Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (La) Unit-Vi vs C.Lalitha on 17 June, 2025
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.No.101 of 2025 and CMP No.2216 of 2025
and
A.S.No.103 of 2025 and CMP Nos.2223, 2224 and 9625 of 2025
and
A.S.No.105 of 2025 and CMP Nos.2234, 2236 and 9634 of 2025
and
A.S.No.107 of 2025 and CMP Nos.2242, 2243 and 9639 of 2025
In A.S.No.101 of 2025
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit-VI,
O.R.R.Project, CMDA, Koyembedu,
Chennai-92. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. C.Lalitha, W/o Chandran
2. V.Radha, W/o Venkatesan
3. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
In A.S.No.103 of 2025
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit-VI,
O.R.R.Project, CMDA, Koyembedu,
Chennai-92. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sharmila, W/o Chandrasekar
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
In A.S.No.105 of 2025
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit-VI,
O.R.R.Project, CMDA, Koyembedu,
Chennai-92. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Parvatha Kalyani, W/o Rose Chettiyar (died)
2. Jaisankar, S/o Rose Chettiyar (died)
3. Janakiraman, S/o Rose Chettiyar (died)
4. Hari, S/o Rose Chettiyar (died)
(Respondents 1 to 3 are impleaded as per
order in I.A.No.01 of 2022, dated 08.11.2022)
5. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
In A.S.No.107 of 2025
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit-VI,
O.R.R.Project, CMDA, Koyembedu,
Chennai-92. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Susila, W/o Sundararajan (died)
2. Ramesh, S/o Sundararajan (died)
3. Suresh, S/o Sundararajan (died)
4. Sathish, S/o Sundararajan (died)
5. Sureka, D/o Sundararajan (died)
(Respondents 1 to 5 are impleaded as per
order in I.A.No.01 of 2022 dated 08.11.2022.)
6. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
PRAYER in A.S.No.101 of 2025: Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
LAOP No.21 of 2015 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
PRAYER in A.S.No.103 of 2025: Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
LAOP No.32 of 2015 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
PRAYER in A.S.No.105 of 2025: Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
LAOP No.30 of 2015 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
PRAYER in A.S.No.107 of 2025: Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
LAOP No.26 of 2015 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
In all Appeal Suits
For Appellant(s): Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr. V.Ajoy Khose
for R1 and R2 in A.S.No.101 of 2025
for R1 in A.S.No.103 of 2025
for R1to R3 in A.S.No.105 of 2025 and
for R1 to R5 in A.S.No.107 of 2025
4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
Mr.Athil Akbar Ali
for R3 in A.S.No.101 of 2025
for R2 in A.S.No.103 of 2025
for R5 in A.S.No.105 of 2025
for R6 in A.S.No.107 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
All the appeal suits are filed by the Special Tahsildar, (LA), O.R.R.
Project, CMDA, Chennai, challenging the common order passed by the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ponneri in LAOP
Nos.21, 26, 30 and 32 of 2015 dated 29.04.2024, enhancing the compensation
amount for the acquired lands of the claimants thereon to Rs.2,23,813/- per cent
along with 30% solatium and other benefits.
2. The subject matters of the lands in Minjur Village, owned and
possessed by the claimants were acquired by the Government for forming
Outer Ring Road Project. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed
the compensation amount for the acquired lands at Rs.66,956.88 per cent with
solatium of 30% and other interests. Challenging the said Award, the claimants
had approached the Land Acquisition Tribunal to enhance the compensation
amount and the Tribunal had enhanced the said compensation to Rs. 2,23,813/-
per cent along with 30% solatium and other benefits. Now, the said orders are
under challenge in the present appeals.
5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The counsel appearing on either side drew the attention of this court to
the common judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court in A.S.Nos.751
of 2018 etc. batch, dated 11.10.2023. The above said appeals were filed by the
Special Tahsildar, (LA), outer Ring Road Project, CMDA, as against the Awards
passed by the Sub Court, Ponneri in several land acquisitions original petitions.
In the said appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the compensation
for the acquired lands at Rs.2,23,813/- per cent. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel on either side that, challenging the above said common
judgment in A.S.No.776 of 2018, dated 11.10.2023, the Special Tahsildar (LA),
CMDA had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
petition (Civil) Diary No(s).20002/2025 and the same was dismissed on
23.05.2025, confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of this High
Court.
5. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the
above said common Judgment in A.S.No.751 of 2018, etc. batch dated
11.10.2023.
" 2. In respect of the lands subject matter of these appeals, 4(1)
notifications were made on 12.04.2012 and 30.07.2012. Award Nos.1 to 7
6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
were passed on 31.10.2013, 12.12.2013, 27.12.2013 and 30.12.2013. The
Land Acquisition Officer, relied upon the sale deed, which was produced
as Ex.R1 and fixed the value per cent at Rs.65,378/-, Rs.65,708/-and at
Rs.66,956/- for the lands that were under aquisition. The Land Acquisition
officer also awarded statutory benefits that were available to the land
owners under Act 1 of 1894. Aggrieved, the land owners sought for the
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
references were made to the Sub-Court, Ponneri.
3.Before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, the land owners
produced Ex.C1, sale deed under which, an extent of 1150 Sq.ft., of land
was sold at Rs.5,39,000/- on 29.03.2012, which is prior to the 4(1)
notification. The acquiring Authority, relied upon the Ex.R1, sale deed
dated 25.08.2011 wherein, the extent of 1,175 Sq.ft., land was sold for
Rs.1,80,114/-. While Ex.R1 related to Survey No.145, Ex.C1 related to
Survey No.441 of the same village.
4.The learned Sub-ordinate Judge, relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saush & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others
reported in 2009 (9-10) SBR 307 wherein, it was held that when
comparable exemplars are brought on record, one carrying highest market
value amongst them should be taken into account by the Court to fix the
compensation and concluded that Ex.C1, which reflects the highest value
and which is more nearer to the date of the 4(1) notification should be
accepted despite the fact that the lands covered by Ex.C1 were situate a
little farther away. Taking the vaue reflected in Ex.C1 as the basis, the
7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
learned Sub-ordinate Judge deducted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and fixed the
compensation payable at Rs.2,13,813/- per cent.
5.The learned Sub-ordinate Judge however, granted solatium at
100% and enhanced compensation as per the provisions of the Right to
Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and thus, awarded nearly a sum of
Rs.6,40,000/- per cent including solatium. Aggrieved, the Acquiring
Authority namely, the Special Tahsildhar is on appeal.
6.We have heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special
Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.Kumaresan,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent
and Mr.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the land owners.
7.Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that since the awards were passed prior to 01.01.2014
namely, the date on which, the new Act came into force under Section 24
of the 2013 Act, the proceedings will have to be continued under the 1894
Act and there is no scope for the Court, awarding compensation as per the
new Act. Drawing our attention to Section 24(1)A, the learned Special
Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court erred in granting
double the market value with 100% solatium as per the provisions of the
2013 Act.
8.Mr.R.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the land owners is
unable to support the reasoning of the Trial Court in granting solatium
and other benefits under the 2013 Act.
8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
9.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the CMDA would submit that the land covered by Ex.R1
situate within 1.6 Kilometres from the acquired land. A perusal of Ex.R2/
Map produced by CMDA before the Trial Court shows that a portion of
Survey No.441 , covered by Ex.C1 also falls within the 1.6 kilometres
radius. More over, the land acquisition being one for road, the exact
location from where 1.6 kilometres radiushas to be measured itself is in
doubt. Therefore, we are unable to accept the technical objection made by
the learned Additional Advocate General based on the map produced
before the Trial Court.
10.We find that Survey No.441, in which, the land covered by
Ex.C1 is within 1.6 kilometeres from the Eastern most extremity of the
proposed outer ring road. It may be little farther away, if the measurement
is taken from the Western side of the outer ring road. Even the plan which
has been produced by the CMDA shows that a portion of Survey No.441
falls within the 1.6 kilometeres from the Western most extremity of the
outer ring road. Therefore, we are unable to fault the Trial Court for
accepting Ex.C1 based on the settled law that a land owner would be
entitled to the highest value among the exemplars produced. This position
of law has been reitarated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal
Kheaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012(4)LW109 and a
Division Bench of this Court in The Special Thasildar, Land Acquisition
Outer Ring Road Project -Vs- Palin Reshma Jacob & another made ih
A.S.Nos:574 to 583of 2011 Batch dated 31-08-2015.
9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
11.If we are to calculate the value per cent based on Ex.C1, it
comes to Rs.2,23,813/-. The deduction made by the Sub-Court is not
sustainable in as much as this Court in several cases relating to the very
same outer ring proceedings particularly in Palin Reshma Jacob referred
to supra, which dealt with the very same Outer ring Road project had held
that no developmental charges could be deducted, since the acquisition is
for the purposes of laying road. Hence, the deduction of Rs.10,000/-
applied by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge will have to be set aside. Apart
from deducting Rs.10,000/-, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge had applied
the provisions of the 2013 Act and had doubled the compensation granted
at Rs.2,13,000/- and added another 100% towards solatium taking the
compensation awarded to Rs.6,39,000/- (Rs.4,26,000/- + Rs.2,13,000/-).
Such calculation cannot be sustaind. The learned Trial Judge was not
justified in granting compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act,
since the awards had not passed prior to 01.01.2014, the date on which,
the 2013 Act came into force.
12.Hence, all these appeals are allowed in part, the compensation
is fixed at Rs.2,23,813/- per cent. Needless to state that the land owners
will be entitled to statutory benefits namely, 30% solatium, additional
amount payable under Section 23(1-A) along with interest at 9% for the
first one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till
date of payment. The amounts remaining in the Court will be paid over to
the land owners. No costs. "
10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
6. In the present case on hand, the learned Subordinate Judge also fixed
the compensation amount for the acquired lands at Rs.2,23,813/- per cent and
other statutory benefits, based on the judgment dated 8.11.2023 passed by this
court in A.S.No.698 of 2018 as against the connected LAOP No.490/2015. In
such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeals on
hand are covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Civil) Diary No(s).20002/2025, dated 23.05.2025, confirming the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.776/2018, dated 11.10.2023
(A.S.Nos.751/2018 etc.batch). Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with
the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal and hence, the present
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, all the appeal suits are dismissed and the impugned orders
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal are
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(J.N.B.J.) (M.J.R.J.)
17.06.2025
Note: Issue Order copy on 24.06.2025.
mst
11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
To
1. C. Lalitha
W/o. Chandran, Res. at No.62, 2nd Street, Kakkan Nagar,
Minjur -203.
2. V Radha
residing at No.33, 3rd Street, Kakkan Nagar Minjur - 601 203.
3.SHARMILA
W/o. Chandrasekar, Res. at No. 37, Anna Nagar,
Mounthambedu, Neithavoyal Panchayat, Ponneri Taluk.
4. Parvatha Kalyani
W/o. Rose Chettiyar (Died) , No. 9, Ramareddypalayam 1st
Street, Minjur 601 203 ROSE CHETTIYAR (DIED)
5. JAISANKAR
residing at Lakshmipuram, Ramareddypalayam Village, 2nd
Colony 2nd Street, Minjur -601 203.
6. JANAKIRAMAN
S/o. Rose Chettiyar (Died),
No. 9, Ramareddypalayam 1st Street, Minjur 601 203
7. Hari, S/o. Rose Chettiyar (Died)
Lakshmipuram, Ramareddypalayam, Village, 2nd Street, Minjur 601 203
8..Susila, W/o.Sundararajan (died),
Residing at No.87, 3rd Street, Kakanji Colony, Minjur
Ponneri Tk., Tiruvallur Dist.
9. RAMESH
S/o.Sundararajan (died), Residing at No.87, 3rd Street,
Kakanji Colony, Minjur Ponneri Tk., Tiruvallur Dist.
10. SURESH
S/o.Sundararajan (died), Residing at No.87, 3rd Street,
Kakanji Colony, Minjur Ponneri Tk., Tiruvallur Dist.
12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
11. SATHISH
S/o.Sundararajan(died), Residing at No.87, 3rd Street, Kakanji Colony, Minjur
Ponneri Tk., Tiruvallur Dist.
12. SUREKA
D/o.Sundararajan(died), Residing at No.87, 3rd Street, Kakanji Colony, Minjur
Ponneri Tk., Tiruvallur Dist.
13. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egemore, Chennai - 8.
13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
A.S.Nos.101, 103, 105 & 107 of 2025
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mst
A.S.Nos.101,103, 105 and 107 of 2025
17-06-2025
14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:27 pm )
