N.Sambangi vs The District Collector Cum
2025 Latest Caselaw 4348 Mad

Madras High Court

N.Sambangi vs The District Collector Cum on 24 March, 2025

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh

                                                               1/8                      WP No. 9335 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 24-03-2025

                                                          CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                    WP No. 9335 of 2025 & WMP No. 10492 of 2025

                N.Sambangi

                                                                                             Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs

                1. The District Collector cum
                Arbitrator,
                Office Of The Collectorate,
                Krishnagiri District.

                2.Competent Authority And Special
                District Revenue Office (LA)
                 National Highways 948A, STRR,
                Thenknikotai Road,
                Arul Vajaram Complex Dinnur,
                Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District

                3.The Project Director ( NH 844)
                National Highways Authority of India
                PIU – Krishnagiri,
                259/1, Salem Main Road,
                Near KAKC Petrol Bunk,
                Krishnagiri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )
                                                                                          Respondent(s)
                                                                  2/8                      WP No. 9335 of 2025




                PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating

                to the impugned award dated 13.04.2023 in Na.Ka. No.327 / 2023 / L1 passed

                by the 2nd respondent so for as with regard to serial no. 6 in the tabulation with

                respect to deduction of 1/3 market value towards development charges for the

                petitioner's property and quash the same as illegal direct the 2nd respondent to

                release the amount deducted towards development charges with all other

                benefits with appropriate interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum from the

                date of award till the date of payment under the provisions of Right to Fair

                Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement

                Act, 2013.


                                  For Petitioner(s):       Mr.R.Ramesh Raja

                                  For Respondent(s):       Mr.A.Selvendran
                                                           Special Government Pleader
                                                           for R1 and R2
                                                           Mrs.S.R.Sumathi
                                                           Standing Counsel for R3

                                                             ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award

nd passed by the 2 respondent dated 13.04.2023 insofar as the deduction of 1/3 rd

amount of the market value towards development charges. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )

2.Heard Mr.R.Ramesh Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2

and Mrs.S.R.Sumathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd

respondent.

3.The property belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the Tamil

Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. An award was

passed on 13.04.2023 determining the amount of compensation at Rs.5440.81/-

per sq.mt. The grievance of the petitioner is that 1/3rd amount out of the total

market value was deducted towards development charges.

4.The above issue is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this

Court in WP No.35735 etc., of 2024 dated 25.11.2024 and it pertains to the

same project. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder :-

"4. The deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges that too in the case of Railway https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis work has been the subject matter of several ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )

decisions of this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 07.12.2023, in W.P.(MD) Nos.19772 & 14369 of 2021 was considering the very same deduction towards development charges.

5. The learned Single Judge relied upon a judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (9) SCC 447 ~ Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others wherein the Hon-ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:~ “30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3 deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs.250/ per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.“

6. This Judgment has been followed in a later judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of C.R.Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another in Civil Appeal No.1173 of 2009 dated 24.02.2009.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7. Ultimately, the learned ( Uploaded on: Single 27/03/2025Judge 03:10:39had pm )observed as follows:

“ It is clear from the above judgment that where the lands are acquired for laying a railway line, there is no scope for deducting 1/3rd amount towards development charges.“

8. In the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the order deducting 1/3rd towards development charges is set aside and the amounts deducted towards 1/3rd development charges along with all the other compensatory benefits arrived at in the award shall be paid to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. However, not later than a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The learned counsel for the petitioners also informed the Court that they are moving necessary applications for enhancing the award. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."

5.The petitioner will also be entitled for the very same relief since such

relief has been granted by this Court for others falling under the same project

and for whom, 1/3rd was deducted towards development charges.

6.In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award

passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.04.2023 is interfered insofar as the

deduction of 1/3rd amount of market value towards the development charges.

The amount that has been deducted along with all the other compensatory

benefits arrived at in the award shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of

four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )

issued without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek for enhancement

of the award. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

24-03-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )

To

1. The District Collector cum Arbitrator, Office Of The Collectorate, Krishnagiri District.

2.Competent Authority And Special District Revenue Office (LA) National Highways 948A, STRR, Thenknikotai Road, Arul Vajaram Complex Dinnur, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District

3.The Project Director ( NH 844) National Highways Authority of India PIU – Krishnagiri, 259/1, Salem Main Road, Near KAKC Petrol Bunk, Krishnagiri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr

24-03-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:10:39 pm )