Second Appeal against enhancement of land acquisition compensation. The Single Judge held no error as the land was urbanized with surrounding facilities, justified square feet valuation at Rs.8.00, and overruled interests exceeding 6%. Appeal dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed.
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 : Pronounced on: 06.09.2021 15.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Tirupattur. .. Appellant/Respondent /Land Acquisition Officer Vs.
Sampooranammal(died) S.Venkatesan .. Respondent/Appellant/Claimant
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for ADW schemes Act 31/78 r/w section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgement and Decree made in C.M.A.No.9/1996 dated 05.10.2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur, modifying the award made in Award No.34/95-96, dated.22.03.1996 passed by the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tirupattur.
J U D G M E N T (Heard through video conferencing)
This Second Appeal arises out of the judgement and decree dated 05.10.205 passed by the first Appellate Court/Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District in C.M.A.No.9 of 1996 modifying the Award made in Award No.34/1995-96 dated 22.03.1998 passed by the Special Tahsildar( Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tirupattur.
“ 1.Whether the Court below erred in placing reliance upon a sale deed, Ex.A.1 under which land classified as house site was conveyed when the land acquired is admittedly agricultural land and is being used as such?
2.Whether the Court below erred in fixing the compensation at square feet basis when the total land acquired is more than 3 acres?
3.Whether the Court below erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9%, 12% and 15 % for different periods when Act 31/78 contemplates awarding of interest only at the rate of 6%?
4.Whether the Court below erred in not appreciating the statutory provisions of Section 8 of the Act 31/78, which clearly lays down that the likelihood of increase of the value of the property due to the use to which it will be put after acquisition shall not be taken into consideration?”
In the result the Second Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is confirmed. The connected miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
jrs To
1.The Sub Court, Tirupattur. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (ADW), Thirupathur, Vellore District. Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to the Government Pleader, SR.No.47295 S.A.No.991/2009 and M.P.No. 1/2009
SS(CO) CB(17/02/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court below erred in fixing compensation on a square feet basis for agricultural land acquired for free house sites.
Whether the Court below erred in awarding interest at rates higher than the statutory 6%.
Whether the Court below erred in considering market escalation and surrounding facilities for valuation under Section 8 of the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Tirupattur
S.Venkatesan
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
