Madras High Court
Land Acquisition Officer Cum vs T.R.Ramasamy on 7 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 07.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.2725 of 2025
& CMP.No.15409 of 2025
& CMP.No.18505 of 2025
1.Land Acquisition Officer cum
Special Deputy Collector (LA),
Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III,
Chennai @ Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Plan Division – 1, Chennai – 600 032. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.T.R.Ramasamy
2.T.R.Sakunthala
3.T.R.Sudha Raj ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.48 of 2015 dated
08.04.2024 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Venugopal
ORDER
This revision petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings
initiated for the purpose of construction of a Grade Separator.
2.A Section 15(2) notification was issued on 16.12.2010 and 2091
sq.ft has been acquired from the respondents/claimants. The land acquired
also included portions of the building that stood on the property of the
claimants. The award itself came to be passed on 19.10.2012.
3.The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.4,220/- per sq.ft
and as against the same, the claimants filed LAOP proceedings and after
enquiry, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,000/-
per sq.ft. Challenging the said enhancement, the Referring Authorities are
before this Court, by way of the above revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
4.I have heard Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader
for the revision petitioners and Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
5.Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader would
submit that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly taken into account the
data lands as well as the guideline value and fixed a sum of Rs.4,220/- per
sq.ft. However, the Reference Court, without even noticing that the sale
deeds that were relied on by the claimants were situate in an entirely
different locality, proceeded to fix the compensation at Rs.14,000/- per sq.ft.
He would further contend that the date of notification being 16.12.2010, the
Land Acquisition Officer had rightly relied on the sale deed dated
26.08.2010, to arrive at Rs.4,220/-.
6.According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the data sale
deeds was not only situate in proximity to the acquired lands, but also even
insofar as the date of execution as well, it was the most relevant document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
to be relied on to arrive at the market value. He would further state that the
Reference Court has not adduced any proper reasons for fixing an arbitrary
and fanciful sum of Rs.14,000/- per sq.ft. He would also contend that the
Reference Court has not deducted development charges and even otherwise
reliance on Ex.C1 was wholly misplaced, since it was a document registered
and executed on 05.09.2013, long after the Section 15(2) notification itself.
7.The learned Special Government Pleader would further state that
the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.14,000/-, merely on
surmises and guesswork and the same is liable to be interfered with. He
would also submit that the property, which was relating to undivided share
cannot be relied on to arrive at the prevailing market value, insofar as
separate property of the claimant, which has been acquired. He would also
place the relevant guideline value at the time of notification, which reflects
Rs.4220/- per sq.ft. He would therefore pray for the award of the land
acquisition being restored.
8.Per contra, Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
respondents/claimants would submit that the the property of the claimants is
situate in a highly commercial locality and because of the acquisition, the
value of the property has been drastically affected, more so, since the
Permanent Grade Separator has been constructed in the middle of the road,
obstructing the view of the claimant's property, which had serious
repercussions on their business prospects. He would further state that the
Reference Court has rightly relied on Ex.C3 dated 26.08.2010 to arrive at
the compensation at Rs.14,000/- per sq.ft. He would also state that in the
present case, there was no necessity to provide for any deductions for
development and in this regard, he would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in C.R.Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and Estate Officer and another, reported in 2009 11 SCC 80 and The Land
Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Tindivanam Vs. Kupuswami, reported in
1997 1 CTC 539.
9.The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that
the plea of deduction towards development was not even taken before the
Reference Court and cannot be agitated for the first time in revision. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
would also state that the Reference Court has rightly rejected the documents
that were exhibited on the side of the respondents, since the data sale deed,
which was produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, pertained to an
undervalued transaction and therefore, there was no necessity to rely on the
same, as the said document clearly did not reflect the prevailing market
value.
10.The learned counsel for the respondents would also state that the
document relied on in Ex.R2 and Ex.R5, which are pertaining to Ashok
Nagar village, whereas the lands that have been acquired are in Puliyur /
Kodambakkam village. He would therefore state that when no data sale
deed was available relating to individual property, there was nothing wrong
in relying on Ex.C3, which pertain the sale of undivided share in the vicinity
to the lands acquired.
11.In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents would point out
that the properties covered by Ex.C3 are situate at a distance of
approximately 300 to 600 metres from the acquired land and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
reliance on the same by the Reference Court was just and proper and the
same does not call for interference. He would therefore pray for dismissal of
the revision.
12.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the order of the VI
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, enhancing the compensation from
Rs.4,220/- to Rs.14,000/- in the LAOP proceedings.
13.The lands belonging to the petitioners have been admittedly
acquired for the purposes of construction of a Grade Separator at the
intersection of NSK Road (Arcot Road) and inner Ring Road at Vadapalani
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. There is no
dispute with regard to the date of notification, as well as the date of award.
The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value for Rs.4,220/- per
sq.ft and after providing 30% Solatium, 12% Additional Market Value and
also including costs of Superstructure, arrived at a total compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
amount payable to the respondents/claimants.
14.The award of the Land Acquisition Officer was challenged before
the Reference Court, on the ground that the market value was much higher
than what was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the property
situate in 100 feet road which is arterial road in the city of Chennai,
connecting important destinations and the market value was not less than
Rs.20,000/- per sq.ft.
15.Before the Reference Court, the claimants marked the sale deeds
to substantiate the claim for enhancement of compensation. On the side of
the revision petitioners, documents numbering 3 were marked in order to
have the award of Rs.4,220/- per sq.ft confirmed.
16.The Reference Court found that the property which was covered
by Ex.C3 is situate very near the acquired land and was registered just four
months prior to the notification. The Reference Court has also taken note of
the document that was relied on by the respondents, which too was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
document of the year 2010. R.W.1, who was examined on the side of the
revision petitioners, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the acquired
lands are commercially viable properties and that Jawaharlal Nehru Road
had already been fully developed even at the time when the acquisition
proceedings were initiated. He has admitted that there are commercial
establishments, shops, theatres and hospitals on Jawaharlal Nehru Road and
that Vadapalani Metro Station had also been constructed. R.W.1 had further
admitted that both Puliyur and Kodambakkam are situate next to each other.
Relying on the evidence of R.W.1, the Reference Court has rejected the
Ex.R2, data sale deed which is situate in Arumbakkam and not proximate to
the acquired lands.
17.Ex.C3 is the sale deed dated 26.08.2010 prior to Section 15(2)
notification. The property covered by Ex.C3 is also situate at Vadapalani
Jawaharlal Nehru. It is however contend by the learned Special Government
Pleader that Ex.C3 was pertaining to a sale of undivided share and
therefore, the said document should have been discarded by the Reference
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
18.The Reference Court has also relied on Ex.C1 only for the
purposes of ascertaining that the prices of the market values in the locality
have spiraled upwards between the 2010 and 2013. Even though the market
value of 1 sq.ft of land was Rs.19,230/- per sq.ft, as per Ex.C1, the
Reference Court has not taken into account the same, but has only pleaded
limited reliance to Ex.C3. The Reference Court has also given detailed and
acceptable reasons for rejecting Ex.R1 and Ex.R3.
19.The Reference Court has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2009 11 SCC 141, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Vs. State of
Punjab and others, reported in 2012 5 SCC 432, Wazir and others Vs. State
of Hariyana, reported in 2019 13 SCC 101 and the District Collector cum
Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. Dr.Narayani Narasa, reported in
2021 3LW Page 329 and applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court in the right perspective. In fact, the
Reference Court has also rejected the claim for enhancement for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
building, holding that the claimants have not adduced any satisfactory
evidence and has not even filed the building plan approval and other
relevant documents.
20.Insofar as the deduction towards development costs, the Division
Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami's case (cited supra), held that when the
area is already developed, principle of deduction for development need not
be followed or applied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in C.R.Nagaraja
Shetty v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another,
reported in 2009 11 SCC 75, held that when commercial potential of the
land has been taken note of for enhancing compensation and deduction
towards development was unwarranted on account of there being no
question of any development, set aside the deduction made by the High
Court towards development costs.
21.In the present case as well, the evidence of the revision petitioners
itself is sufficient to reject the argument of the learned Special Government
Pleader that the Reference Court has erred in not directing development
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
costs, because R.W.1 has categorically admitted in cross-examination that
the entire locality has already developed and in such circumstances,
applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
Division Bench of this Court, there is no infirmity in the approach of the
Reference Court in not deducting development costs.
22.Regarding the last contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader that the lands in respect of undivided share, as rightly contended by
the learned counsel for the respondents, when there is not data sale deed
relating to separate property and what is made available before the Court is
only a document involving sale of undivided share of land in the same
locality, then there is no legal infirmity for relying on the said document to
arrive at the market value. In view of the above, I do not find any error
committed by the Reference Court in placing reliance on Ex.C3, especially,
keeping in mind the fact that the value had substantially increased, as
evidenced by Ex.C1.
23.In view of the foregoing, I do not find any grounds made out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
seeking interference with well reasoned order of the Reference Court,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,220/- to Rs.14,000/-. There is no
merit in the revision petition.
24.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. CMP.No.15409 of 2025 is closed. Insofar as
C.M.P.No.18505 of 2025, this application has been taken out only to
establish the relevant guideline value. I do not see any necessity for relying
on the guideline value between 2007 to 2012. Hence, the petition to receive
the communication sent by the SRO, Anna Nagar, is not necessary to decide
the revision and the same is dismissed.
07.11.2025
(5/6)
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
To
1.Land Acquisition Officer cum
Special Deputy Collector (LA),
Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III,
Chennai @ Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Plan Division – 1, Chennai – 600 032.
Pre-delivery order made in
07.11.2025
(5/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:24 pm )
