Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Yasodhammal(Died) on 23 June, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.554 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.554 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.20898 of 2022
The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition Officer)
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Vellore District - 9 .. Appellant
Vs.
Yasodhammal(Died)
W/o.(Late)Govindasamy
1.Poongavanam
S/o.(Late) Govindasamy
Vellore. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, to set aside the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2014
dated 14.09.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore.
For Appellant : Ms.P.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Anand
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
A.S.No.554 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is filed by the State challenging the decree passed
by the Special Court for Land Acquisition, which enhanced the
compensation for the land acquired from Rs.13,023/-per acre to
Rs.1,000/- per cent.
2. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the
lower Court failed to consider the fact that the 49 sale transactions data
collected during the acquisition proceedings reflects the value of the land
as only Rs.130/- per cent. While so, the Court relied on documents, that
did not reflect the true value of the adjacent land and enhanced the
compensation from Rs.130/- to Rs.1,000/- per cent.
3. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader contended
that the land was acquired for the Adidravidar Housing Scheme and the
trial Court failed to make deduction towards development charges, which
should be atleast 50% of the value fixed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the land acquired is situated near the Vellore Airport. The
notification under Section 4(1) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was
issued on 26.09.1988. The land in question is agricultural in nature and
was settled in favour of the 1st claimant, Yasodhammal by his brother in
the year 1964. Since then, she has been dependent on the property for her
livelihood. On her death, during pendency of the acquisition proceedings,
the property devolved on the second claimant, who is her sole legal heir.
5. It is further submitted that the data sales relied by the
Acquisition Officer are not in respect of the properties adjacent to the
land acquired and even during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.
Documents were produced to establish that the value of the property is
approximately Rs.2050/- per cent.
6. Regarding the development charge, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that no such deduction was made
at the time of passing the award. The claim for a 50% deduction towards
development charges was made for the first time in the appeal and is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
neither substantiated by evidence nor justified.
7. Point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2014 suffers from any
infirmity. The specific facts of the case do not support a valuation of
Rs.1,000/- per cent. However, the Court below had taken note of the
location of the land, its proximity to the main road and access to other
public utilities. Though it is only statement by Yasodhammal, first
claimant demanding Rs.2050/- per cent, the Court below had considered
the other aspects and had fixed the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per cent
with 30% solatium, 12% interest from the date of 4(1) notification, 9%
interest on the additional amount for the first year and 15% interest
thereafter.
8. Since fixation of compensation, solatium and interest are in
tune with the documents produced and evidence on record and the rate of
interest also in accordance with 23(1)(a) and 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered oder
of the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
9. As a result, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
10. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount within
two months, if not so far deposited. On such deposit, the claimant shall
withdraw the amount on due proof of identification.
23.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Internet: Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The Special Subordinate Court, Vellore.
2.The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition Officer)
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Vellore District - 9
3.The Section Officer, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
rpl
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
