Partly allowed

Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkatesan

Madras HC27 Jul 2023CRP/2052/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed the sub court's 12% annual interest enhancement in land acquisition compensation, citing a Division Bench precedent. The court fixed the land value at Rs.2,000 per sq.ft with a 6% annual increase instead.

What did the court decide?

Fixed land value at Rs.2,000 per square foot with 6% annual increase; ordered petitioner to disburse additional amount within three months.

Land Acquisition Officer Vs Venkatesan — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 27.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶7

Land Acquisition Officer, District Revenue Office Vellore

... Petitioner

Vs.

Venkatesan

...Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to

¶13

set aside the Judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.104 of 2015 dated

¶14

23.06.2015 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader (AS)

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.K.Elango for M/s Krishnan Law Associates

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the

¶19

Judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.104 of 2015 dated 23.06.2015

¶20

on the file of Sub Court, Vellore.

¶21

1/7

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶24

Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader

¶25

(AS) and Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel for M/s Krishna Law Associates, appearing for respondent.

¶26

In this case, the residential lands in Ulli village in S.No.126/2D3 and other survey numbers have been acquired for formation of Railway Over bridge on the road at Ulli Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. The total extent of acquired land was of 8545 Sq.mtr. The date of notification under Section 15(2) of Highways Act was on 08.03.2010. The award was passed in Award No.1 of 2013 dated 11.12.2013. As against the petition preferred by the claimants, the learned Subordinate Court, Vellore has passed an order by fixing the land value as Rs.2,550/- per square feet, Aggrieved over the same, the Land Acquisition Officer, Vellore has come up with the present Revision.

¶27

3a. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below erred in enhancing the compensation exorbitantly from Rs.447/- per sq.mtr to Rs.2,550/- per sq.ft ., in violation of the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that too when the claimants could not produce any proper documents to substantiate the enhanced claim.

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶31

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶32

petitioner also submits that the exhibit marked by the claimants are for smaller extent of land and erred in relying upon the same, which cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the value of the acquired land, when it is in hectareage. That apart, the court below has merely on surmise and conjectures came to the conclusion and fixed the value as Rs.2,550/- per square feet.

¶33

Lastly, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner contends that the enhancement made by the court are highly excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and hence the order passed by the court below are unsustainable, thereby pleaded to set aside the order passed by the court below.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / claimant submits that the court below has rightly considered the sale deed which is of the higher value. The lands are completely developed. The fact that there are existing buildings, shops in the land has also been noted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, there is no question of making any deduction towards the development charges. Hence, no interference is required.

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶38

On a perusal of the order passed by the court below it is seen that

¶39

the claimants have filed the documents, viz., Exs.C.1 to C.4 and the petitioner has filed Ex.R1 to R4 before the court below for reference. In the said exhibits, the court below has taken Ex.C.4, [viz., Document no.7432/2011 dated 08.09.2011, sale deed registered for 580 Sq.ft., thereby sold for a sum of Rs.11,04,540/-] and fixed Rs.1,904/- per square feet, and in addition to that, fixed 12% increase per year in the said amount and accordingly fixed Rs.2,550/- per square feet. On the side of the petitioner, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked to substantiate their claim.

¶40

It is no doubt true that Ex.C.4 and Ex.R.2 are after the issuance of

¶41

notification. However, the court below has taken into consideration Ex.C.4 and fixed a sum of Rs.1,904/- as land value, which does not need any interference and further awarded 12% increase of the land value per year, which this Court is of the view that the same is on the higher side

¶42

While dealing with a similar case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.103 of 2018 etc., batch dated 25.04.2019 [The District Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Vellore District Vs. Kumaresan and Others] at Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 had held the 4/7

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶45

following:-

¶46

“13. We find that practically there was no difference in the dates. The last date of publication of the notification in the locality under Section 15(2) of the Act was on 23.5.2010. Secondly, S.No.307/8, which is subject matter of Ex.C2, is slightly situated far away from S.No.274/5, though S.No.154/2A which has also been relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General is also a bit far away. By that way, the Reference Court ought not to have made any increase. There is no material to hold that the valuation has increased within a period of few months. Moreover, the extent involved in Ex.C2 is much higher than the one which has been taken note of by the Land Acquisition Officer, though they have not been marked. Though we are not accepting the sale deeds taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer, we are of the view that the Reference Court ought not to have made 12% enhancement per year in view of the aforesaid facts.

¶47

14. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the award of the Reference Court insofar as enhancing the award by 12% from the valuation fixed at Rs.2000/- per sq ft. Thus, the appeal stands allowed in part. The appellants are directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

¶48

Taking note of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division

¶49

Bench of this Court mentioned supra, this Court is inclined to fix the increase

¶50

5/7

¶51

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

¶52

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶53

of the land value at 6% per year since there is a difference of 4 years. Accordingly , this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.1,904/- as per Ex.C.4, dated 08.09.2011 and 6% increase per year, [Rs.1,904/- + Rs.114.24 [being 6% of amount increase per year] = Rs.2,018/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.2,000/-], accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,000/- per Sq.Ft., is hereby uniformly fixed as a land value.

¶54

In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to disburse the amount to the claimant(s) within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of copy of this order.. Except the above said modification, the order passed by the court below in L.A.O.P.No.104 of 2015 remains unaltered. The claimant is entitled

¶55

to all the statutory benefits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed . No costs.

¶56

27.07.2023

¶57

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order / non speaking order

¶58

ssd

¶59

6/7

¶60

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

¶61

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶62

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,

¶63

ssd

¶64

¶65

The Sub Court, Vellore.

¶66

C.R.P.No.2052 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.12749 of 2023

¶67

27.07.2023

¶68

7/7

¶69

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

Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkatesan

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

F. Jenifer Vs S.Mickel George

Pappathi Vs Subramani @ Kaliyappan

Kiruthika @ Vijayalakshmi Vs T.Viswanathan @ Viswanathasharma

Land Acquisition Officer Vs Sureshkumar

The District Revenue Office-Cum- Vs Manoharan

Land Acquisition Officer, Vs Manoharan