Madras High Court

R.Mubarak Basha vs / on 30 June, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                         Reserved on              :18.06.2025

                                         Pronounced on            :30.06.2025

                                                             Coram:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                             Appeal Suit No.159 of 2022
                                                         and
                                             Appeal Suit No.94 of 2019
                                                         and
                                              C.M.P.No.3688 of 2019

                     R.Mubarak Basha
                     S/o Mr.R.Abdul Rashid,
                     No.35-B, Jawaharlal Street,
                     Kanchipuram-2.                                         ..Claimant/Appellant

                                                            /versus/

                     1.The Special Tahsildar,
                     Land Acquisition,
                     Broad-gauge Railway Line,
                     Madurantakam.

                     2.The Deputy Chief Engineer,
                     Southern Railway,
                     Gauge Conversion,
                     Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.                              ..Respondents/Respondents




                     1/19




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )
                                  Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 and
                     r/w Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 praying to set aside the
                     judgment and decree dated 04.07.2017 in L.A.O.P.No.1451 of 2008 on the
                     file of the Sub Court, Kanchipuram.


                                        For Appellant         :Mr.S.Wilson
                                        For Respondents :Mrs.R.Anitha, Spl.G.P. for R1
                                                               Mr.M.T.Arunan,
                                                              Special Standing Counsel for R2


                     Appeal Suit No.94 of 2019:

                     The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
                     Broad Gauge Railway Line,
                     Madurantakam.                                                          .. Appellant

                                                                 /versus/

                     1.R.Mubarak Basha
                     S/o R.Abdul Rashid,
                     No.35-B, Jawaharlal Street,
                     Kancheepuram Town and Taluk.

                     2.The Deputy Chief Engineer,
                     Southern Railway,
                     Gauge Conversion,
                     Chetpet, Chennai.                                                      .. Respondents



                     2/19




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )
                                  Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
                     Act, praying to set aside the judgment decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.1451 of
                     2008, dated 04.07.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram.

                                        For Appellant         :Mrs.R.Anitha,
                                                               Spl.Govt.Pleader

                                        For Respondents :Mr.R.Mubarak Basha-appellant for R1
                                                         Mr.M.T.Arunan,
                                                        Special Standing Counsel for R2
                                                              ------
                                                    COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellant in A.S.No.159 of 2022 is the claimant in

L.A.O.P.No.1451 of 2008 before the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, in

the matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

for enhancement of compensation. The first respondent, Special Tahsildar,

is the appellant in A.S.No.94 of 2019.

2. A total extent of 1.90.0 hectare of wet and dry land situated in

Konerikuppam village was acquired for formation of Broad Gauge Railway

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) Line, while conversion of the gauge between Chengalpattu and Arakkonam.

It was a linear acquisition of the appellant/claimant's land along with other

three joint pattadars in S.No.144/3, S.No.150/2, S.No.144/4, S.No.150/7A

and S.No.151/6 measuring to an extent of 1.01 acres. For the acquired land,

compensation of Rs.25/- per square feet was awarded. Claiming Rs.400/-

per square feet, the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 was made to the Tribunal.

3. According to the claimant, he along with others jointly own the

property with a total measurement of 4.24 acres. In the said land, they

formed housing layout in the name of 'Senthamizh Nagar'. They obtained

provisional approval from the Kanchipuram Local Town and Country

Planning Authority. Thereafter, out of 4.24 acres, for conversion of the

meter gauge to broad gauge, land measuring 1.01 acres was taken

possession by the Southern Railway on 24.02.1999. At the time of granting

approval, 23.76 cents in S.No.150/7 and 0.06 cents in S.No.150/2, totally

29.76 cents have been earmarked for public purpose viz., formation of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) 'Park'. Though Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act

was for 1.01 acres, out of 4.24 acres, the award was passed on 02.07.2007 at

the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet, only for 71.24 cents of land and not for

the remaining 29.76 cents earmarked for park. Further, the land, after

improvement, was formed as layout and sold at the rate of Rs.250/- per

square feet. While so, price at Rs.25/- per square feet fixed with a deduction

20% of the value towards development charge is unreasonable.

4. Being aggrieved, each one of the owners independently sought

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of their

1/4th undivided share, out of the total extent of 1.01 acres with a claim that

at the time of acquisition, the actual value of the property was Rs.400/- per

sq.ft., and hence, the compensation must be enhanced from Rs.25/- to

Rs.400/- for the entire extent of 1.01 acres without deducting the portion of

the land earmarked for park and without deducting the development

charges.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

5. The Court below, considering the documents placed before it,

particularly, Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, fixed the value of the land at Rs.110/- per

sq.ft with 20% deduction. In so far as the land earmarked for park

measuring to an extent of 29.76 cents, the Court below left open the

question till the disposal of the declaration suit filed by the owners and

pending before the Additional District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.

6. In the appeal filed by the land owners/claimants, it is stated that

regarding the excluded portion of 29.76 cents earmarked for park, the

declaration suit in O.S.No.364 of 2009 instituted by the claimant and others

was decreed on 05.08.2010. This is reflected in Ex.C16 (decree) and Ex.C17

(judgment). Despite that, since at that time, the Government has not acted

upon the decree, the trial Court has not considered granting compensation to

the extent of about 30 cents and wrongly excluded. Subsequently, the

Government has recognised the right of the claimants and issued

proceedings, which has now been marked as the Additional Document

(Ex.C18).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

7. In respect of the value of the property, it is contended by the

claimants that the lands around the acquired land are classified as residential

Type-I plots and the guideline value fixed by the Registration Department is

Rs.7000/- per sq.ft., and above. While so, the compensation should be fixed

reasonably commensurating the market price. The price reflected in Ex.C7,

Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and the Commissioner Report (Ex.C9).

8.The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that a copy

of the sale deeds marked as Exs.C1, C2, and C3, which are sale deeds for

the document of contemporaneous period, situated in and around the

acquired land. These documents were not properly considered by the

Reference Court.

9. Referring the report of the Advocate Commissioner marked as

Ex.C-9, it was submitted on behalf of the claimant/appellant that the land

acquired has already been developed in full. Therefore, any deduction

towards the development charge, is not fair and reasonable. It is also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant that

the compensation has not been arrived with cumulative effect of market

value, interest and solatium. The claimants are entitled for cumulative

assessment as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ashrafi & others v. State of Haryana reported in [(2013)5 SCC 527] which

reads as below :-

“44.Accordingly, inMukesh Kumar's case and the other cases heard along with the said case, we are of the view that while adding 12% annual increase to the value of the lands acquired, the same should be done on a cumulative basis. In Mukesh Kumar's case, the compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs 235 per square yard along with all statutory benefits, as provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having discarded the belting system which has been resorted to, we are of the view that the compensation as awarded at the rate of Rs 235 per square yard, has to be reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase at the rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, together with the statutory benefits, as indicated hereinabove. The stand taken on behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding the amount of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) escalation fixed at 12% being improper, does not appeal to us having regard to the potentiality of the lands acquired and the sharp increase in the value of the lands in recent times.”

10. The appellant/claimant submits that the Reference Court failed to

mention the date of determination on the enhancement. It should not be

from the date of award (i.e.) 02.07.2007, but from the date of Notification

under Section 4(1) (i.e.) 15.11.2004.

11. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that under Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Ac, 1984,

mandates the payment of additional amount calculated 12% p.a., on the

market value of the acquired land for the period between the date of Section

4(1) Notification and the date of award or possession, whichever is earlier.

The object of introducing this Section is to mitigate the hardship caused to

the owner of the land, who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land

by taking possession from him and using it for the public purpose. In this

case, the Court below has awarded 12% p.a., additional amount only from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) the date of award (i.e.) 02.07.2007 and not from the date of taking

possession (i.e.) 24.02.1999, which is earlier to the date of award or the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

12. It is also submitted that under Section 28, after expiry of one year

period, the rate of interest has to be enhanced from 9% to 15% till the date

of payment, but in this case, the interest on the award amount for the

enhanced compensation, after the period of one year, the Court below failed

to take note of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and fix at the rate of

15%.

13. The State, which is the first respondent in A.S.No.159 of 2022,

being aggrieved on the fixation of compensation as higher and the

deduction towards development charge should have been 50%, instead

of 20% had filed A.S.No.94 of 2019.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

14. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State,

submitted that the fixation of Rs.88/- per sq.ft., after deducting and

development charge, is not in tune with the evidence on record. Though the

land acquired is claimed to be a layout, it still requires development.

Therefore, a deduction of 50% towards development charge ought to have

been made.

15. Insofar as the compensation for the excluded portion of the land

measuring about an extent of 30 cents, the learned Special Government

Pleader fairly conceded that after decree passed by the competent Court

(i.e.) City Civil Court declaring the title in respect of the said portion of the

land in favour of the claimant, the claimant is entitled for due compensation

for the said land measuring about 30 cents.

16. In respect of fixation of interest, the learned Special Government

Pleader, submitted that the provision of Section 23(1)(a) and Section 28 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are mandatory in nature and if any error in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) calculating the additional amount and interest, it shall be rectified.

17.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways

submitted that it is true that the possession of the land was taken by the

Railways on 24.02.1999. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act was published as below:

On 09.11.2005 in the Gazzatte; On 13.11.2005 in Tamil

daily Makkal Kural; On 13.11.2005 in Tamil daily Dinathanthi

and on 16.12.2005 in the locality by wide publicity.

18. After taking possession of 24.02.1999, the land was development

by the Railway. Therefore, they need not be any change in the deduction

towards development charge.

19. On considering the rival submissions, the point for determination :

Whether the award passed by the Tribunal fixing Rs.110/- per sq.ft.,

and deducting 20% towards development charge, is in accordance with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) evidence and whether there is any violation under Section 23(1)(a) and

Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in awarding the additional

amount and interest?

20.The determination of the land value should be pragmatic, fair and

just. The Court should take into the account the value on the date of

notification and the potential of the land and also the impact of acquisition

on the land owners due to deprivation of their property. Admittedly, these

lands were purchased by the claimants to promote and sell it as a residential

plots and make profit. They have completed the process of forming the

layout and provisional permission for sale of the land as residential plots

also obtained. The fact that a portion of the land earmarked for park and

given to the local authority, substantiates and proves that the land has

already been well developed as residential plots and no further development

is required. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial

Court ought to have considered the evidence on a whole and awarded the

entire value of the property without deducting 20% towards development

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm ) charges.

21. Next, the Trial Court, while fixing the value, had, for untenable

reasons, not considered all the sale deeds pertaining to the sale of land in

and around the acquired land, but, had selected only Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 dated

13.02.2003 and 14.02.2003 respectively. Though the other sale deed

(Ex.C3) is also a document of contemporaneous period and falls with on the

same survey number, but with difference sub- division number, the same

had been rejected. Probably, resorting to a betting system, ignoring the fact

that it is a linear acquisition.

22.This Court finds that omission to consider Ex.C3 for fixing the fair

price of the land acquired needs interference and the opinion of the

Advocate Commissioner ( Rs.450/- per sq.ft) and the guideline value of the

property (Rs:7000/- per cent) need to be taken into account to consider the

potential of the property, that has been acquired.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

23.For the said reasons, this Court holds that it is appropriate to fix

the value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq.ft instead of

Rs.110/-per sqft. It is also necessary to hold that the deduction of 20%

towards development charges is not warranted and unnecessary in this case

as there is no evidence to show that the land was uneven or required

investment for making it fit, similar to the land taken for price comparison.

24.Regarding non-adherence of Section 23(1)(a) of the Land

Acquisition Act, the Court observe apparent omission in awarding 12%

interest on the additional amount as per Section 23(1)(a) from the date of

taking possession (i.e.) 24.02.1999 and the compensation for the balance

land measuring to an extent of 29.76 cents, which has been declared as the

land of the claimants by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.364 of 2009

and admitted by the first respondent by issuing Ex.C18, On this score also

the award of the trial Court needs interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

25.From the records and the decree passed by the Court below based

on the pleadings, this Court finds that the 1.01 acres of land acquired for the

Railways belongs to four persons. Each one of them have filed separate

LAOP's and Appeal Suits as against the jdugment and decree. Each one of

them claims 1/4th share each in the 1.01 acres of land acquired.

26. They are all entitled for fair compensation in respect of their

respective share as observed above by this Court in the Appeal Suits.

27. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit No.159 of 2022 is partly allowed on

the following terms:-

(i)The value of the land acquired is fixed at Rs.130/- per sq.ft. without any deduction towards development charges.

(ii)The total extent of land to be compensated is 1.01 acres. Out of which the claimant is entitled for 1/4th share.

(iii)For the said amount, the claimant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30%.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

(iv)The interest on the additional amount to be paid at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of possession (i.e.) 24.02.1999 till 02.07.2007 (the date of award), instead of 15.11.2004 (the date of 4(1) Notification)

(v)The interest on the excess compensation shall be in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of possession (i.e.) 24.02.1999.

(vi)In case of any delay for more than one year, the rate of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 15% p.a., thereafter.

(vii)Compensation as above to be paid within 3 months from today.

In consequence, A.S.No.94 of 2019 is to be dismissed.

28. As a result,

(i)The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.159 of 2022 filed by the claimant,

Mubarak Basha is partly allowed.

(ii)The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.94 of 2019 filed by the Special

Tahsildar on behalf of the State stands dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 07:43:55 pm )

(iii) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No

order as to costs.

30.06.2025