Dismissed

The Special Tahsildar v. Eswaran

Madras HC7 Jul 2015AS/466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Special Tahsildar challenging the enhancement of land compensation by the Sub Court. Despite agreeing with the appellant that the lower court lacked reasoning, the High Court enhanced the compensation following its own evidence-based inquiry, effectively affirming the trial court's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; compensation enhancement by the Sub Court confirmed; connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

The Special Tahsildar Vs Eswaran — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶7

A.S.Nos.466 to 492, 495 to 570 & 586 to 611 of 2014

¶8

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) MRL (Now CPCL) Aromatic Project Saidapet Chennai 600 015. ... Appellant/Referring in all the Appeals Vs. Eswaran ...R1/Claimant in A.S.466 of 2014 Baskaran ...R1/Claimant in A.S.467 of 2014 Subramani ...R1/Claimant in A.S.468 of 2014 Vijayakumar ...R1/Claimant in A.S.469 of 2014 Bangaru ...R1/Claimant in A.S.470 of 2014 Bangaru ...R1/Claimant in A.S.471 of 2014 Senthamarai ...R1/Claimant in A.S.472 of 2014 Ramalingam ...R1/Claimant in A.S.473 of 2014 Ramkumar ...R1/Claimant in A.S.474 of 2014 Paranthaman ...R1/Claimant in A.S.475 of 2014 Rajammal ...R1/Claimant in A.S.476 of 2014 Elumalai ...R1/Claimant in A.S.477 of 2014 Unnikrishnan ...R1/Claimant in A.S.478 of 2014 Sampath ...R1/Claimant in A.S.479 of 2014 Saratha ...R1/Claimant in A.S.480 of 2014 Gowribai ...R1/Claimant in A.S.481 of 2014 Chellapandian @ Selvapandian ...R1/Claimant in A.S.482 of 2014 Bharathy ...R1/Claimant in A.S.483 of 2014 Devarajan ...R1/Claimant in A.S.484 of 2014 Samundeshwari ...R1/Claimant in A.S.485 of 2014 Kandhasamy ...R1/Claimant in A.S.486 of 2014 J.Muthuraja ...R1/Claimant in A.S.487 of 2014 J.Muthuraja ...R1/Claimant in A.S.488 of 2014 Maragatham ...R1/Claimant in A.S.489 of 2014 Chandirababu ...R1/Claimant in A.S.490 of 2014 Bangaru ...R1/Claimant in A.S.491 of 2014 Bangaru ...R1/Claimant in A.S.492 of 2014

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Vinnarasu ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.495 of 2014
R.Vasantha ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.496 of 2014
Murugan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.497 of 2014
Muthurajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.498 of 2014
Subramani ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.499 of 2014
Kamala ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.500 of 2014
Shanthi Lakshmi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.501 of 2014
Kabali ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.502 of 2014
Mohammad Iqbal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.503 of 2014
Jayasingh ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.504 of 2014
Radhakrishnan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.505 of 2014
Srinivasan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.506 of 2014
Govindarajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.507 of 2014
Jayalakshmi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.508 of 2014
Saraswathi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.509 of 2014
Kannan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.510 of 2014
Paneerselvam ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.511 of 2014
Kasi Mudaliar ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.512 of 2014
Samar Poori ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.513 of 2014
Nagiladevi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.514 of 2014
Balasubramani ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.515 of 2014
Natarajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.516 of 2014
Paneerselvam ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.517 of 2014
C.R.Varadhan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.518 of 2014
David Sherif ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.519 of 2014
Eagambaram ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.520 of 2014
Chandiran ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.521 of 2014
Sankarankutty ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.522 of 2014
Krishnamurthy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.523 of 2014
Kandasamy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.524 of 2014
Kamatchiammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.525 of 2014
Amaravathy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.526 of 2014
Jayakumar ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.527 of 2014
Meganathan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.528 of 2014
Radhakrishnan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.529 of 2014
Rajaram ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.530 of 2014
Easurathinam ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.531 of 2014
Govindan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.532 of 2014
Pachiappan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.533 of 2014
Gnanambikai ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.534 of 2014
Dhananjeyan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.535 of 2014
Boominathan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.536 of 2014
Krishnamoorthy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.537 of 2014
Balasubramaniyam ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.538 of 2014
Sadhanandakumar ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.539 of 2014
Sankari ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.540 of 2014
Srinivasan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.541 of 2014
Manickam ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.542 of 2014
Lalitha ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.543 of 2014

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Maideen Beevi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.544 of 2014
Nagammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.545 of 2014
David Thilagar ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.546 of 2014
Murugan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.547 of 2014
Sarojammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.548 of 2014
Eagambaram ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.549 of 2014
Arumuga Achari ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.550 of 2014
Murugan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.551 of 2014
Subramani ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.552 of 2014
Nagammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.553 of 2014
Sarojammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.554 of 2014
Alamelu ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.555 of 2014
Chitra ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.556 of 2014
Sivagami ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.557 of 2014
Chakkarabani ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.558 of 2014
Ranganathan Mudhaliar ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.559 of 2014
Murugesan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.560 of 2014
Pushpavalli ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.561 of 2014
Sarojini ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.562 of 2014
Arumuga Achari ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.563 of 2014
Chitra ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.564 of 2014
Eagambaram ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.565 of 2014
Lakshmiammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.566 of 2014
Gnanasekaran ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.567 of 2014
V.Murthy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.568 of 2014
A.Radhakrishnan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.569 of 2014
Subbulakshmi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.570 of 2014
Nagammal ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.586 of 2014
Ranjini ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.587 of 2014
Samundeshwari ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.588 of 2014
Ravuth Sherif ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.589 of 2014
Manogaran ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.590 of 2014
Panduranga Gounder ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.591 of 2014
Thiyagarajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.592 of 2014
George Francis ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.593 of 2014
Jadamuni ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.594 of 2014
Vijaya ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.595 of 2014
Thilagavathy ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.596 of 2014
Sagunthala ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.597 of 2014
Devayani ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.598 of 2014
Sundaram ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.599 of 2014
Natarajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.600 of 2014
Ayusha Bevi ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.601 of 2014
Surpudeen ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.602 of 2014
Sathyanarayana Chetty ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.603 of 2014
Ethirajan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.604 of 2014
Dillibabu ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.605 of 2014
Kannaiyan ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.606 of 2014
Mumthaj ...R1/Claimant	in A.S.607 of 2014

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Poongodi ...R1/Claimant in A.S.608 of 2014 Pavunammal ...R1/Claimant in A.S.609 of 2014 Desappan ...R1/Claimant in A.S.610 of 2014 Lalitha ...R1/Claimant in A.S.611 of 2014

¶15

The Member Secretary MRL (now CPCL) No.552, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai 18.

¶16

Project Officer AROCHEM, No.88, Anna Salai SPIC Centre, Guindy Chennai 32. ...2nd & 3rd Respondents/Beneficiaries in all the Appeals

¶17

Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order dated 24.6.2013 made in LAOP Nos.1037/98, 766/98, 767/98, 770/98, 892/98, 893/98, 895/98, 896/98, 897/98, 898/98, 902/98, 906/98, 918/98, 920/98, 922/98, 1011/98, 1354/98, 1385/98, 1387/98, 1388/98, 1389/98, 1390/98, 1391/98, 1392/98, 1393/98, 1394/98, 1395/98, 1405/98, 496/98, 501/98, 515/98, 535/98, 542/98, 543/98, 544/98, 550/98, 549/98, 551/98, 752/98, 724/98, 756/98, 760/98, 761/98, 762/98, 763/98, 764/98, 768/98, 1407/98, 1412/98, 1413/98, 1414/98, 505/98, 511/98, 525/98, 765/98, 907/98, 908/98, 909/98, 910/98, 911/98, 912/98, 913/98, 915/98, 916/98, 917/98, 921/98, 923/98, 924/98, 925/98, 926/98, 927/98, 928/98, 929/98, 930/98, 979/98, 985/98, 1415/98, 498/98, 499/98, 502/98, 506/98, 512/98, 517/98, 518/98, 519/98, 520/98, 521/98, 500/98, 522/98, 523/98, 524/98, 528/98, 529/98, 530/98, 532/90, 533/98, 536/98, 537/98, 538/98, 539/98, 540/98, 541/98, 919/98, 509/98, 526/98, 527/98, 534/98, 546/98, 547/98, 548/98, 1396/98, 1397/98, 1398/98, 1400/98, 1401/98, 1403/98, 1404/98, 1411/98, 1416/98, 1417/98, 1418/98, 1419/98, 1420/98, 1421/98, 1422/98, 1423/98, 1424/98, 1425/98 & 1402/98 on the file of Sub Court, Ponneri.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Additional Government Pleader(AS) For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered by V.Ramasubramanian,J.)

¶22

All these 129 appeals are filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the enhancement of compensation granted by the Sub Court, Ponneri, in a batch of reference under Section 18.

¶23

Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶24

By a notification dated 19.12.1990 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu sought to acquire a vast extent of land, some of which were in Mathur Village, formerly of Saidapet Taluk and later of Madhavaram Taluk, Thiruvallur District, for the setting up of an aromatic complex. After completing enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed two different awards bearing Nos.4 of 1993 and 7 of 1993 respectively on 18.6.1993 and 15.10.1993, fixing the rate of compensation at Rs.200/- per cent.

¶25

References made under Section 18 were taken on file by the Sub Court, Ponneri, in a batch of 129 Land Acquisition Original Petitions, with the lead case bearing LAOP No.1037 of 1998. By a judgment and decree dated 24.6.2013, the Sub Court, Ponneri, enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,750/- per cent. Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, the Special Tahsildar is on appeal.

¶26

The Land Acquisition Officer took note of the fact that 286 sale transactions had taken place during the relevant period. Out of them, 263 were discarded as relating to plots, 3 were discarded as relating to village sites, 5 were discarded as they related to poramboke land and 13 were discarded on the ground that they related to higher sale value. Eventually, on the basis of the sale transaction at serial No.21, where under the land of an extent of 0.59 acres had been sold for Rs.11,800/- under a sale deed dated 31.01.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.200/- per cent.

¶27

Before the Sub Court, the claimant in one of the petitions was examined as CW1 and he filed 6 sale deeds as Exx.C1 to C6. The Special Tahsildar was examined as RW1. The reports of the Advocate Commissioner were filed as Exx.X1 and X2. The valuation given by the Engineer of the Public Works Department was marked as Ex.X3.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

The Sub Court, Ponneri, adopted a short cut to find out the market value. After rejecting the valuation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and rightly so, the Sub Court found that as per the data sales, the market value of the property was Rs.8,750/- per cent and that the same had also been confirmed by Exx.C1 to C6. Therefore, the Sub Court held that the fixation of Rs.4,750/- per cent would meet the ends of justice.

¶30

Assailing the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that they are completely bereft of any reasoning. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Court below failed to follow the mandate of law, as contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.

¶31

The above contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be rejected outright as unacceptable. The Sub Court had simply reproduced certain portions of the decisions cited before it and abruptly came to a conclusion in paragraph 23 of its award that the market value could be fixed at Rs.4,750/- per cent. Therefore, we are now constrained to independently go into the question with reference to the evidence produced before the Sub Court.

¶32

At the outset, we have to point out that the Land Acquisition Officer was completely in error in rejecting 263 sale transactions out of data sales of 286 transactions, on the ground that they related to sale of plots. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants have produced a tabulation which shows that all the respondents herein own very small extent of land, which are actually house sites plots. Out of 129 respondents herein, about 57 persons own only 5 cents or 5½ cents of land. A majority of the remaining persons own even smaller extents, such as 4 cents, 2.75 cents, 1 cent, etc. Only 7 out of 129 respondents own more than 10 cents of the land.

¶33

Therefore, two facts, namely (a) that all the respondents/claimants herein owned only house site plots of around 5 cents, and (b) that about 263 out of 286 data sales related to the sale of house sites plots make it clear that the value indicated in those 263 sale transactions could not have been discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground on which he has discarded them.

¶34

As stated earlier, the respondents/claimants produced 6 different sale deeds as Exx.C1 to C6. All of them were dated prior to the date of issue of notification under Section 4(1). The market value of land, as reflected in Exx.C1 to C6

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

respectively were Rs.8,549/-, Rs.8008/-, Rs.7,333/-, Rs.6,545/-, Rs.8,097/- and Rs.8,720/-. Particularly, Ex.C4 is a sale deed dated 07.9.1990, where under the land of an extent of 5.50 cents had been sold for Rs.36,000/- at a rate of Rs.6,545/- per cent. Therefore, the Court below ought to have at least adopted Rs.6,545/- per cent at the minimum.

¶37

Though the respondents have not come up with any appeal or cross objections for enhancement, this Court is entitled to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Order XLI, Rule 33, CPC. But, unfortunately, the present batch of cases formed part of a huge batch, some of which had been disposed of by us earlier. Therefore, an enhancement granted now will open pandora's box in respect of other cases. Therefore, this is actually a case where the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced. If that is so, the Special Tahsildar cannot have any objection at least to the confirmation of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. The Additional Government Pleader is entitled to separate fees in respect of each of these appeals.

¶38

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Sub Court, Ponneri.
2.The Government Pleader,
High Court, Madras.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate, S.R.No.34627 +1cc to Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.34613

¶40

A.S.Nos.466 to 492, 495 to 570 & 586 to 611 of 2014 VGI(CO) CA(04/07/2016)

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Special Tahsildar v. Eswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Eswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Spl Tashildar Vs Rajappa S/O. Sonnappa

Jayaraman, Vs Chellmmal,W/O.Gopal Rathinam

M/S.Royal Sundaram Aliance Ins Vs M.Chithra

Union of India, Ministry of Vs The Registrar

The Specialtahsildar Vs Kumuthavalli

The Special Tahsildar Vs K.Ganesan