Madras High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer & vs A.R.Nagappan on 4 August, 2021
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.5601 of 2021
The Land Acquisition Officer &
District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. A.R.Nagappan
2. The Divisional Engineer (H)
Highways C & M,
Chengalpattu. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in
LAOP.No.58 of 2016 dated 28.02.2017 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal
Special Government Pleader (AS)
For R1 : Mr.J.Ram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/16
C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2017 made in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The District Revenue Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer have filed this revision petition challenging the award in the said LAOP.No.58 of 2016 dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an extent of land measuring 40,186 square meters situated in Alathur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk (now Thiruporur), Kanchipuram District, was notified for acquisition for the purpose of forming I.T. Corridor Express Highway i.e. to widen the existing Old Mahabalipuram Road into Six Lane from various survey numbers adjoining the I.T. Corridor Express Highway. After completing the acquisition formalities by proceedings of the District Collector, Kanchipuram who determined the amount payable to the respective land owners for acquisition of their lands under Section 19(3) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34/2012), the determination came https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 to be passed on 15.07.2013. While determining the land value for 40,186 square meters, it was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,216/- per square meter. After calculating the building and tree value along with 30% Solatium, which arrived at Rs.6,54,66,674/-. Apart from that, additional market value at the rate of 12% was also added to the whole sum of Rs.6,54,66,674/- and which arrived at Rs.9,30,16,123/-. After calculating the land value, the above rate was fixed by the proceedings of the District Collector who worked out to Rs.113/- per square feet to the first respondent / landowner. Dissatisfying with the compensation fixed by the District Collector, Kanchipuram, a reference was made by the first respondent / landowner to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the Award No.9 of 2013, dated 15.07.2013.
4. The first respondent / landowner has claimed before the Court below that the land in Survey No.101/1B1, 101/1B2A in Alathur Village to an extent of 1297 square meters is belonged to him. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and thereafter he has done lot of improvements for levelling the land to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 height of 2 feet by spending several lakhs of rupees. When the Government notified the acquisition of land under notice dated 13.10.2008 for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway, he made a representation before the District Collector stating that the market value of his property is more than Rs.3,50,000/-. There were several sale deeds which are registered for more than 3 Lakhs of rupees in the same locality and his land is situated in a commercial zone, and because of this acquisition, his remaining land is not in the position of being utilized as it becomes a triangle in shape. Apart from that, he claimed before the Court below that the authority while passing the award has not considered the highest value registered prior to one year from the date of acquisition and prayed to the Learned Subordinate Judge to fix the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per square meter.
5. In contrary to the submissions made by the first respondent / landowner, the petitioner herein has claimed before the Court below that they have followed all the formalities in accordance with law and the compensation fixed as per the award dated 15.07.2013 is absolutely correct as the data land taken for arriving or fixing the award was correct https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 and the land that claiming to be the data is fancyful, that cannot be considered for arriving at the compensation. Hence he prayed that the award dated 15.07.2013 to be confirmed.
6. The Learned Additional Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties concerned and in reference to the data land submitted by either parties which are documentary evidences has come to the conclusion as follows :
(i) The compensation fixed by the Referring Officer at the rate of Rs.1,216/- per sq. meter is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.7,405/- per sq. meter with 30% solatium along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on solatium.
(ii) Any sum already paid towards the compensation has to be deducted from the total sum if it is already received by the claimants.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to get the additional market value at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the date of passing of the award.
(iv) Further the claimants are entitled 9% p.a. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 interest on the excess amount for the 1st year from the date of taking possession and 15% p.a. interest for subsequent years till the date of deposit.
(v) It is also further ordered that the expenses incurred by this Court for sending notice to the claimants should be deducted at the time of issuance of cheque to the claimants.
(vi) It is further ordered that, the claimants are entitled for the cost of the proceedings.
(vii) It is further ordered that, except the above mentioned claims, with regard to other aspects, the determination for the Land Acquisition Officer is confirmed.
(viii) Time for payment of the enhanced claim 2 months.
7. Aggrieved by the above order of the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer.
8. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 petitioner has vehemently argued that the Award No.9 of 2013 dated 15.07.2013 ought to have been confirmed as the award was passed in conformity with the data lands that were taken as referral value for fixing the compensation. When the authority has fixed the right value at Rs.1,216/- per square meter, the question of enhancing the compensation to an exorbitant rate of Rs.7,405/- per square meter is totally incorrect.
9. The Learned Special Government Pleader has also submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly taken the relevant sale deed prior to Section 15(2) Notification dated 24.12.2008 and only after analysing all the transactions as per the data collected by him has rightly fixed the market value at Rs.113/- per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per square meter.
10. The Learned Special Government Pleader has further submitted that the Learned Subordinate Judge has failed to consider the data sale deed taken by the Land Acquisition Officer which is abutting the acquired land relevant to this C.R.P and whereas the Learned Subordinate Judge without any proper reason has enhanced the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 compensation from Rs.1,216/- per square meter to Rs.7,405/- per square meter, which is exorbitant and has to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the first respondent / landowner would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a common value for both approved lands and unapproved lands in the award, as such, the approved lands that fall within the acquisition will have to be considered separately as against the unapproved lands that were acquired.
12. The learned counsel for the first respondent / landowner would further submit that the value fixed for the acquired lands cannot be same for larger extent of land and smaller extent of land, each land should have been decided separately considering the proximity of the highway road from the acquired lands and the development that has taken place in the adjoining areas next to the acquired lands. However, when reference was made to the order of the Learned Subordinate Judge seeking enhancement of compensation, it is submitted that if this Court is not enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,405/- per square meter to a higher rate, it would be appropriate for this Court to confirm at least Rs.7,405/- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 per square meter as enhanced by the Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for R1, and perused the materials available on record.
14. On considering the rival submissions made and the documents relied on by the counsels on either side, this Court proceeds to determine as to whether the compensation enhanced by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 is excessive or insufficient. The acquisition relates to the present revision petition is for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Highway i.e. to widen the existing Old Mahabalipuram Road into Six Lane. After the I.T. Companies came into existence in the Old Mahabalipuram Road at Chennai, no doubt, the value of the lands in and around the OMR has increased manifold.
15. On perusal of the common award dated 15.07.2013 passed in Award No.9 of 2013 for arriving or fixing the compensation at Rs.113/- per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per square meter, it is seen that the authorities have conducted a survey in the lands involved in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 acquisition and inspected the field sketch. As there was no variation in the extent between the Public Notice under Section 15(2) of the Highways Act and Draft Notice under Section 15(1) of the Highways Act, notice under Section 16(2) was issued on 30.07.2010, which was prior to the notification published in Part - II Section - 2 of the Extra Ordinary Issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 04.03.2005 by including the trees and other structures that were present at the time of acquisition in the acquired lands. For determining the amount as compensation, statistics were gathered from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008 i.e. 3 years prior to the date of publication of 15(2) notification, from the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruporur. There are 184 sales have been taken place during the said period in Alathur Village. Out of which, the land in Serial No.36, an extent of 0.59 cent (25,724 sq.ft) in Survey Nos.44/4A, 44/4B, 44/4A1 (Wet land) of Alathur Village, has been sold for Rs.29,00,000/- vide Doc.No.6650 dated 31.07.2006, which was taken as a data sale deed and worked out to Rs.113/- per square feet. As far as the other sales are concerned, which were either sold as house site or for lower amount, Land with building, UDS, Combined sales. The authorities have concluded that the sale in Serial.No.36 reflected the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 correct value of the land and therefore it was taken as data land and the compensation was fixed at Rs.113/- per square feet or Rs.1,216/- per square meter for the lands under acquisition, and they have rightly fixed the compensation to be paid for the acquired lands to an extent of 40,186 square meters at Rs.1,216/- per square meter or Rs.113/- per square feet.
16. It is further seen from the award that on reference being made by the authorities, the claimant i.e. the respective landowner has filed claimant's side documents before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, which are Exs.C1 and C2 Sale deeds dated 21.11.2007 and 24.11.2008. Ex.C1 Sale deed is with respect to the property in Survey No.237/3A1 to an extent of 51 cents and Ex.C2 Sale deed is with respect to the property in Paiyanur Village which is adjacent to the Village in Survey No.222/10 to an extent of 1.47 acres. Ex.C3 which is the document to show that the claimant's property abutting the main road of Paiyanur Village was also marked before the Court below.
17. On evaluating the quantum of award passed by the referring authority, it is observed that no reason has been stated by the authority as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 to how the sale deed registered in Serial No.36 among 184 sale deeds that were registered between 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008 alone was taken as data land for fixing the compensation. While entertaining the petition, the authority has to give proper reason as to why the particular sale deed was taken and recorded to be made as a data land for fixing the compensation, but the award passed by the Court below does not contain any such reason for arriving or fixing the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per square meter. Hence the order of the Court below certainly needs interference of this Court.
18. On going through the Judgment and Decree rendered by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, this Court finds that Ex.C2 is the document to be considered as data land as far as the Additional Subordinate Judge is concerned. The amount fixed by the District Collector, Kanchipuram at Rs.1,216/- per square meter for the acquired land is absolutely incorrect and which is too low for the commercial zone that is situated in the Old Mahabalipuram Road at Chennai. The first respondent / landowner should be justly compensated for his loss of land. The Learned Subordinate Judge, for enhancing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 compensation, has taken Ex.C2 which is the sale deed dated 24.11.2008 with respect to the property in Paiyanur Village which is adjacent to the land in question of acquisition. The Ex.C2 pertains to the land to an extent of 1.47 acres and the land mentioned in Ex.C2 has been sold for Rs.3,20,00,000/-. The Learned Subordinate Judge has arrived at Rs.7,405/- per square meter as against Rs.1,216/- fixed by the District Collector at Kanchipuram.
19. This Court is unable to accept the fixation of compensation by the Learned Subordinate Judge for the reason that as per Ex.C2, the land to an extent of 1.47 acres (64033.20 sq.ft) in Paiyanur Village has been sold for Rs.3,20,00,000/- viz., it has been valued at Rs.499/- (3,20,00,000 / 64033.20) per square feet or Rs.5,370/- per square meter. I afraid that how the Learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,405/- per square meter or Rs.688/- per square feet when considering Ex.C2 or relying Ex.C2 for enhancing the compensation. If Ex.C2 is considered as date sale deed, the above calculation will come only to Rs.5,370/- per square meter or Rs.499/- per square feet. There is no good reason stated by the Learned Subordinate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 Judge while enhancing the compensation at Rs.7,405/- per square meter when the data sale deed i.e. Ex.C2 relied on by the Learned Sub Judge comes to only Rs.5,370/- per square meter. In this regard, this Court is in conformity with the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu for taking Ex.C2 Sale deed as data land for fixing or enhancing the compensation. However, the amount arrived at by relying on Ex.C2 as Rs.7,405/- per square meter or Rs.688/- per square feet is incorrect.
20. This Court, only to this extent, is interfering with the quantum of compensation enhanced by the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu and the award passed by the referring authority has to be interfered with as the award is too low and there was no reason stated for relying the sale in Serial No.36 out of 184 sales that have been taken place during the period from 25.12.2005 to 24.12.2008. At the same time, the Learned Subordinate Judge is also incorrect from not taking the exact value from Ex.C2 for fixing or enhancing the compensation.
21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the enhanced compensation by the Learned Subordinate Judge at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 Chengalpattu warrants interference only with regard to the amount determined under Ex.C2 as Rs.7,405/- per square meter instead of Rs.5,370/- per square meter and in all other aspects the orders passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu are confirmed and which need no interference.
22. Accordingly, the compensation fixed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu in LAOP.No.58 of 2016 at the rate of Rs.7,405/- per square meter is modified as Rs.5,370/- per square meter.
23. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.08.2021 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J., https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/16 C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021 raja To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Divisional Engineer (H), Highways C & M, Chengalpattu. C.R.P.(NPD).No.652 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.5601 of 2021 04.08.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/16