Partly allowed

Syed Sulthan Beevi v. the Union of India

Madras HC15 Jul 2025AS/10/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellants appealed against the reference court's award enhancing compensation to Rs.7,000/- per Are. Relying on a prior similar order in AS Nos.568-580/2012, the Court enhanced compensation by Rs.1,500/- per Are to Rs.8,500/- per Are, confirming solatium and interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,500/- per Are. Solatium and interest confirmed. Costs awarded.

Syed Sulthan Beevi Vs the Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

AS No.10 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-07-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

AS No. 10 of 2019

¶7

Syed Sulthan Beevi

¶8

Mohammed Rafick

¶9

...Appellants

¶10

¶11

The Union of India, Rep. By the Secretary to Government (Revenue) Pondicherry.

¶12

The Land Acquisition Officer cum Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikkal.

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: This appeal suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894., against the judgement and decree dt.28.02.2012 passed in LAOP. No.38/2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikkal.

¶15

For Appellant(s): Ms.G.Lavanya for M/s.T.Saikrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, GA Puducherry RR1 & 2

¶16

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

¶17

AS No.10 of 2019

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Court at Karaikkal

¶20

dated 28.02.2012 in LAOP No.38/2011, the claimants have preferred this appeal suit for enhancement of compensation.

¶21

There was a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the acquisition in respect of the land comprised in R.S.No.221/4 situated at Vanjore Revenue Village at Vanjore to an extent of 01H.18A.86Ca acquired by the Government for the purpose of development of Port at Vanjore vide award No.8729 of 2005 dated 05.02.2010.

¶22

The brief case of the claimants is as follows: The respondent, Government of Puducherry, acquired the lands under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification dated 29.12.2005, for the purpose of development of Port at Vanjore Revenue Village at Vanjore. The claimants land comprised in RS.No.221/4, situated at Vanjore Revenue Village to an extent of

¶23

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

¶24

AS No.10 of 2019

¶25

01H.18A.86Ca was acquired. The enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted and the second respondent herein passed an award to the tune of Rs.6,65,845/- fixing the rate at Rs.3,804/- per Are. The appellants protested the claim and claimed compensation under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking Rs.75,000/- per Are. According to the claimants, the land was situated at prime location, surrounded by 34 small-scale industries and Railway Station. The land did not require any sand filling or reclamation and it was on a pucca road. The second respondent collected data of 24 sale deeds registered during past one year of the date of notification. The second respondent had retained seven sale deeds and rejected 17 others. The respondent fixed Rs.3,804/- as prevailing market value for one Are. According to the claimants, the second respondent has conveniently rejected the sale deeds which carried a higher amount and chose only sale deeds which was convenient

¶26

to the Government as it carried very less amount.

¶27

The respondents herein has filed a detailed counter stating that there

¶28

was no error or illegality in arriving at a sum of Rs.3,804/- per Are. Indeed, the

¶29

Government have fixed Rs.4,965/- per Are and deducted 23.38% towards

¶30

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

¶31

AS No.10 of 2019

¶32

development charges. Thereafter, arrived at the said sum of Rs.3,804/- per Are.

¶33

The respondent official also stoutly denied the averment made by the claimants

¶34

that the land was situated at prime locality. The second respondent stated in his

¶35

counter that the land was at far away from the Railway station. The second respondent, therefore, contended that the amount sought for at Rs.75,000/- per

¶36

Are, is exorbitant and the same need not be considered.

¶37

During the trial, the first appellant herein has chosen to examine herself

¶38

as CW1 and the Thasildar has examined as RW1 on the side of the Government.

¶39

Nine documents were filed on the appellants side and four documents were exhibited on the respondent side.

¶40

The reference court, on an analysis of entire materials placed materials,

¶41

enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs.7,000/- per Are. The learned Judge also fixed solotium at 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the appellant would be entitled for 12% for additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of taking

¶42

possession of the land. The reference Court further held that the claimants

¶43

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

¶44

AS No.10 of 2019

¶45

would be entitled for statutory interest on such enhanced amount under Section

¶46

28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the same, seeking enhancement of

¶47

compensation, the claimants have come forward with this appeal suit.

¶48

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the

¶49

appellants submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer

¶50

res integra and the similar issue has already been decided by the learned Single

¶51

Judge of this Court in A.S.No.568 to 580 of 2012 etc., batch on 20.03.2014 and

¶52

therefore the same order may be passed in the present appeal as well.

¶53

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has not

¶54

disputed the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and he has

¶55

no serious objection for the said order being passed.

¶56

The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 20.03.2014

¶57

made in A.S.Nos.568 to 580 of 2012 etc., batch in the case of Ayisha Cani and

¶58

others Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and

¶59

another , in identical circumstances which was also relied upon by the learned

¶60

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

¶61

AS No.10 of 2019

¶62

counsel for the appellants held as under:-

¶63

''In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants/appellants are allowed in part as indicated above enhancing the value by Rs.1500/- per Are thereby fixing the amount at Rs.8500/- per Are (ie., Rs.7000/- + Rs.1500/- = Rs.8500/-) In all other respects, as regards the other statutory benefits, viz., solatium and interest, the orders of the reference court stand confirmed. However, there shall be order as to costs.''

¶64

10. In view of the above fact that the earlier appeal suits involving

¶65

similar issue being allowed in part by this Court, in the aforesaid terms,

¶66

the present appeal suit is to be allowed in part in terms of the above said order of this Court dated 20.03.2014 made in A.S.Nos.568 to 580 of 2012 etc., batch.

¶67

In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed in part enhancing the

¶68

value by Rs.1500/- per Are, thereby fixing the amount at Rs.8,500/- per Are (ie., Rs.7000/- + Rs.1500/- = Rs.8,500/-) In all other respects, as

¶69

regards the other statutory benefits, viz., solatium and interest, the orders

¶70

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

¶71

AS No.10 of 2019

¶72

of the reference court stand confirmed. However, there shall be order as

to costs.

15-07-2025

rli

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

¶77

The Union of India, Rep. By the Secretary to Government (Revenue) Pondicherry.

¶78

The Land Acquisition Officer cum Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikkal.

¶79

The District Judge, Karaikkal.

¶80

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

AS No.10 of 2019

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rli

AS No. 10 of 2019

¶85

15-07-2025

¶86

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

Syed Sulthan Beevi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sulthan Beevi v. the Union of India

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

Ranjana Vs S.Surendranath

Thirupurasundari Vs R.Kumaran

Sivapragasam(Died) Vs Selvaraj

Calianassoundarame Vs Sittra

Rajendran Vs P.M.Ganasekaran

K.V. Narasimmamurthy Vs K.V. Kirubanandam