Dismissed

The Special Tahsildar (La), v. M.S.Perumal

Madras HC14 Oct 2020AS(MD)/63/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The single judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000/- per Cent based on potential and surrounding industries. This court upheld that valuation, finding no infirmity in the award, and directed the court below to disburse the amount to the claimant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. The first respondent / claimant is entitled to benefits as awarded by the Court below in 1992.

The Special Tahsildar (La), Vs M.S.Perumal — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.S(MD).No.63 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ A.S(MD)No.63 of 2015

¶6

The Special Tahsildar (LA),

¶7

South Neighbourhood Scheme,

¶8

Unit II, Madurai – 20. : Referring Officer/Appellant/1^st Respondent

¶9

Vs. 1. M.S. Perumal : 1^st Respondent / Claimant

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai : 2^nd respondent/2^nd Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and Decree of the 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in L.A.O.P.No.88/89, dated 09.09.1992.

¶12

For appellant : Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader For 2^nd respondent : Mr. R. Janarthanan

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Challenging the Award passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1989, dated 09.09.1992, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶15

According to the appellant, the land was acquired for the purpose of promoting Neighbourhood Scheme by the 2^nd respondent herein. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per Cent. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was referred under Section 18(2) of the Act, before the Sub Court, Madurai, wherein the market value was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per Cent.

¶16

The first respondent / claimant has let in evidence to the effect that the acquired land is situated in Madurai – Kanyakumari National Highways and surrounded by Thiyagarajar Mill, Rubber Factory, Civil Supplies Godowns and SIDCO Industrial Estates, as per the Survey No. 34/2, sale deed, dated 20.09.1985, but, the same was later on sold for Rs.1,000/- per Cent and a sale deed, dated 01.02.1985 in S.No.73/S, 5 Cents were sold for Rs.10,000/- and the land in another S.No.80/2, dated 29.12.1984,was sold for Rs.1,000/per Cent.

¶17

The land acquired by the appellant falls within S.No.80/6A, the market value of which is around Rs.5,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/3

¶19

A.S(MD).No.63 of 2015

¶20

However, the Surveyor, who has examined on behalf of the respondents, would state that the land is situated 1 ½ furlongs from the National Highways and the market value is only from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per Cent.

¶21

Considering the evidence on both sides, the Court below, relying on the previous sale deeds, fixed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per Cent. It is relevant to note that the witness, who deposed on behalf of the appellant, himself deposed that the market value of land in S.No.80/6A is from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per Cent, that means the market value one land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was less or actual market value on the date of acquisition.

¶22

Considering the documents marked before the Court, potentiality of the land which is surrounded by several Industries, Government buildings and SIPCOT Industrial Estates, the Court below has fixed the value at Rs.1,000/- per Cent. Admittedly, the land is situated in National Highways, which would definitely fetch higher price. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Court below.

¶23

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit for consideration in the present appeal suit. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

The first respondent / claimant is entitled to all the benefits as awarded by the learned 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in L.A.O.P.No. 88 of 1989, dated 09.09.1992. The Court below is directed to disburse the amount to the first respondent / claimant, if the amount has already been deposited by the second respondent.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

trp

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

A.S(MD).No.63 of 2015

¶32

¶33

1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

¶34

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai

¶35

Copy to: The Section Officer(2Copies) V.R Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-20145[F] dated 15/10/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.R. JANARTHANAN, Advocate ( SR-20444[F] dated 16/10/2020 )

¶37

A.S(MD)No.63 of 2015 14.10.2020

¶38

PK(CO) KB(19.11.2020) 3P 7C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

The Special Tahsildar (La), v. M.S.Perumal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar (La), v. M.S.Perumal

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 Revenue Divisional Officer Vs K.Rajamanickam Chettiar (*)

The Special Tahsildar, Vs P.Murugeshapandian (Died)

Senthur Pandian Nadar Vs Jeypandia Nadar (Died)

Chellam Vs Gurusamy

The Special Tahsildar, Vs Anandaraj

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs M.Selvaraj