Partly allowed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.S.A. Ibrahim (Died)

Madras HC21 Dec 2020AS(MD)/109/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard an Appeal Suit filed under the Land Acquisition Act challenging a Tribunal award of Rs.2,500/- per Cent compensation. Relied on a Division Bench precedent for a similar area fixing compensation at Rs.2,000/-, the court reduced the award amount, partially allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified by reducing the compensation rate from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per Cent.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs M.S.A. Ibrahim (Died) — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.S.(MD).No. 109 of 2012 and

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ

¶6

A.S.(MD).No. 109 of 2012 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶7

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. : Appellant / Referring Officer Vs.

¶8

M.S.A.Ibrahim (died)

¶9

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai.

¶10

3.Nasurnnisha

¶11

4.Meer Bakruthin Munshi

5.Kairunnisha

6.Bajbee

7.Sarabai

8.Kamarunnisha

9.Meer Ahammed Ibrahim 10.Rafia Basree 11. Saiyed Luckmaan Hakkeem : Respondents

¶17

(respondents 3 to 11 are brought on record as

¶18

LRs of the deceased 1^st respondent vide order dated 10.11.2010 and made in MP(MD).Nos. 4 to 6 of 2010 in AS.SR(MD).No. 10035/2010)

¶19

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in LAOP.No.33/1997, dated 29.06.2001 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

¶20

For appellant : Mr.J. Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader

¶21

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Janarthanan

¶22

Standing counsel for TNHB

¶23

For respondents 4 to 11: Mr. V. Nagendran RR1 to 3 : Dismissed

¶24

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

¶25

1/3

¶26

A.S.(MD).No. 109 of 2012 and

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.06.2001 passed in L.A.O.P.No.33 of 1997, on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

¶29

According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, 4(1) Notification was issued on 19.10.1988, for acquiring 2.67.0 Hectares of lands of respondent situated in S.No.37/2 at Thoppur Village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.250/- per Cent. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents / claimants have raised objection and hence, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, the first respondent / claimant himself examined as CW.1 and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 21.08.2000 is marked as Ex.C1.

¶31

Considering the nature of land and potentiality of the same acquisition, the Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.110 of 1998, fixed the award of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per Cent. Following the same, the Tribunal has awarded the same amount of Rs.2,500/- per Cent in the case on hand. Against the said award, the appellant / Referring Officer filed an appeal on the ground that the enhancement is exorbitant and without basis.

¶32

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant produced a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 18.09.2003 made in A.S.Nos.13 and 17 of 2000, referring the Award passed in LAOP.Nos. 24 and 19 of 1996, dated 15.07.1998, wherein, in respect of the acquisition in the very same village, in the year 1991, the market value was determined at Rs.2,000/- per Cent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, notification to the land acquisition was issued much prior to 1988.

¶33

The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the relevant documents of the year 1989 and the various factor, the situation of Madurai Municipal Corporation, Textile Mills, Colleges, Hospital, Warehousing Corporation, Flour Mills etc., had justified the enhancement from Rs.400/- to Rs.2000/- per Cent. Since the present acquisition is also in the very same area and the lands are in same nature, the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench will cover the issue of case on hand.

¶34

Considering the Judgment passed by this Court, I am inclined to modify the award passed by the Tribunal by reducing the compensation from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per Cent. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ award in respect of all other aspects is confirmed.

¶35

2/3

¶36

A.S.(MD).No. 109 of 2012 and

¶37

In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that they have deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents / claimants are entitled to withdraw the modified award amount along with accrued interest. The balance amount shall be withdrawn by the second respondent.

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

trp

¶41

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶42

¶43

1.The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

¶44

2.The Section Officer-2 copies VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

+1 cc to Mr.R.Janarthanan , Advocate SR.No.26924

¶46

+1 cc to Mr.V.Nagendran , Advocate SR.No.27165

¶47

+1 cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.26817

¶48

A.S.(MD).No. 109 of 2012 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013 21.12.2020

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.S.A. Ibrahim (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.S.A. Ibrahim (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabakaran, Vs Sebastian

Prabakaran, Vs Sebastian

Subbarayan(Died) Vs Ganesan

A.Rathinasabapathy(Died) Vs the Special Tahsildar

A.Rathinasabapathy(Died) Vs the Special Tahsildar

Mohamed Ibrahim (Died), M.Alima Biwi, Vs Thuvarnkurichi Muslim Public