Madras High Court
M.O.H.U.Salim vs The Union Of India on 13 October, 2025
A.S.No.9 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
A.S.No.9 of 2015
M.O.H.U.Salim ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Union of India, rep by
The Secretary to Government (Revenue)
Pondicherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue )-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer
Karaikal. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 praying to set aside the award of the learned District Judge at Karaikal in
LAOP.No.20 of 2012 dated 29.10.2013 in as much as it fixes the compensation
for the appellant's land at Rs.10,000 and consequently, enhance the
compensation in respect of the appellant's land to Rs.13,500/- per are.
For Appellant :Ms. G.Lavanya
for M/s.V.Kamala Kumar
Mr.R.Saravanan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
A.S.No.9 of 2015
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman
Govt. Advocate (Puducherry)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Tribunal (District Court, Karaikal) fixing the compensation
payable to the appellant/claimant's land at Rs.10,000/- per are.
2. It is not in dispute that the land belongs to the appellant in Survey
No.175/2/A to an extent of 04H-77A-03Ca at Vanjore revenue village, Karaikal
was acquired for the development of port at Karaikal. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land was
published in Official Gazette G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 29.12.2005. The
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published in the Tamil and English dailies on 25.01.2006. Thereafter, an
enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer/2nd respondent herein
and compensation was fixed at Rs.4,891/- per Are. The total compensation
payable to the appellant/claimant was fixed at Rs. 31,39,895/-. The
appellant/claimant received the said compensation amount under protest and
thereafter, sought for enhancement of the compensation by seeking reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
3.The appellant/claimant in his claim petition stated that 2nd respondent
failed to take into consideration the sale deeds produced by the claimant while
fixing the compensation. It was further stated by the claimant that the subject
property was developed by him as a prawn culture land by investing huge
amount of Rs.21,00,000/-. The said development made by the claimant was not
taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent herein while fixing the
compensation .
4. The respondents filed their counter and opposed the prayer for
enhancement of compensation. According to the respondents, the sale deeds
produced by the claimant were in respect of lands abutting ECR and the said
advantage is not available to the acquired lands. It was also stated by the
respondents that after Tsunami, the prawn farm developed by the claimant was
destroyed and he was not doing prawn culture at the time of 4(1) notification.
Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant was examined as C.W1 and 16
documents were marked on his side as Exhibit C1 to Exhibit C16. On behalf of
the Respondents, Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W1 and 4 documents
were marked as Exhibit R1 to Exhibit R4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
6. The Tribunal, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, was pleased to enhance the compensation
amount payable to the appellant at Rs.10,000/- per Are and passed an award.
7. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal,
the claimant has filed this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the
acquired land was developed as prawn culture farm by the claimant by
investing huge amount and the said fact was not taken into consideration by
the Tribunal. Therefore, according to her, the amount fixed by the Tribunal
needs enhancement. The learned counsel further submitted that Exhibits C-8,
C-9, and C-10 were not properly taken into consideration by the Tribunal while
fixing the compensation amount for the acquired lands.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) for the respondents
submitted that the prawn farm developed by the claimant was completely
destroyed by the 2004 tsunami and at the time of acquisition, the claimant was
not carrying prawn culture activity. He further submitted that the Tribunal
fixed more amount than the amount mentioned in Exhibits C-8 to C-10 and
opposed that the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted.
10. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the submission made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
the learned counsel on either side, the following point is arising for
consideration in this appeal.
“1. Whether the compensation amount fixed by the
Tribunal needs enhancement?”
11. It is a specific case of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
acquired lands are developed as prawn culture farm and the said fact was not
taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent as well as the Tribunal. In
support of the said plea, the appellant was examined as C.W-1 before the
Tribunal. He was cross-examined with regard to the destruction of
infrastructure created by him due to tsunami. He clearly admitted in the cross-
examination that he received compensation from the Government for
destruction of prawn culture farm. The relevant portion reads as follows:-
Rdhkpf;fhf muR,lkpUe;J kPd;Jiw K:ykhf
vdJ gz;iz mHpe;jjw;fhd ec&;l<Lj;bjhifia
bgw;Ws;nsd; vd;why; mJ rupjhd;/
12. From the above said clear admission by the appellant, who was
examined as C.W.1, it is clear that he received compensation from the
Government for destruction of his prawn culture farm. Hence, the submission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the value of the
infrastructure created by him was not taken into consideration by the 2nd
respondent cannot be accepted.
13. As far as Exhibits C-8, C-9, and C-10 are concerned, even in the
claim statement, the appellant mentioned about the value of the land covered
by the said document. A perusal of the same would indicate that the maximum
value mentioned in the said document was only Rs.7,095 per Are. However, in
the case on hand, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per Are by taking
into consideration the submission made by the claimant that he was doing
prawn culture in the subject land. Since the Tribunal awarded more
compensation amount than the amount mentioned in Exhibits C-8, C-9 and C-
10 relied on by the claimant, the value fixed by the Tribunal need not be
interfered with.
14. As far as Exhibits C-11 to C-16 are concerned, the Tribunal clearly
observed that the properties covered by those documents are abutting Nagore
to Karaikal National Highways (ECR). However, the appellant's land is not
abutting ECR even as per his admission as C.W1. It is pertinent to note that a
suggestion was made to C.W.1 regarding the distance between ECR and his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
acquired land was 2 km. He denied the suggestion and replied that the distance
was 200m. Therefore, C.W.1 himself admitted that the subject lands are not
abutting ECR. Therefore, exhibits C11 to C16 produced by the claimant are
also of no use.
15. In view of the discussions made earlier, this Court finds that the
amount of Rs.10,000/- per Are fixed by the tribunal is reasonable one and it
requires no interference. The point for determination is answered against the
appellant. Accordingly, the first appeal stands dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
13.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nr
To
1. The learned District Judge, Karaikal.
2. The Secretary to Government (Revenue)
Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
3. The Deputy Collector (Revenue )-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer
Karaikal.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:43 am )
