Special Tahsildar appealed against a lower court award of Rs. 800 per cent compensation in a land acquisition dispute, arguing for the original Rs. 200 per cent award based on acquisition purpose and acquisition date criteria. The High Court rejected the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 11.07.2017 Delivered on: 26.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN
Special Tahsildar (ADW) Vandhavasi .. Appellant/Respondent/ land Acquisition officer Vs. A.Mohan .. Respondent/Appellant/ Claimant Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree made in C.M.A.No.6/2001 dated 27.03.2002 on the file of Sub Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District modifying the award made in Award No.3/2000-2001 dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Special Tahsildar cum Land Acquisition Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vandhavasi.
For Appellant : Mr.Jayaram Raj Addl.Govt.Pleader (CS) For Respondent : M/s.P.P.Purushothaman and P.Arun Kumar
The Appellant / Land Acquisition Authority, aggrieved over the finding of the Court below, which fixed the compensation for the land acquired, at Rs.800/- per cent, in the order passed in C.M.A.No.6/2001 on 27.03.2002 on the file of Sub Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, has come forward with the second appeal, seeking to set aside the same and to restore the Original Order passed by the Special Tahsildar cum Land Acquisition Officer, Vandhavasi, fixing Rs.200/- per cent, as compensation for the land acquired.
"1. Whether the Court below failed to appreciate the provision of Section 8 of Act 31/1978 wherein the classification of the land as on date of acquisition is the criteria for fixation of compensation and not the purpose for which it has been acquired?
Land Acquisition Authority. Thus, the claimant/landlord concerned, sought to fix the land value of Rs.1,500/- per cent and award the compensation accordingly.
before the court below. The claimant produced a copy of the Award passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA) dated 12.12.2000 as Ex.A.1, wherein the compensation was fixed for the land acquired. According to the Land Acquisition Authority, the said value was fixed on the basis of Ex.B.3 Sale Deed dated 15.09.1999 relating to another property in the same area. The Land Acquisition Authority also produced the map of Parasur Village as Ex.B.2 and also Extract of sale particulars in the locality concerned from 03.09.1999 to 02.09.2000 of the Sale Register Book as Ex.B.1 to support their contention that the value of the land fixed at Rs.200/- per cent is correct. According to the Acquiring Authority concerned, the value of the land was fixed after taking into consideration all the factors like the market value of land and various sale transactions that took place in that area and the land in sale deed relied upon for fixing such compensation was similar in nature to that of the land acquired by them. Hence, Land Acquisition Authority seeks to fix the compensation at Rs.200/- per cent and to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court.
and the same was purchased by him on behalf of Vijayalakshmi Educational Trust as per Ex.P.2 Sale Deed dated 15.09.2000 and the land value was fixed at Rs.800/- per cent. According to P.W.2, the claimant's land will have higher value than the land purchased by him. He further stated that the value of the land may be acquired at Rs.1,500/- per cent, near the appellant's acquired land, he has constructed a Polytechnic and College in land purchased by him. P.W.2 also states that the lands in Parasur Village are fertile lands. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Polytechnic, Bank and Schools were situated near the appellant's acquired land. It is further contended the value of the land is increasing day by day in that area. Further, the Claimant has produced Ex.A3 Sale Deed, whereby the respondent, who is the Power agent of the land owner substantiated the claim of the land owner about the value of the land in the said area. It is evident from the above said documents produced by the claimant that the value of the land in the said area which is higher than the value fixed by the land acquisition authority.
at Rs.800/- per cent on the basis of two sale deeds Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 produced by the claimant, even though it referred to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired and other features which may lead to development of that area. The said reasoning is opposed by the appellant on the ground that the purpose of acquisition cannot be the criteria and classification of land alone can be the basis for fixing the compensation. The same is unacceptable, since the first Appellate court has primarily re-fixed the value only on the basis of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 Sale Deeds relating to the land situated near the claimant's land and not on the basis of purpose or otherwise usage of land as contended by the appellant. In view of the same, the first Appellate Court has correctly relied upon Exs.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds to fix the value of land at Rs.800/- per cent.
14.In the light of the above said discussion and the fact that the land said to be acquired is situated near the main road running between Cheyyar and Thiruvannamalai and the sale deed relied upon by the claimant is relating to the land which is situated adjacent to claimant's land. The First Appellate Court has rightly looked into the same and considered the relevant factors properly and fixed the compensation at Rs.800/- per cent, and the said conclusion is just and proper for the above said land. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court.
15.In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the respondent. Parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vv
To
1 The Sub Judge, Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Special Tahsildar-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer,
Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vandhavasi.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, Advocate Sr. 52670
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader sr. 53521
Judgment
in
Second Appeal No.408 of 2008
VR(15/09/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court below failed to appreciate Section 8 of the Act regarding commission criteria for fixation of compensation?
Whether the Court below erred in not appreciating precedents stating small or large land extent is not the sole criterion for compensation fixation?
Whether the purpose of acquisition or nature of land on the date of notification should be the criteria for determining compensation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Special Tahsildar (ADW) Vandhavasi
A.Mohan
S.Baskaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
