Madras High Court
Tmt. Samar Poori vs The Special Tahsildhar on 25 November, 2025
A.S. No. 420 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S. No. 420 of 2019
Tmt. Samar Poori,
W/o.Narayansamy,
No.4, 4th Porthekeesi Church,
Ezhukinaru,
Chennai – 600 021. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Special Tahsildhar,
Land Acquisition,
MRL Aromatic Project (Now CPCL),
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
2. The Member Secretary
MRL (Now CPCL),
No.552, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
3. The Project Officer,
Aerochem,
No.88, Anna Salai,
SPIC Centre, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
...Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
A.S. No. 420 of 2019
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
A.S. No. 420 of 2019
PRAYER in A.S.: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge at Ponneri
in LAOP No.764 of 1998 dated 24.06.2013 and enhance the compensation
amount fixing at Rs.6,540/- per cent besides other benefits provided under the
L.A. Act – 1894 in par with other claimants and thus render justice.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate for R1
No appearance for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. It arises out of the award passed by the Sub Court, Ponneri, in
L.A.O.P. No.764 of 1998, dated 24.06.2013. The acquisition relates to lands
measuring 0.06 ½ acres situated in Survey No.189/1A (Part), in Mathur Village,
formerly of Saidapet Taluk and later of Madhavaram Taluk, Thiruvallur District
for the establishment of a Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, hereinafter
referred to as CPCL. The appellant before this Court is the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
3.The Government has issued a 4 (1) notification dated 19.12.1990 and
the Land Acquisition Officer passed award bearing No.7/93, dated 15.10.1993
fixing the rate of compensation at Rs.200/- per cent. The landowner, not satisfied
with this valuation, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The Sub Court, Ponneri, by its award dated 24.06.2013, enhanced the
compensation to Rs.4,750/- per cent, together with the statutory benefits towards
solatium, additional amount and interest. Aggrieved by the said award, the
learned counsel for the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. The memorandum of appeal contends that the trial Court erred in fixing
Rs.4,750/- per cent as compensation for the lands acquired stating that the
compensation has not been fixed based on the exhibits which shows the market
value at Rs.8,700/- and has also submitted that the lands are surrounded by many
repudiated Multinational and National Companies and approved Lay-outs and
thus, sought for setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court
at Ponneri.
5.The issues for consideration :
Whether the enhancement to Rs.4,750/- per cent requires interference in the light
of subsequent pronouncements of this Court in companion appeals from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
same acquisition?
6. Issue: It is settled through the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court through a long series of appeals arising from the very same acquisition
scheme in A.S.Nos.466 of 2014 batch dated 07.07.2015 wherein the Judgment
passed by the Sub Court, Ponneri has been affirmed and it is seen that against
the Judgment of this Court, a review application has been filed by the land owner
in Review Application No.89 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017 wherein the review
application has been dismissed confirming the Division Bench of this Court. It is
also seen that subsequently, Special Leave Petition (Civil) in a Diary No(s).
21943 of 2018 dated 17.08.2018 has also been preferred against the Division
Bench of this Court, wherein, the Supreme Court has dismissed the petition
affirming the Judgment of this Court.
7. 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 or higher rate would run counter to the affirmation
of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. The contentions advanced on behalf of
the appellant are no longer open for reconsideration in view of the settled
position.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
8.Accordingly, the appeal fails on merits and the Judgment and decree
passed by the Sub Judge at Ponneri in LAOP No.764 of 1998 dated 24.06.2013
is confirmed. Any sum already deposited shall be given due credit. The balance
compensation, if any, together with all statutory additions and interest, shall be
deposited by the acquiring authority within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.764 of 1998 on
the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri. On such deposit, the land owner is permitted
to withdraw the same in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
25.11.2025
dpq/ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
ay/dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
To
1. The Sub-Court, Ponneri.
2. The Member Secretary
MRL (Now CPCL),
No.552, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
3. The Project Officer,
Aerochem,
No.88, Anna Salai,
SPIC Centre, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
