Dismissed

The Special Tahsildar v. K.a.Sampath

Madras HC13 Dec 2023AS/434/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the Subordinate Judge's order which enhanced compensation awarded for acquired land, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore are confirmed.

The Special Tahsildar Vs K.a.Sampath — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

AS.No.434 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 13.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

AS.No.434 of 2013

¶7

The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Land Acquisition, Vellore ... Appellant Vs. K.A.Sampath ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in LAOP.No.22 of 1991 dated 29.02.1996.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.G.Velu, Additional Government Pleader(AS)

¶10

For Respondent : Mrs.V.Srimathi

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This Appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree of the

¶13

learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in LAOP.No.22 of 1991 dated 29.02.1996.

¶14

1/4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

AS.No.434 of 2013

¶17

The appellant is the Acquisition Officer and the respondent is the claimant. The land belongs to the respondent was acquired for the purpose of providing house plots for the Adidravidas. After acquisition, the appellant herein passed award to the tune of Rs.49,710/-. It was received without prejudice to the respondent's right to file application for enhancement. After considering the documents marked by the claimant i.e.Ex.1 to Ex.5 , the trial court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,100/- per cent. Thereafter, the enhanced compensation amount was also paid to the claimant. Further this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, this appeal suit fails.

¶18

Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed and the judgment and

¶19

decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in LAOP.No.22 of 1991 dated 29.02.1996 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

13.12.2023

¶21

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order /Non-speaking order lok

¶22

2/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

AS.No.434 of 2013

¶25

¶26

1.The learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore 2.Section Officer,

¶27

V.R.Section,

¶28

High Court of Madras

¶29

3/4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

AS.No.434 of 2013

¶32

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

AS.No.434 of 2013

13.12.2023

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Special Tahsildar v. K.a.Sampath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. K.a.Sampath

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

R.S.Ranganathan Vs R.Rangarajan

Maersk Line Rep by Their Agent Vs Priya Dye & Chemicals

Thulasi Gounder, Vs Kanagarani

C.Madanraj Vs Babu @ R.Srinivasan

V.B.Karunagiri (Died) Vs S.Veeraraghavan

The Purasawakkam Permanent Vs M.Dharmaraja (Died)