of sale deeds in the
relevant area, it is not in dispute that the guideline value in respect of wet lands
(Nanja) situated in Perunjeri Village stood at Rs.41.40 per square metre as on
the date of notification for acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,
2001. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has challenged the award of the
Reference Court on the specific ground that the Reference Court erroneously
adopted a normative guideline value of Rs.61.80 per square metre, which
pertains to house sites, and not to the nature of land acquired in this case,
13 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
which is classified as agricultural land (Nanja).
19. The reference court, it is contended, applied the nominative value
applicable to house plots without proper justification or supporting material,
resulting in a flawed determination of compensation. Upon perusal of Ex.P.2,
which contains the list of guideline values prevailing for immovable properties
in Perunjeri Village during the statutory reference period between 12.06.2017
and 11.06.2020, it is evident that the applicable guideline value for wet land
was Rs.41.45 per square metre. The lands acquired from the claimants form
part of S.Nos. 274/2 and 274/3 of Perunjeri Village. In view of the
documentary evidence and the nature of the land acquired, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the correct guideline value to be adopted, as notified by
the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mayiladuthurai Joint-II, Tanjavur Division,
was Rs.41.45 per square metre.
20. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants
although the Reference Court had made a passing reference to the sale
exemplars relating to Pandaravadai and Thathangudi villages, it failed to assign
any cogent or specific reasons for discarding those sale transactions from
consideration while assessing the average sale price. According to the learned
counsel, in the absence of comparable sales from the acquired village, it is
14 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
permissible under Explanation (1) to sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, to rely upon sale instances of small-sized housing plots
from neighbouring villages, provided appropriate deductions are made to
account for the smaller extent and nature of the plots. He further submitted that
where no other sale exemplars are available, the Reference Court is empowered
to determine compensation on a square metre basis, after making reasonable
deductions. Therefore, if the sale exemplars from the adjacent villages of
Pandaravadai and Thathangudi were taken into account in accordance with the
statutory framework, the claimants would be justly entitled to enhanced
compensation in the range of Rs.90/- to more than Rs.100/- per square metre.
21. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader, placing
strong reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India v. Premlata, [(2022) 7 SCC 745], vehemently contended that, even if
this Court were to consider the sale exemplars pertaining to Pandaravadai and
Thathangudi Villages, a reasonable deduction in the range of 20% to 40%
ought to be applied. It was submitted that the said sale deeds relate to small-
sized housing plots, and in accordance with the principle laid down in
Premlata's case (cited supra) and the well-established jurisprudence on land
acquisition, appropriate deductions are necessary to account for the difference
15 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
in character, utility, and size between developed plots and larger extents of
agricultural or undeveloped land. The learned Special Government Pleader thus
argued that failure to apply such deductions would lead to an inflated and
unrealistic compensation, which would be inconsistent with the statutory
scheme and settled precedents governing land acquisition.
22. In response, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
sale exemplars from Pandaravadai and Thathangudi Villages are proximate,
relevant, and legally admissible under Section 26(1)(b) of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013. He further submitted that the claimants do not dispute the principle that
reasonable deductions may be applied when comparing smaller, developed
plots with larger extents of agricultural land. However, it was argued that a
uniform deduction in the range of 20% to 40%, as suggested by the learned
Special Government Pleader, would be excessive and arbitrary in the facts of
the present case. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, in the
light of the settled legal position, a reasonable deduction may be made,
considering the small extent of the exemplar sale plots and the fact that the
acquired land was not extensive, measuring only 22,201 square metres.
However, it was contended that such deduction should not exceed 10%, which
would fairly balance the comparative valuation and avoid any inflation of
16 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
compensation.
23. Turning to the issue of average sale price, it is noted that neither the
claimants nor the Land Acquisition Officer have produced any sale exemplars
pertaining to lands situated in Perunjeri Village. It is an admitted position that
the sale exemplars heavily relied upon by the claimants pertain to Pandaravadai
and Thathangudi villages. These exemplars were rejected by the Reference
Court on the ground that they relate to house sites and not to agricultural lands.
The total extent of land acquired for the public purpose project was 22,201
square metres. In the absence of any comparable sale instances from the village
where the land is situated, this Court is of the view that it becomes necessary to
consider the sale transactions from the nearest villages, as permissible under
Explanation (1) to Section 26(1) of the Act, provided appropriate deductions
are made in line with judicial precedents. Accordingly, the relevant sale
exemplars pertaining to the neighbouring villages of Pandaravadai and
Thathangudi, which were available during the reference period, are tabulated as
follows:
17 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
(A) Pandaravadai Village:
Sl. Doc. No. Survey Extent Sale Rate per Rate per
Number conveyyed price square square
No. foot meter
(in Rupees) (in (in
Rupees) Rupees)
1 62/2018 145/2 & 2400 121000 50.00 538.00
2 63/2018 145/2 & 1200 121000 101.00 1088.00
3 2153/2018 145/2A1A1A1 2400 243000 101.25 1090.00
& 145/3A1
4 2400/2019 142/21B1A, 2400 243000 101.25 1090.00
144/1A1A1A1
A1A &
145/2A1
5 1460/2018 502/B1A1A 1110 100000 90.00 969.00
(B) Thathangudi Village:
Sl. Doc. No. Survey Extent Sale price Rate per Rate per
No. Number conveyed (in Rupees) square foot square
(in Rupees) meter
(in Rupees)
1 1173/2018 169/32 1800 145000 80.55 867.36
2 203/2019 169/4C 1800 144000 80.00 861.44
18 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
Sl. Doc. No. Survey Extent Sale price Rate per Rate per
No. Number conveyed (in Rupees) square foot square
(in Rupees) meter
(in Rupees)
3 204/2019 169/4C 1800 144000 80.00 861.44
4 206/2019 169/4C 1800 144000 80.00 861.44
5 207/2019 169/4C 1800 144000 80.00 861.44
6 3349/2019 169/1A1A1A 1800 146000 81.00 872.22
The Court has carefully examined these exemplars to assess whether they
qualify as comparable sale instances under Section 26(1)(b).
24. It is not in dispute that the land acquired in the present case is
agricultural in nature and not fully developed. However, the claimants have not
produced any exemplar sale deeds relating to large extents of similar
agricultural lands sold in acres or cents, either in the acquired village or in the
nearest vicinity, as required under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Instead, the sale exemplars relied upon by the
claimants pertain to very small housing plots situated in the neighbouring
19 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
villages of Pandaravadai and Thathangudi.
25. This Court finds that the claimants have also failed to establish any
distinguishing features or special characteristics to demonstrate that the lands
covered by the sale exemplars are comparable to the acquired lands. In the
absence of such evidence, it becomes difficult to draw a fair and reliable
comparison between the acquired agricultural land and the housing plots cited
in support.
26. In Premlata v. Union of India [(2022) 7 SCC 745], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled position that small plots or parcels of
land cannot command the same market value as large tracts of land acquired for
public purposes. The Court observed that when a large extent of land is
acquired, the compensation cannot be mechanically determined based on the
price fetched by smaller, fragmented housing plots, as such small parcels
generally reflect a higher per unit value. It was further held that, as a general
rule, compensation for acquired land should not be determined on a square foot
basis, particularly when the acquisition pertains to agricultural or undeveloped
land. However, the Court clarified that, in the absence of comparable sale
instances of similar large tracts, it is permissible for the court to adopt a square
foot rate derived from small plot sales, provided a reasonable deduction is
20 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
made towards development costs and other relevant factors. This flexibility is
intended to strike a balance between the lack of comparable sales and the need
to ensure just compensation in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
27. As per Explanation (2) to sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, for the purpose of determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation (1), one-half of the total number of sale deeds
wherein the highest sale prices have been recorded shall be taken into account.
If that be so, out of 11 sale exemplars, the top one-half (i.e., 5 sales) are
tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Doc. No. Survey Extent Sale Rate per Rate per
No. Number conveyye price square square
d (in Rupees) foot meter
(in (in
Rupees) Rupees)
1 2153/2018 145/2A1A1A1 2400 243000 101.25 1090.00
& 145/3A1
2 2400/2019 142/21B1A, 2400 243000 101.25 1090.00
144/1A1A1A1A1
A&
145/2A1
3 63/2018 145/2 & 1200 121000 101.00 1088.00
4 1460/2018 502/B1A1A 1110 100000 90.00 969.00
5 1173/2018 169/32 1800 145000 80.55 867.36
Total 474.05 5104.36
21 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
The average sale price works out to Rs.94.81 per square foot, which is
accordingly rounded off to Rs.95.00 per square foot. Likewise, the average sale
price of Rs.1020.87 per square metre is rounded off to Rs.1021.00 per square
metre. Applying the statutory formula under Section 26(1)(b) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, to the sale exemplars from the neighbouring villages,
this Court computes the average sale price at Rs.1021.00 per square metre.
When converted to square foot, it corresponds to Rs.95.00 per square foot.
28. Upon careful examination of the documentary evidence produced,
including the sale exemplars pertaining to lands situated in the nearby villages,
and having regard to the statutory mandate under Section 26(1)(b) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, this Court is of the considered view that the average
sale price computed from the top one-half of such transactions is higher than
the guideline value notified under the Indian Stamp Act for lands in Perunjeri
village. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the average sale price shall be
adopted as the base market value for the purpose of determining compensation,
as it more accurately reflects the prevailing market conditions and ensures that
the claimants receive just and fair compensation in accordance with law.
29. On the aspect of deduction towards development charges, it is
pertinent to note that the land in question has been acquired for the purpose of
22 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
road formation. It is well settled that when land is acquired for such
infrastructural purposes that do not require any further development, no
deduction towards development charges is warranted.
30. It is also the settled principle of law that sale exemplars pertaining to
small plots of land cannot be directly applied to determine the market value of
large tracts of acquired land without applying reasonable deductions. This is
because small plots, typically situated within developed areas, tend to fetch a
higher price due to their immediate utility for residential or commercial
purposes, better location, or existing infrastructure. Conversely, acquired lands
are agricultural or they are undeveloped.
31. In a very recent judgement in Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Died)
through his LRs v. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 634 [Civil Appeal No.14670 OF 2015 dated
25.03.2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled principle of
law that large extents of land do not command the same unit price as small
plots. Therefore, when the compensation is determined based on sale exemplars
of smaller plots, a reasonable deduction is normally permissible on account of
the largeness of the acquired area. A deduction of at least 10% is thus
warranted to ensure a just and equitable assessment of market value.
23 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
32. In the present case, the acquired land is suitable and directly
utilizable for the notified purpose without any requirement of internal
development, plotting, or infrastructure provisioning. As held in Land
Acquisition Officer v. L. Kamalamma, [(1998) 2 SCC 385[, deductions
towards development cost are not justified in acquisitions made for roads,
irrigation canals, or similar public utilities where the land is not intended to be
developed into housing or commercial layouts.
33. Though the sale exemplars relate to housing plots, the land acquired
from each of the claimants measures only about 3,000 square meters and,
though agricultural in nature, does not constitute a relatively large tract. In fact,
the total extent of land acquired from the entire village was only 22,001 square
meters. Therefore, having regard to the modest extent of both the individual
and overall acquisitions, and the smallness of the exemplar plots, a limited
deduction is justifiable solely on that ground.
34. Accordingly, this Court holds that no deduction shall be made
towards development charges, and the only permissible deduction in the
present case shall be confined to the smallness of the extent of the acquired
land. However, in so far as the smallness of extent is concerned, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion on this aspect, this
24 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
Court is of the considered view that a deduction of 10% would be just and
equitable to award fair compensation to the landowners.
35. After adopting the base market value of Rs.1,021.00 per square metre
(equivalent to Rs.95.00 per square foot) and applying a deduction of 10%
towards the smallness of the exemplar plots and the relatively larger extent of
the land acquired, the net market value is determined as Rs.918.90 per square
metre, which is rounded off to Rs.920.00 per square metre. On conversion, this
corresponds to Rs.85.50 per square foot, which is accordingly rounded off to
Rs.86.00 per square foot.
36. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the
order of the Reference Court is silent with regard to the other statutory benefits
as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, it is
pertinent to note that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer had
already incorporated all such statutory benefits.
37. In the absence of any specific denial or contrary finding regarding
the other statutory benefits, this Court is inclined to pass an appropriate
direction to ensure that the claimants are extended all consequential benefits in
accordance with the said Act.
25 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
38. In accordance with Sections 30 and 31 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013,
the claimants are entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% per
annum on the market value so determined, from the date of publication of the
notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act till the date
of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. The
claimants are entitled to have the market value so determined subjected to a
multiplier of 1.25, as prescribed under Schedule I of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013. In addition, the claimants are entitled to solatium at 100% of the
compensation amount, along with interest and other statutory benefits as
applicable.
In the result, (1) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Nos.4009 & 4010 of
2022 are partly allowed in the following terms:
(i) The common order passed by the reference court, impugned in these
revision petitions, is modified to the extent of the determination of market
value. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired lands is enhanced and
fixed at Rs.920/- per square meter [equivalent to Rs.86/- per square foot] in the
place market value of Rs.61.80 per square meter [Rs.5.75 per square foot] as
originally awarded by the reference court in the references under revision.
(ii) The claimant(s) are entitled to get enhanced compensation for the
26 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
lands acquired from them calculated at the enhanced rate of market value.
(iii) The market value determined above shall be subject to a multiplier
of 1.25, as prescribed under Schedule I of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to solatium at 100% of the total
compensation amount, in terms of Section 30(1) of the Act.
(v) The respective claimants shall also be entitled to additional
compensation at 12% per annum on the market value so determined, from the
date of publication of the notification under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act till
the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier, in
accordance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
(vi) The respective claimants shall further be entitled to interest at 9%
per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession, and 15% per
annum thereafter until the date of deposit of the enhanced compensation
amount, as provided under RFCTLARR Act, 2013
(vii) Any amount of compensation already received by the claimant shall
be deducted from the total amount payable pursuant to this judgement.
(viii) The respondent is directed to deposit the differential amount along
with along with admissible components within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
(2) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Nos.3030 and 3033 of 2023 are
dismissed.
(3) Considering the facts and circumstances both parties are directed to
bear their respective costs incurred on these revision petitions. Consequently,
connected CMPs are closed.
Index : yes / no 10..06..2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The District Judge, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
28 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
Common Order
in
C.R.P.Nos.4009, 4010 of 2022, 3030 and 3033 2023
10..06..2025
29 of 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/07/2025 08:33:55 pm )
