Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Palanisamy Gounder
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Delivered On: 08.11.2016 Reserved On: 07.11.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN S.A.No.696 of 2005 The Special Tahsildar Office of the Adi Dravidar Welfare, Rangasamudram Village, Sathyamangalam Town, Sathyamangalam Taluk. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Palanisamy Gounder 2.K.Subramani ...Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for ADW Schemes Act 31/78 r/w Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2004 made in C.M.A.No.5/1999 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam modifying the award made in Award No.4/98-99 dated 11.11.1998 passed by the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Sathyamangalam. Appellant : Mr.M.Venugopal Special Government Pleader (CS) Respondents : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel JUDGMENT
This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.07.2004 made in C.M.A.No.5/1999 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam modifying the award made in Award No.4/98-99 dated 11.11.1998 passed by the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Sathyamangalam.
2.The land owned by the respondents herein was acquired by the appellant herein to provide housing sites for Adi Dravidar Community. While the Acquisition Authority has passed an award fixing Rs.41,000/- per Acre as compensation, the Appellate Authority has re-looked into the prevailing market rate in the locality and enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,72,000/- per Acre. Aggrieved by this, the second appeal has been preferred on the following questions of law:
a.Whether the court below failed to appreciate the judgement of the Apex Court reported in 1993 (4) SCC 245 whereunder the Apex Court has clearly laid down the law that the value of small extent of land ought not to be considered for fixation of market value for large tracts of land?
b.Whether the Court below had erred in not appreciating the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2003 (12) SCC 245 whereunder the Apex Court has clearly held that when the small extent of land are taken into consideration for fixation of large tracks of undeveloped land, 53% deduction has to be given for development charges? And c.Whether the Court below had failed to appreciate the fact that the appeal itself had not been properly presented in the sense that the court fee had not been paid under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act?
3.No doubt that while ascertaining the market value for fixation of compensation, the value of small extent of land comparing to the land sought to be acquired should not be taken into account as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But the fact of this case is that the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the sale transaction of about 6 -1/2 cents of land which took place one year prior to the date of notification and the present acquisition is around 0.50.5 Hectares. Considering the astronomical increase of value of the property every day, this Court finds no justification in interfering with the compensation fixed by the Appellate Authority.
4.However, insofar as the Court fee is concerned, it is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in a similar situation, this Hon'ble Court has held that under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 in case of appeal filed against an order relating to compensation for the acquisition of the property, the Court fee payable shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded or determined and the amount claimed by the appellant. Having held so, Court has directed the claimants therein to pay the difference Court fee within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and in all other aspects confirmed the judgment and decree of the Court below.
5.This Court totally concur with the above view expressed by My Brother Judge Mr.Justice M.Duraiswamy in his order dated 22.07.2016 passed in CRP (NPD) Nos.944 and 945 of 2005.
6.Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed with a direction to the respondents/ claimants to pay the Court fee difference within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. CMP No.9725 of 2005 is closed.
8.11.2016 pri Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1.The First Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.
2.The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Sathyamangalam.
G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
pri Pre-delivery judgment in S.A.No.696 of 2005 08.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in