[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mrs.Sudharani vs The Special Tahsildar (L.Aq) on 13 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S. Nos. 440 to 446 of 2019
and
C.M.P. No.4081 of 2021
Mrs.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
M/s.Essarar Foundation Private Limited,
28/19, Ramachandran Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellant in A.S.No.440 of 2019
Mrs.K.Sulochana,
W/o.Mr.K.Lakshmana dass,
Represented by her register
Power of Attorney namely Mrs.Sudharani,
residing at No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellant in A.S.Nos.441 & 442 of 2019
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
1.Mrs.S.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2.Mr.S.Rohidatta (Minor),
S.o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
3.Mr.S.Aswindatta (Minor)
S/o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4.Minor S.Hemanathdatta,
Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
Minors Represented by his natural guardian and mother
namely Mrs.Sudharani,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellants in A.S.No.443 of 2019
1.Mrs.S.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
2.Mr.S.Rohidatta (Minor),
S.o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
3.Mr.S.Aswindatta (Minor)
S/o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4.Minor S.Hemanathdatta,
Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
Minors Represented by his natural guardian and mother
namely Mrs.Sudharani,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellants in A.S. No. 444 of 2019
1.Mrs.S.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2.Mr.S.Rohidatta (Minor),
S.o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
3.Mr.S.Aswindatta (Minor)
S/o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4.Minor S.Hemanathdatta,
Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
Minors Represented by natural guardian and mother
namely Mrs.Sudharani,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellants in A.S.No.445 of 2019
1.Mrs.K.Sulochana,
W/o.Mr.K.Lakshmana dass,
Represented by here registered
Power of Attorney namely Mrs.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Shri S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2.Mrs.S.Sudharani,
W/o.late.Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
3.Mr.S.Rohidatta (Minor),
S.o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4.Mr.S.Aswindatta (Minor)
S/o.late Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
5.Minor S.Hemanathdatta,
Sri.S.H.K.Ranga Rao,
Minors Represented by his natural guardian and mother
namely Mrs.Sudharani,
No.3A, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellants in A.S.No.446 of 2019
Vs.
1.The Special Tahsildar (L.Aq),
Outer Ring Road Scheme, Phase II, Unit V,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Chennai – 600 008 (Unit No.2)
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents In All Cases
PRAYER in all A.S.: Appeal Suits filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, to set aside the Decrees passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.7, 1, 4, 6, 5, 3
& 2 of 2008 respectively on the file of II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee and enhance the compensation award amount
to the extent of further enhancement of quantum of compensation from
Rs.5,000/- per cent awarded by the trial Court to Rs.19,000/- per cent with all
statutory benefits and cost and thus render justice.
PRAYER in CMP: Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to permit the petitioner to claim additional claim of Rs.8,500/- per
cent and consequently direct the petitioner to pay the difference of court fee in
the above appeal and also pass such further or other order in the nature and
circumstance of the case thus render justice.
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
For Appellants: Mr. K.M. Venugopal in all cases.
For Respondents: Mr. G. Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader
(A.S.) for R1 in A.S. Nos. 440 , 441, 442 of 2019
Mr. M. Murali, Government Advocate for R1
in A.S. Nos. 443, 445 & 446 of 2019.
Mr. V. Venkataseshaiya, Government Advocate
for R1 in A.S.No.444 of 2019
Mrs. P. Veena Suresh, Standing Counsel
for R2 in all cases.
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. They challenge the common award dated 06.09.2017
passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at
Poonamallee, in L.A.O.P. Nos. 7, 1, 4, 6, 5, 3 & 2 of 2008, and seek higher
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
2. The table shows the AS Nos with corresponding LAOPs;
Sl.No. AS No. LAOP No. Award No.
3. The lands acquired are situated in Thenambakkam & Vellacherry
Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, and are covered in the following
L.A.O.Ps.: (i) L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2008—S.No.8/2A, extent 0.47.5 hectares; (ii)
L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2008—S.Nos.8/1A, 8/1B, 8/1C, 8/1D, 8/1E, 8/1F, 8/1G1,
9/2B, 9/3A, 9/3B, 9/4A, 9/4B1, 9/4C1, 10/11B, 10/12B, 10/13, 10/14 and
11/4B, total extent 1.40.5 hectares; (iii) L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2008—S.Nos.8/3A,
8/4A, 8/5A, 9/5B, 9/6A1, 9/6B1 and 10/10B, total extent 1.40.5 hectares; (iv)
L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2008—S.Nos.33/10B, 33/12A2, 33/12B2, 33/12C2, 34/4B,
34/5B, 35/3, 36/3A, 36/4A, 36/8A, 37/1A and 38/1A, total extent 1.93.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
hectares; and (v) L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2008—S.Nos.9/1B and 9/2A, extent 0.45.5
hectares; and (vi) L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 - S.Nos.34/3B2, 35/1B, 35/2, 36/1,
36/2, 36/5A and 36/6A to an extent of 1.57.0 hectares; and (vii) L.A.O.P.No.5
of 2008 - S.Nos.73/2, 73/3B, 74/5, 74/1A2 and 75/1C1 to an extent of 0.31.0
hectares at Vellacherry Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The
acquisition is for the Outer Ring Road Project under G.O.Ms. No.385, Housing
& Urban Development (UD-III-1), dated 16.10.1998, and the Government
issued the Section 4(1) notification dated 08.10.2003 and 16.05.2003. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed Award Nos.5, 6 & 1 of 2006 dated 15.02.2006 and
27.02.2006 by considering 442 sale transactions in respect of Thenambakkam
lands and 27 sale transactions in respect of lands at Vellachery for the three-
year period from 24.09.2000 to 23.09.2003, and fixed the market value at
Rs.500/- per cent in respect of the lands at Thenambakkam & Rs.450/- per cent
in respect of the lands at Vellachery. The landowners were not satisfied and
therefore sought reference under Section 18 by filing the above L.A.O.P.s.
4. In the claim petitions, the claimants stated that the market value
fixed at Rs.500/- per cent for the lands at Thenambakkam and Rs.450/- per cent
for the lands at Vellachery is wrong. They claimed that even before the Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
4(1) notification, lands were sold at about Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. On that basis,
they sought enhancement up to Rs.50,000/- per cent.
5. The claim was opposed by the respondents and counter filed
stating that the Claimant’s allegation that the land acquired by the CMDA was
under cultivation is false, as there was no cultivation on the said land. It was
stated that there were no house sites, no approved layouts, and that the lands
were left uncultivated. The lands were neither fit for cultivation nor for
habitation, as they were low-lying due to excavation of soil for brick
manufacturing. Hence, the Claimant’s claim is without any legal basis. It was
further submitted that, after the acquired lands were handed over, the
Requisitioning Body had to spend lakhs of rupees for the formation of the Outer
Ring Road Scheme for the benefit of the general public. Therefore, the
compensation fixed by the Collector/Referring Officer was reasonable and
justified.
6. The Trial Court framed the issue as to whether the claimants were
entitled to enhancement of compensation and, if so, what amount ought to be
fixed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
7. Before the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.7, 4, 6, 3 & 2 of 2008,
PW1 and DW1 were examined. On the side of the claimants, Ex.C1 (General
Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2001), Ex.C2 (Resolution dated 01.11.2010),
Ex.C3 (common award in L.A.O.P. No.280 of 2008 and batch dated
23.03.2011), Ex.C4 (Lok Adalat Award in Case No.243 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.
No.91 of 2008 dated 18.10.2014), Ex.C5 (common award in L.A.O.P. No.329
of 2008 and batch dated 29.04.2011), and Ex.C6 (registered sale deed dated
22.04.2002) were marked and on the side of the respondents, Ex.D1 (sale deed
dated 13.06.2002) and Ex.D2 (copy of the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer) were marked.
8. In L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008, PW1 and DW1 were examined and marked
Ex.C.1,( General power of attorney dated 29.11.2001), Ex.C2, (Common award
in L.A.O.P.No.280 of 2008 & batch dated 23.03.2011), Ex.C.3,( Lok adalat
award passed regarding Palavedu village), Ex.C.4, (Lok adalat award passed
regarding Mittanamalli village), Ex.C.5,( copy of the registered sale deed dated
25.07.2001), Ex.C.6, (copy of the registered sale deed dated 12.09.2001),
Ex.C.7, (copy of the registered sale deed dated 22.04.2002) and Ex.C.8, (copy
of the registered sale deed dated 12.09.2003) and on the side of the respondents,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
Ex.D.1,( Copy of the sale deed dated 13.06.2002) and Ex.D2 (Copy of the
award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer).
9. In L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008, PW1 and DW1 were examined and marked
Ex.C1(Common award in L.A.O.P.No.280 of 2008 & batch dated 23.03.2011),
Ex.C.2,( Award in Lok Adalat case No.243 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.91 of 2008
dated 18.10.2014, Ex.C.3, (Common award passed in L.A.O.P.No.329 of 2008
& batch dated 29.04.2011) and Ex.C.4,( copy of the registered sale deed dated
22.04.2002) and on the side of the respondents were marked. Ex.D.1, (Copy of
the sale deed dated 13.06.2002) and Ex.D2, (Copy of the award dated
15.02.2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer).
10. The Reference Court considered Ex.C1 (in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008),
wherein compensation at Rs.16,500/- per cent was fixed for lands in Morai
Village in L.A.O.P. No.280 of 2008 and batch dated 23.03.2011; Ex.C2 (in
L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008), being the Lok Adalat Award dated 18.10.2014 in
L.A.O.P. No.91 of 2008, where compensation at Rs.20,000/- per cent was fixed;
and Ex.C4 (in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008), in which the sale consideration worked
out to Rs.13,952/- per cent. The Reference Court held that these instances
pertained to villages situated closer to Avadi and, therefore, could not be treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
as comparable to the claimants’ lands in Thenambakkam and Vellachery. The
Court further observed that the claimants had not produced any revenue records
to substantiate that the lands were wet lands, nor any material to establish their
potentiality, and no sketch was filed to show proximity to the National
Highways. However, taking note that the acquired lands fell within the
jurisdiction of the CMDA, and that sale instances within a radius of 1.6
kilometres from the claimants’ lands ought to be considered, the Reference
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,000/- per cent in all the cases,
together with the usual statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said awards, the
present appeals have been filed.
11. The learned counsel for the claimants contend that the very purpose
of acquisition, namely the Outer Ring Road Scheme, demonstrates that the
lands are in close proximity to the Chennai limits and enjoy good connectivity
and amenities. According to them, the development potential of the acquired
lands is self-evident, particularly since the lands fall within the jurisdiction of
the CMDA. They further submit that the Reference Court erroneously ignored
the documents produced by the claimants. The claimants place reliance on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 447 (Union
of India v. Harinder Pal Singh) & others, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (Himmat Singh &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another), and 2012 (3) CTC 396
(Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & another v. State of Punjab
and others). They argue that even if the lands are situated in different villages,
they may be treated as a single unit for the purpose of valuation, and the highest
market value prevailing in such unit can be adopted. In the present case, Morai
and Thenambakkam are abutting villages, and therefore comparable instances
from Morai ought not to have been rejected. They consequently seek further
enhancement of compensation from Rs.5,000/- per cent to Rs.19,000/- per cent.
In support, they rely on Ex.C4 (in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008) dated 22.04.2002,
relating to lands in Morai (Maduraveerapuram), wherein the market value
worked out to Rs.13,952/- per cent, whereas the notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18.09.2003. On this basis, they
submit that the Reference Court ought to have adopted at least Rs.16,500/- per
cent (as reflected in Ex.C1 (in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2008)) instead of fixing
Rs.5,000/- per cent. According to the claimants, the above decisions support (i)
adopting parity/one-unit valuation across abutting villages acquired for the same
project (Harinder Pal Singh’s case cited supra), and (ii) preferring the highest
bona fide comparable sale while determining market value (Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust’s case cited supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
12. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that in Award
Nos.5 & 6 of 2006 dated 27.02.2006 relating to nearby villages, the market
value was fixed at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.58,133/- per cent. It was submitted that in
the common award dated 23.03.2011, compensation for Morai lands was fixed
at Rs.16,500/- per cent, and that the LAO fixed the same Rs.500/- per cent for
both Morai and Thenambakkam; therefore, the rate fixed for the lands at Morai
can be adopted for Thenambakkam. They also relied on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.472 to 480 of 2012 dated 13.10.2015, where
Rs.18,000/- per cent was fixed for the nearby village of Pammadukulam. Hence,
it was prayed that this Court fix the compensation at Rs.16,500/- per cent with
statutory benefits, solatium and interest.
13. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, produced
guideline value and property valuation figures. They submit that for
Thenambakkam village the guideline value was Rs.1,800/- per cent for the
period from 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2012, and for Morai village it was Rs.26,136/-
per cent for the same period. They argue that the Reference Court’s fixation of
Rs.5,000/- per cent for Thenambakkam and Vellacherry do not require
interference and seek dismissal of the appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
14. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court is
correct?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation, and if
so, to what extent including statutory benefits and interests?
15. Point Nos. (1) and (2):
The acquisition in these appeals relates to the Outer Ring Road Scheme. The
Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs. 500 per cent (Rs.
1,235 per are), mainly relying on a data sale, and rejected the higher claim for
lack of supporting sale evidence.
16. The Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.5,000/- per
cent. The appeals, however, consistently contend that this fixation is
unsupported by any identified exemplar sale deed or a reasoned assessment
of comparability, adjustments for time-gap, or applicable deductions. In
determining compensation under Section 23 of the Act, the Court must
specify the exemplar(s) relied upon and set out the steps by which the
market value is arrived at; a bare round-figure fixation, without a supporting
analytical chain, cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
17. On the claimants’ side, for Thenambakkam, reliance is placed on a
series of sale exemplars (Exs. C5 to C8), culminating in Ex. C8 (in
L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008) dated 12.09.2003, which is said to disclose a rate of
Rs. 16,530/- per cent. The appellants further contend that lands in
neighbouring villages within the same belt should not be valued differently
merely because of village boundaries, invoking the “single unit” principle in
Harinder Pal Singh’s case (cited supra) and the rule that fixation should be
guided by the best bona fide exemplar in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust’s case
(cited supra).
18. For Vellachery, the grounds raise the same core objection—
namely, that the market value was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per cent without
being anchored to any specific exemplar document. They assert that the
acquired lands lie in Vellachery Village, Villivakkam Panchayat, Ambattur
Taluk, within the same Outer Ring Road corridor, and that a comparable
belt valuation should therefore be adopted. The Vellachery grounds also
refer to the Morai exemplars and contend that a higher belt rate—including
the rate reflected in Ex. C8(in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008) ought to guide the
fixation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
19. Given that the acquisition is for the same public purpose and forms
part of the same Outer Ring Road corridor, the plea to treat the area as a
single unit or belt for valuation deserves acceptance in principle, subject to
the usual safeguards of comparability. Once the single-unit approach is
adopted, the next step is to identify the best bona fide exemplar closest in
point of time and then make the requisite adjustments.
20. Among the exemplars relied upon, Ex. C8 (in L.A.O.P.No.1 of
2008) dated 12.09.2003, reflecting Rs. 16,530/- per cent, is projected as the
highest and most time-proximate indicator. It is therefore appropriate to
treat Ex. C8 (in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008) as the benchmark for the belt, rather
than sustain the unsupported round-figure fixation of Rs. 5,000/- per cent.
21. At the same time, an exemplar transaction cannot be applied
mechanically. If the exemplar reflects marketability advantages over the
acquired lands—such as in extent, shape, immediate usability, or other
transactional factors—a deduction is necessary to arrive at a realistic market
value for acquisition purposes. In the absence of a detailed comparative
sketch or recorded findings permitting a precise quantified adjustment, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
reasonable moderate deduction of about 20% from the benchmark rate
would be appropriate.
22. Applying a 20% deduction to the benchmark rate of Rs. 16,530/-
per cent works out to approximately Rs. 13,224/- per cent, which may be
rounded off to Rs. 13,500/- per cent for uniform application across the belt.
23. Accordingly, for the lands in Thenambakkam as well as
Vellacherry, the market value is fixed at Rs. 13,500/- per cent, in
substitution of the rate fixed by the Reference Court.
24. Once the market value is refixed, the claimants are entitled to
statutory benefits—namely the additional amount, solatium, and interest—
on the enhanced compensation, after giving due credit for any amounts
already paid or deposited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
25. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is
enhanced from Rs.5000/- per cent to Rs.13,500/- per cent. The claimants
shall be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,500/- together with
all statutory benefits, namely solatium and additional amount and interest as
per Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
appellant-claimant shall pay the requisite court fee on the enhanced
compensation amount, if any deficit remains, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thus the appeals are
ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
13.03.2026
mfa
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2.The Special Tahsildar (L.Aq),
Outer Ring Road Scheme, Phase II, Unit V,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Chennai – 600 008 (Unit No.2)
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
mfa
Pre-delivery Judgement made
in
A.S. Nos. 440 to 446 of 2019
13.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:50 pm )
