The Special Tahsildar v. Vijayakumar

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 29.10.2015 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.MATHIVANAN A.S.Nos.399 to 487 of 2015 and AS.No.1004 of 2015 (AS.SR.No.14407 of 2015 - against LAOP.No.1720 of 1998) & all connected pending MPs The Special Tahsildar (LA), MRL (CPCL) Aromatic Complex, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

...Appellant in all the ASs.

Ist Respondent in A.S.No LAOP NO 1.Vijaya Kumar 399/15 50/10 2.Rama Chandra Babu 400/15 243/98 3.Gowtham Chand jain 401/15 252/98 4.K.Krishnan 402/15 253/98 5.Saley Mathew 403/15 254/98 6.Mohammad Ayab 404/15 255/98 7.Shabnam 405/15 256/98 8.Manoharan 406/15 257/98 9.J.Sasidharan 407/15 258/98 10.Abdul Waheed 408/15 259/98 11.Varalakshmi 409/15 382/98 12.Padmanabhan 410/15 559/98 13.Natarajan 411/15 567/98 14.Dasarathan 412/15 568/98 15.Selvaraj 413/15 575/98 16.Rajalakshmi 414 619/98 17.Annakkilli 415 628/98 18.Arunachalam 416 691/98 19.Elumalai 417 811/98 20.Balasubramanian 418 817/98 21.Velmurugan 419 820/98 22.Rama Chandran 420 829/98 23.Hemavathi 421 831/98 24.Vijayan 422 862/98 25.Vijayan 423 863/98 26.Pervathaveni chittamma 424 864/98 27.Sakunthala 425 875/98 28.Annakkilli 426 877/98

29.Munusamy 427 886/98 30.Purusothaman 428 888/98 31.Mukundan 429 938/98 32.M.E.Thiagarajan 430 948/98 33.Viswanatha Rao 431/15 964/98 34.Jeevanesan 432/15 966/98 35.Loganathan 1004/15 1720/98 36.Sampath kumar 433/15 973/98 37.M.Kanniah 434/15 1053/98 38.T.Dharanam 435/15 1054/98 39.Shanthi 436/15 1056/98 40.Lakshmiammal 437/15 1067/98 41.N.Ramadoss 438/15 1073/98 42.Esakkiammal 439/15 1110/98 43.Ramu 440/15 1130/98 44.Subramani 441/15 1133/98 45.Chandrasekaran 442/15 1140/98 46.Karthigai 443/15 1143/98 47.C.K.Varadharajan 444/15 1150/98 48.S.Veerapandian 445/15 1158/98 49.K.Vallavan 446/15 1169/98 Varadan(Died) 50.Egavalli 51.Kalpana 52.Venkatesan 53.Kumaran Respondents 1 to 4 447/15 1181/98 54.K.Sekar 448/15 1185/98 55.Jayaraman 449/15 1233/98 56.R.Kumar 450/15 1240/98 57.Amirthalingam 451/15 1253/98 58.

Krishnaveni Ammal 452/15 to 457/15 1255/98 to 1260/98 59.Kuppammal 458 1263/98 60.Parangusan 459/15 1302/98 61.Chandra 460 1441/98 A.A.Raghavan(Died) 62.A.R.Lalitha 63.A.R.Sujitha 64.A.R.Balasubramani 65.A.R.Sujithra Respondent 1 to 4 461 1445/98 66.Natarajan 462 1470/98 67.Seethalakshmi 463 1491/98 68.Perundevi 464 1581/98 69.Subramaniyam 465 1589/98 70.Gopal Rao 466 1590/98 71.Poppara Subhammal 467 1608/98 72.Radhakrishnan 468 1609/98 73.Nagarajan 469 1611/98 74.Shanmuga Kani 470 1651/98 75.

76.Jayaraman 472 1718/98 77.Rajeshwar 473 1729/98 78.Gangaraj 474 1775/98 79.P.G.Rao 475 1781/98 80.E.Prabhakaran 476 1782/98 81.Ramachandralal 477 1789/98 82.Meenakumari 83.Yasdodhe 84.Somasundaram Respondents 1 to 4 85.Selvaraj 478/15 7/2009 86.Sasikumar 479/15 9/2009 87.Kanniammal 480/15 10/2009 88.Kasthuri 481/15 11/2009 89.Jothi 482/15 12/2009 90.Arumuga Naicker 483/15 13/2009 91.Natarajan 484/15 16/2009 92.Parthasarathi 485/15 17/2009 93.D.P.Balan 486/15 18/2009 94.Elumalai 487/15 89/2002 95.The Company Secretary,CPCL Chennai-18. Respondent in As.No.399/15 96.The Chairman & Managing Director, TamilNadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (TIDCO) Egmore, Chennai-8. 2nd Respondent in A.S.Nos.400,410 to 415/15 422 to 428, 451 to 458, 97.Raj Lubricants Private Ltd., rep by its Proprietor D.Nahavathy Chennai-103.

2nd Respondent in A.S.Nos.401 to 408/2015 98.The Company Secretary, Madras Refineries Ltd., Chennai-1. 2nd Respondent in A.S.Nos.409,429 to 446, 448 to 450,459,460,462, 464 to 476,1004, 478 to 487 of 2015 ...5th Respondent in A.S.No.447/15,461,477 of 2015 99.The Company Secretary, MRL (CPCL), Chennai-3. 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.

100.Gupta Investment Corporation Ltd., rep by its Proprietor, Nammaya Maestrist Chennai-1. ...2nd Respondent in A.S.No.463 of 2015 Prayer: Appeals Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed against the Common Judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Ponneri, in L.A.O.P.Nos.

50/10,243/98,252/98,253/98,254/98,255/98,256/98,257/98, 258/98, 259/98,382/98,559/98,567/98,568/98,575/98,619/98, 628/98,691/98,811/98,817/98,820/98,829/98,831/98,862/98, 863/98,864/98,875/98,877/98,886/98,888/98, 938/98,948/98,964/98,966/98,1720/98, 973/98, 1053/98,1054/98,1056/98, 1067/98,1073/98,1110/98, 1130/98, 1133/98, 1140/98,1143/98,1150/98, 1158/98, 1169/98, 447/15, 1181/98, 1185/98, 1233/98, 1240/98, 1253/98, 1255/98 to 1260/98, 1263/98, 1302/98,1441/98,1445/98, 1470/98, 1491/98, 1581/98, 1589/98, 1590/98, 1608/98,1609/98,1611/98,1651/98,1715/98,1718/98,1729/98,1775/98, 1781/98, 1782/98,1789/98,7/2009,9/2009,10/2009,11/2009,12/2009, 13/2009,16/2009,17/2009, 18/2009, 89/2002, dated .22/9/2014 respectively.

For Appellant in all the appeals : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, AGP For Claimants :

Mr.K.Venkatasubbaraju For CPCL :

Mr.Senthilkumar for M/s.Dua Associates For-TNDIO, Gupta Investment Corpn Ltd., -Saved-No APD For M/s.Raju Lubricants :

Mr.S.Sureshkumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) These appeals arise out of the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The appeals are filed by the Special Tahsildar under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.K.Venkatasubbaraju, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Mr.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the Chennai Petro Chemicals Limited and Mr.S.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for M/s.Raju Lubricants.

3. The lands of an extent of 6.44.5 hectares or acres 15.93 cents in Amullavoyal Village, formerly Saidapet Taluk, were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of setting up an aromatic complex and petro based down stream projects. Though several notifications were issued, last of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.11.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award bearing No.8/93 dated 10.11.1993, fixing the compensation at Rs.250/- per cent.

4. On references under Section 18, the Land Acquisition Tribunal passed a common award on 22.9.2014 in a batch of 90 land acquisition original petitions, enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,500/- per cent. Aggrieved by such enhancement, the Special Tahsildar has come up with the above appeals.

5. It is seen from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer that he took into account, about 60 sale transactions that took place during the period from 23.8.1989 to 27.11.1990. Out of the 60 sale transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the sales at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 6, 9 to 19, 40, 41, 45, 46, 49 to 52, 55, 56 and 58 on the ground that they related to unapproved plots with huts and that they cannot be compared for fixing the value of larger extent of agricultural lands. The sales in Sl.Nos.4, 5, 8, 33, 35 and 59 were discarded, as they related to unapproved plots of meagre extent sold at fancy price. The sales in Sl.Nos.20, 22 and 47 were rejected, as they were natham poramboke and put in use for dwelling purpose and they cannot be compared with agricultural lands. The sales pertaining to Sl.No.

7 was rejected, as they related to a sale at exorbitant price. The sales pertaining to Sl.No.38 was rejected, as it related to dry land and cannot be compared with wet lands. The sales at Sl.Nos.21, 32 and 57 were discarded, as the rate was higher, not reflecting the actual market value of agricultural lands. The sales at Sl.Nos.23 to 27, 30, 31, 37 and 42 to 44 were discarded, as the transactions took place between the land owners and real estate agents for the purpose of layout. The sales at S.Nos.28 and 29 were rejected, as they related to both wet and dry lands. The sales at S.No.53 was rejected as it related to a land of an extent of 0.07 cent. The sales at Sl.No.60 was rejected on the ground that it related to an approved plot and that the transaction had taken place knowing the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings.

The sales at Sl.No.1 was discarded, as it related to an approved plot with a structure and on the ground that it cannot be compared with agricultural land. The sales at Sl.No.36 was rejected as it related to wet lands with bushes. The sales at Sl.No.48 was not considered as a similar transaction at S.No.54 was taken into consideration.

6. Eventually, the Land Acquisition Officer took note of the sale transaction at Sl.No.54 among the data sales. Under this sale transaction, an extent of 0.36 cents of wet land was sold for Rs.9,000/- under document No. 2493 of 1990 dated 28.5.1990, which worked out to Rs.250/- per cent. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.250/- per cent on the basis of this transaction.

7. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the land owners examined one person as C.W.1. Six documents were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6 on the side of the claimants. Ex.C.1 was a lease cum sale agreement. Ex.C.2 was a Notification given by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in a daily. Ex.C.3 was a copy of a sale deed dated 5.11.1990. Ex.C4 was the copy of a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.110 Industries Department dated 11.9.2009. Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.6 were the newspaper cuttings. The Special Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1. But, no documents were marked on the side of the Special Tahsildar.

8. The Subordinate Court, Ponneri, without taking any pain to analyse the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,500/- per cent, presumably due to the fact that for the lands acquired for the very same aromatic complex, the Subordinate Court had already fixed the said amount as compensation. Therefore, the Referring Officer is on appeal before us.

9. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Subordinate Court has completely omitted to enter into any discussion about the oral and documentary evidence produced on both sides. After recording a platform rhetoric about the plight of farmers and their right to livelihood, the Tribunal suddenly arrived at a rate of Rs.4,500/- per cent. Therefore, the award of the Subordinate Court is hopelessly devoid of any reasoning.

10. Under normal circumstances, we would be compelled to set aside the award and remit the matter back to the Subordinate Court for a detailed consideration. But, we do not wish to do so for two reasons. The first is that a period of 25 years has passed from the date of issue of the Notification under Section 4(1). Therefore, any order of remand will ruin the land owners. The second reason is that these are regular appeals where we ourselves are entitled to go into the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. Hence, we shall now examine the evidence on record.

11. Ex.C.1 is a lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in favour of a third party. By this agreement, the Chennai Metropolitan Development

Authority agreed to lease out a land at the rate of Rs.635/- per sq.ft. The lessee under this agreement was chosen pursuant to an advertisement in newspapers, the copy of which was marked as Ex.C.2.

12. Similarly, under Ex.C.3 sale deed, a land of an extent of about 1,750 sq.ft was sold for a sum of Rs.29,200/-. Therefore, as per this agreement, the marked value worked out to Rs.7,300/- per cent. Ex.C.4 is a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.110 Industries dated 11.9.2009. This document was marked only to show the potential of the land. The evidence of R.W.1 - Special Tahsildar disclosed that the land had high potential. The area had already developed into an industrially advanced area. Several residential colonies have come up in the vicinity. The village is in the peripheries of Chennai and the evidence shows that the adjoining areas of Manali, Puzhal, etc., have developed into huge townships. Therefore, fixing of compensation at Rs.

4,500/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Tribunal appears to be actually far below the market rate of Rs.7,300/- per cent, though, unfortunately, the Subordinate Court did not provide any reasons for arriving at the value. In other words, on an independent appraisal of the facts and the evidence on record, we come to the conclusion that the award passed by the Subordinate Court does not call for any interference.

13. Accordingly, the above appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all connected pending MPs are also dismissed. The Additional Government Pleader is entitled to separate fees in respect of each of these appeals.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.S.Sureshkumar, Advocate Sr.59419 +1cc to Mr.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.59439 +1cc to Mr.K.Venkatasubba Raju, Advocate Sr.58812 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.59150 A.S.Nos.399 to 487 of 2015 and AS.No.1004 of 2015 (AS.SR.No.14407 of 2015) & & all connected pending MPs sks[co] srg 21/07/2016