Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.No.5) vs Thiru Rayar on 14 November, 2025
A.S.No.740 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S. No.740 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.20489 of 2018
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.No.5)
SIPCOT (TACID Division)
Cuddalore Now At The Sub Collector,
Cuddalore. ...Appellant
Vs.
Thiru Rayar,
S/o.Ponnusamy
Vandiyanpallam
Cuddalore Taluk. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
praying to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in the Special
Subordinate Court for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore, in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 2015
dated 18.09.2017 and pass such further or other order as this Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Nanmaran, Special
Government Pleader &
Mr.V.Venkataseshaiya,
Government Advocate.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
A.S.No.740 of 2018
For Respondent : Mr.P.Thirumalai Vasan for
Mr.M.Selvam, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.This Appeal Suit is filed by the Special Tahsildar, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of 2015 by
the learned Special Subordinate Judge for L.A.O.P. Cases, Cuddalore. By the
said judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired
lands from Rs. 35,354/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to
Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, together with statutory solatium and interest.
3.The brief background is that in G.O.Ms.No.179, Industries (MIF-1),
dated 30.06.1997, the Government of Tamil Nadu has accorded administrative
sanction for acquiring lands to the extent of 178.01.0 hectares from Kayalpattu
Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District for establishing industrial
complex by the SIPCOT (TACID Division). Based on the G.O., notification
dated 18.02.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act
1894 hereafter) for acquiring 12.92.0 hectares of land situated in Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
Nos.182,183 and 184 was issued. The claimants lands in R.S.No. 183/1
measuring 0.44.5 hectares in Andarmullipallam Village, Cuddalore Taluk,
were acquired under Award No. 3 of 1999 dated 30.11.1999. The Award
Officer, after examining 49 data-sale transactions, determined the market value
at Rs. 35,354/- per acre, treating the land as dry land, and awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 54,969/- including solatium and additional amounts.
Dissatisfied with the said valuation, the claimant sought reference under
Section 19(1) of the Act for enhancement.
4.Before the Reference Court, the claimant deposed that his land is of
good potential value, abutting the Cuddalore–Chidambaram Road and
surrounded by developing industrial areas. He stated that cashew, coconut and
palm trees were standing on the property, yielding regular income, and that
comparable lands in neighbouring Kayalpattu Village were sold at Rs. 1 lakh
per acre as on 15.06.1998. According to him, the true market value at the time
of acquisition could not have been less than Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. The
Referring Officer contended, on the other hand, that the Award had been
passed after scientific evaluation of location, soil condition, and irrigation
potential, and that the enhancement sought was excessive and unsupported by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
evidence.
5.The Reference Court examined the claimant as P.W. 1 and one Mr.
Jayakumar, P.A. to Sub Collector, Cuddalore, as R.W. 1. While no
documentary evidence was produced by the claimant, the Referring Officer
marked the true copy of the Award no 1/2000 dated 28.04.2000 as Ex. R-1.
Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Judge held that,
although the claimant had not produced sale deeds, the admission elicited in
cross-examination from the Referring Officer was significant—namely, that for
similarly acquired dry lands, SIPCOT (TACID) was prepared to pay Rs.
2,75,000/- per acre for lands without trees and Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for
lands with trees. Relying upon this admission and noting the uniformity of
potential across the acquired block, the Court concluded that the market value
could safely be fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre.
6.Accordingly, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.
2,00,000/- per acre with 30 per cent solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, 9
% interest for the first year from the date of possession, and 12 % interest
thereafter till payment or deposit. Interest on solatium at 6 % per annum was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
also awarded, following Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2007 (3) CTC
170). The value of trees was confirmed at Rs. 712/- each as per the
horticulture departments’s report.
7.Assailing the award, the appellant has raised several grounds. It is
contended that the lower Court enhanced the compensation without any
documentary proof, that the increase from Rs. 35,354/- to Rs. 2 lakhs per acre
is arbitrary, that mandatory deductions towards development were not made,
and that the Court ignored the distinction between interior and roadside plots.
The appellant urges that the judgment and decree are contrary to law, weight
of evidence, and probabilities of the case.
8.The question that arises for consideration is whether the enhancement
of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre by the Reference Court is
sustainable in law and based on acceptable material.
9.It is now settled through a appeal arising from the very same
acquisition scheme that this court has taken a view in favour of the
landowners. By the judgment dated 12.09.2023 in A.S. No. 702 of 2018 , this
court upheld the enhancement and confirmed the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
acre, observing that such fixation was fair since the Referring Officer had
himself admitted willingness to pay between Rs. 2.75 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs
per acre for similar lands, and held as follows:
“24. Admittedly, even though no documentary evidence was
produce on the side of the claimant to prove their case of
enhancement, the respondent has reported before the Special
Court that they have amicably settled with some of the land
owners whose lands also subjected to Award No.4 of 2000, dated
10.08.2000 by paying Rs.3,00,000/- per acre to the lands which
are having trees such as, cashew trees. After submitting their
willingness to pay the compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to
the claimant's land by way of cross examination before the
Court, now the respondent is not entitled to turn back and say
that the amount of compensation fixed by the Special Court is not
valid .
25.Yet another admitted fact that in connected
L.A.O.P.No.522 of 2013 and L.A.O.P.No.523 of 2013, the Special
Court has fixed the compensation for the lands which was
situated in the very same Village as Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The
Special Court has not fully accepted the value fixed in
adjudicating process in other L.A.O.P.Nos.522 of 2013 and 523
of 2013, i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- per acre or value fixed amicably
between the either parties in mediation process i.e., Rs.3,00,000/-
per acre. The Special Court has taken the view that, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
claimant has claimed in oral evidence and based on record,
claimed only Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, same has to be awarded.
Similarly, the value of tree also considered and compensation is
fixed. Since no exemplars in the from of sale was made available
before the Special Court, reliance made by the Court based on
the above admitted evidence is justified. The Court has also
restricted the fixation of land value based on the claim made by
the claimant and there is no appeal filed by the claimant shows
that he has satisfied with the award hence, this Court finds no
reasons to modify the award.”
10.In view of this determination arising from the same acquisition and
involving the same acquiring body, there is no scope for a different view in
this appeal. To perpetuate a lower rate here would run counter to the principle
of equality and uniformity in compensation. The contentions advanced on
behalf of the appellant with regard to comparability, valuation, or deduction
are no longer open for reconsideration in the face of the later judgment.
11.On the question of development deduction, it is seen that the
judgment A.S. No. 702 of 2018 itself answered as follows :
“27.The deduction of development charges would be
applicable, if the Court adopts the comparable sales method of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
valuation of the land for fixing the market value of the
agricultural land. In this case, the Tribunal has not adopted the
comparable sales method of valuation of land. The Special
Court has proceeded on the basis that there was a settlement
between neighbouring land owners with the Land Acquiring
Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer is willing to pay
Rs.3,00,000/- per acre which is having trees. Further, those
lands are agricultural lands similar to the lands in this case.
Similarly, the comparable sales lands are not developed land
deducting the development charges is not applicable to the
present case. Hence, the contention of the appellant is hereby
rejected”.
12.Here, the admission by the acquisition authority itself constitutes
substantive evidence of prevailing rates, and even though the claimant adduced
only oral testimony, the Court may rely upon such admission. The Reference
Court’s reliance on that statement cannot be faulted. The enhancement accords
with the principle that when the acquiring body acknowledges higher
compensation for adjacent tracts, uniformity must be maintained for similarly
situated owners.
13.The Court further notes that the claimant has not preferred any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
appeal seeking further enhancement, signifying acceptance of the award. The
amount fixed by the Reference Court represents a balanced and equitable
determination, taking into account both the Referring Officer’s own admission
and judicial precedent. There is no perversity, illegality, or misapplication of
legal principles warranting interference under Section 54 of the Act.
14.In view of the foregoing analysis and following the judgment this
Court holds that the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 in L.A.O.P. No.
68 of 2015 are sound in law and evidence. The compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/-
per acre with all statutory benefits is affirmed. The appeal lacks merit and
deserves dismissal.
15.Accordingly, the Appeal Suit No. 740 of 2018 stands dismissed. The
award of the Special Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in L.A.O.P. No. 68 of
2015 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition, if any, shall stand closed. The Land Acquisition
Officer is directed to ensure compliance with payment of the enhanced
compensation, solatium, and interest within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
14.11.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1.The Special Subordinate Court For LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore.
2.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.No.5)
SIPCOT (TACID Division)
Cuddalore Now At The Sub Collector,
Cuddalore.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court Of Madras.
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
