The Special Tahsildar v. Pandiyan

CMP.No.7208 of 2016 in AS. SR.No.15398 of 2016 N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

It is a classic frivolous case. This case has been unnecessarily filed by the Government, that too for meager amount of Rs.22,041/-, which was enhanced by the referral Court. 2.The facts of the case are as follows :- The first respondent herein is the owner of the land measuring about 0.01.5 Hectares in S.No.53/9A at Variyankaval Village in Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, which is acquired for the purpose of Jayankondam Lignite Mines cum Power Project, by virtue of Section 4(1) notification dated 29.01.1999. The Award was passed after enquiry on 16.03.2001, fixing the total value at Rs.250/- per cent. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Special Tahsildar, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, at the instance of the first respondent/claimant.

The Special Court No.I/Sub Judge, Jayankondam in LAOP.No.944 of 2008 by judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 enhanced the value of compensation to Rs.3,784/- per cent. Against the said judgment and decree, the proposed appeal by the first respondent/Referring Officer before this Court. Since, there was a delay of 858 days in filing the proposed

appeal, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay, contending that four Special Tahsildars who have been posted from 09.03.2013 were transferred to some other places and the present Officer was posted on 05.09.2014. Hence, the petition was filed with delay.

3.Heard, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner.

4.Before going into the reasons for condoning the delay, this Court had a chance to go into the merits of the case. The facts not only shocked but also surprised this Court. The extent of property which was acquired from the first respondent is only 0.01.5 Hectares comprised in S.No.53/9A which is equivalent to 3.705cents. The land is not even one ground and it is only a plot measuring 1613sq.fts. This Court can understand, if it is urban property it would have cost more for the Government, whereas it is only a small piece of agriculture land.

5.The Special Court after elaborate trial based on Exs.CW1 and CW2 evidence and also the evidence of the appellants in RW1 to RW4 and documentary evidence Exs.C1 to C17 and Exs.R1 to

R19 and after considering the average value of Exs.C3, C5 and C9 sale deeds arrived the market value of (Rs.10,464 + Rs.4,062 + Rs.2,500 / 3 = Rs.5,675/-). Only after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.1,891/-) towards development charges, compensation was fixed at Rs.3,784/- per cent. When the trial Court considered voluminous evidences, both oral and documentary and determined the compensation after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges at Rs.3,784/- per cent, the appellant should not have filed the present appeal.

6.Assuming for a moment that the value fixed is higher compensation viz., i.e, Rs.250/- per cent enhanced to Rs.3,784/- per cent, the appellant should have considered the extent of property which was acquired from the first respondent. As stated above, the property is not even one ground of agricultural land, which is only to an extent of 3.705 cents. On that score alone, the appeal should not have been filed by the appellants. 7.In this case, the award amount which is the subject matter of the proposed appeal is Rs.22,041/-, even the expense i.e, Court fees, legal fees and the officials transportation charges are taken into consideration, it will be more than the value of the appeal suit.

For such a meager amount, the Government intended to filed appeal. It is an unnecessary appeal, wherein uncharitable comments are being made against the judiciary. This kind of trend has to be nibbed in the bud itself, otherwise judiciary would continued to be blamed for delay in disposal of cases. 8.One more factor which is against the Government is that the time factor. The property was acquired as early as on 29.01.1999 and possession was taken almost 18years back. The respondent/landlord not only lost the property and yet to see the color of the coin. It is not only in this case, invariably in all the cases of land acquisition, mechanically appeals are filed by the Government, irrespective of the extent and the value of the property. The award was passed on 16.03.2001, the referral Court passed the judgment and decree on 12.02.

2013 more than three years have gone. After 858days, this appeal, has been filed along with condone delay petition. As already observed, most of the land loosers' whose properties have been acquired through land acquisition proceedings by various Government authorities are fighting before Courts for years together. It is seen in many cases, the litigations have celebrated silver jubilee.

pillar to post. It makes the litigants to loose their faith in the very judicial system itself. In the present case, the earlier litigation itself is very unwarranted and if it is contested, after 10 years, the expenses would have exceeded the value of the appeal. 9.The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is not convincing, moreover as already stated above, it is unnecessary litigation and if the delay is condoned, it would only prolong the agony of the first respondent/landlord owner. Hence, it is dismissed.

10.The Government officials should be sensitized while taking decisions to file appeal and it is only in the interest of exchequer only appeals should be filed. They should be given guidelines about the requirements satisfied before filing appeals or filing any proceedings by way of special programme, otherwise all the officials to escape from their responsibility would file the cases mechanically, even those matters do not deserve any consideration by this Court. 11.In an endeavour to discourage filing unnecessary and frivolous appeals and to avoid such circumstances in future, this Court directs the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards costs payable to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai by way of Demand Draft/Cheque within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12.With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous petition is dismissed, even without notice to the respondents, including the landlord.

26.04.2016.

tsh

N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

tsh CMP.No.7208 of 2016 in AS.SR.No.15398 of 2016 26.04.2016.