Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Rajenthiran (Died) on 29 October, 2025
A.S. No. 332 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S. No. 332 of 2020,
and
C.M.P. No. 4006 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar, (L.A.)
Unit- II, Arasu Cement Factory,
Ariyalur. ...Appellant
Vs.
Rajenthiran (Died),
1. Pounammal W/o.Late Rajenthiran
2. Mahesvari D/o.Late Rajenthiran
3. Manjula D/o.Late Rajenthiran
4. Mahenthiran S/o.Late Rajenthiran
Velipiringam,
Ariyalur Taluk & District.
5. Managing Director,
TamilNadu Cements Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai.
6. Deputy General Manager,
Arasu Cements Factory,
Ariyalur. ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
A.S. No. 332 of 2020
PRAYER in A.S.: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in LAOP
No.101 of 2000 dated 25.04.2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur and
pass such further or other order on this Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and this render justice.
PRAYER in C.M.P. : Petition filed under Order 41 Rules 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to stay the execution of the decree and judgment passed in
LAOP No.101 of 2000 dated 25.04.2017 on the Sub Court, Ariyalur pending
disposal of the above appeal thus render justice.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocae
For Respondents: Mr.R.Gokula Krishnan, Advocate
For R1 to R4
Mr.A.Sivaji, Standing Counsel
For R5 & R6
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, Ariyalur, in
L.A.O.P. No.101 of 2000, dated 25th April 2017. The acquisition relates to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
certain lands in Ariyalur District for the establishment of a Government
Cement Factory under the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
hereinafter referred to as TANCEM. The appellant before this Court is the
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Unit–II, representing the acquiring
authority.
3.The Government has issued a 4(1) notification dated 19.02.1996 and
the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 17.02.1999 had relied on private
sale transactions in respect of nearby lands and fixed the market value at
Rs.300/- per cent. The landowners, not satisfied with this valuation, sought a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Sub Court,
Ariyalur, by its award dated 25.04.2017, enhanced the compensation to
Rs.1,200/- per cent, together with the usual statutory benefits towards
solatium, additional amount and interest.
4.The memorandum of appeal challenges the enhancement as
excessive and unsustainable. It is contended that the Reference Court relied
on sale deeds which were not comparable to the acquired lands, that the Land
Acquisition Officer’s dry-land data sales should have been accepted, and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
the Court below failed to apply a block-wise valuation or to deduct a proper
percentage for development. The appellant also questions the award of
interest on solatium and the additional amount.
5.The issues for consideration are:
(1) Whether the enhancement to Rs.1,200/- per cent requires
interference in the light of subsequent pronouncements of this Court in
companion appeals from the same acquisition? and
(2) Whether any development deduction has to be imposed or whether
uniform parity should be maintained?
6.It is now well settled through a long series of appeals arising from
the very same acquisition scheme that this Court has consistently taken a
view in favour of the landowners. By the common judgment dated 29th
January 2024 in A.S. No. 916 of 2019 and connected matters, this Court
dismissed the appeals preferred by the State and by TANCEM, allowed the
cross-objections filed by the claimants, and enhanced the market value from
Rs.1,200/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent, directing the payment of the
balance within eight weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
7.Subsequently, by order dated 23rd August 2024, S.M. Subramaniam,
J., recorded that TANCEM itself had passed a resolution—approved by the
Government—to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent, with
statutory interest, to all the landowners under this scheme, and directed the
Land Acquisition Officer to settle the enhanced compensation uniformly
within eight weeks. This shows that a conscious decision has been taken by
the acquiring authority to maintain parity and avoid any discrimination
among the affected landholders.
8.Again, on 23rd October 2024, in a batch of connected CMPs, Sathi
Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J., reiterated that the fixation of Rs.1,500/- per cent
in the earlier batch governs all connected cases, and observed that the
petitions seeking rehearing had become infructuous in view of the finality of
the common judgment, while granting four months’ time for TANCEM to
complete the payment.
9.In view of these determinations 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
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 common
judgment and the uniform policy (resolution dated 13.03.2024 ) adopted by
TANCEM and the relevant portion of the said resolution dated 13.03.2024 is
extracted hereunder;
“The Board took note that TANCEM acquired 1137.97.5 hectares
of land in 3 phases. The Board also took note that in 1999, 320.76
acres were acquired for which compensation was fixed at Rs.250/-
per cent and In the year 2000, 390 LAOP's demanding higher
compensation and enhanced compensation @ Rs.1250/- per cent
was flxed vide order dated 29.11.2012 against which TANCEM
filed Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the cases
were remanded to Sub-Court, Ariyalur on 20.08.2014. The Board
further took note that the compensation was reduced to Rs.1,200/-
per cent. Subsequently, Special Tahsildar, Ariyalur filed Appeal
Suits for 319 cases and judgement pronounced for 300 cases @
Rs.900/-per cent totaling to Rs.10.26 crore and the amount was
deposited in Sub-court Ariyalur. The Board noted 20 appeals
were filed and enhanced rate was fixed between Rs.1200/- to
Rs.1500 per cent. The Board also noted that RDO convened fees
committee meeting in view of PH on 15.2.24 for mining lease of
92.22.6 ha at Pudupalayam village and demanded Rs.1,500/- per
cent at an approximate requirement of additional amount was
Rs.19 crore (approx).
Resolved that the proposal of TANCEM to settle the LAOP Cases
by payment of compensation fixed by Hon'ble HIgh Court,
Madras in the judgment dated 29.01.2024 at the rate of Rs.1500/-
per cent besides interest entitled as per section 23(2) of LA
Act,1894 be and is hereby approved.
Further resolved to accord approval for payment of
compensation for all other cases pending before Hon'ble High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
Court, Madras / Sub-Court, Ariyalur as and when judgment is
pronounced at the rate of Rs.1500/- per çent plus interest as
finalized in Lokayuktha / Mediation so as to avoid further
litigation.”
10.On the question of development deduction, it is seen that the
subsequent batch decisions have proceeded on a flat rate of Rs.1,500/- per
cent, without applying any deduction towards development charges, the
acquisition being for an industrial and mining purpose and not for layout
formation. Any deduction at this stage would break the uniformity already
settled by this Court.
11.Accordingly, the appeal fails on merits. Following the common
judgment and the uniform decisions affirmed by this Court, the market value
of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five
Hundred only) per cent, with no deduction towards development charges. The
award passed by the reference court is modified by enhancing from
Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1500/-.The claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits
under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, to be
calculated on the enhanced amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
12.Any sum already deposited shall be given due credit. The balance
compensation, together with all statutory additions and interest, shall be
deposited by the acquiring authority within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this Judgment, to the credit of L.A.O.P. No.101 of 2000 on the file
of the Sub Court, Ariyalur. On such deposit, the landowners are permitted to
withdraw the same in accordance with law. Thus the appeal is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
29.10.2025
ay/jv
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1. The Sub-Court, Ariyalur.
2.The Special Tahsildar, (LA)
Unit – II, Arasu Cement Factory.,
Ariyalur.
3. Managing Director,
TamilNadu Cements Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai.
4. Deputy General Manager,
Arasu Cements Factory,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
Ariyalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
and
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 08:25:57 pm )
