← Library
Madras High CourtAS(MD)/33/2016dismissed

The Special Tahsildar, v. Subramanian

2016-03-09Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.03.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Appeal Suit (MD)Nos.33 to 37 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2523 to 2527 of 2016 Appeal Suit (MD)No.33 of 2016:

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur.

... Appellant/ Referring Officer Subramanian L.A.O.P.No.31 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. : No appearance Appeal Suit (MD)No.34 of 2016:

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur.

... Appellant/ Referring Officer Chinnakaruppasamy L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi.

: Mr.A.Sivaji Appeal Suit (MD)No.35 of 2016:

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur.

... Appellant/ Referring Officer Petchiammal L.A.O.P.No.27 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. : No appearance Appeal Suit (MD)No.36 of 2016:

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur.

... Appellant/ Referring Officer Irulappan L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. : No appearance Appeal Suit (MD)No.37 of 2016:

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur.

... Appellant/Referring Officer

Irulappan L.A.O.P.No.32 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. : Mr.R.Murugappan ****** COMMON JUDGMENT Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants fairly submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the earlier order of this Court in The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur v. Natarajan and others [A.S.(MD)Nos.110 to 112 of 2006, etc. batch, decided on 30.11.2010] and prayed for passing similar orders.

2. In The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Irukkangudi Reservoir Scheme, Sattur v. Natarajan and others [A.S.(MD)Nos.110 to 112 of 2006, etc. batch, decided on 30.11.2010], this Court has held as follows:

"These appeals have been preferred against the awards passed in LAOP.Nos.26, 29 & 30 of 2002; 122, 121, 123 & 124 of 2002; 101 to 104 of 2002; 94 of 2002; 16, 17, 18, 20 & 22 of 2002; and 99 & 101 of 2004 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi.

2. The appellant herein as Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the lands comprised in Survey Nos.139/1, 139/3 and 139/1 (LAOP.Nos.26, 29 & 30/02); 129/2, 129/2, 129/4, 129/6, 132 & 129/4, 129/6, 132 (LAOP.Nos.122, 121, 123 & 142/02); 135/5, 130/2, 130/2 and 135/7, 135/4 (LAOP.Nos.101 to 104/02); 100 (LAOP.No.94/02); 121/2, 121/4 & 121/6; 117/8C & 117/9; 122/1; 122/2 & 122/1 (LAOP.Nos.16 to 18, 20 & 22/02); 111/1 & 111/1 (LAOP.Nos.99 & 101/04) which situate in Alampatti Village and awarded a compensation of Rs.85/- per cent. Aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, references have been made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same have been taken on file in LAOP.Nos.26, 29 & 30 of 2002; 122, 121, 123 & 124 of 2002; 101 to 104 of 2002; 94 of 2002; 16,

17, 18, 20 & 22 of 2002; 99 and 101 of 2004 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi.

3. The Land Acquisition Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has fixed Rs.1,200/- per cent by way of compensation. Against the quantum fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, these appeals have been preferred at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer as appellant.

4. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, common Judgment is pronounced.

5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the lands in question for the purpose of constructing a dam and awarded a compensation of Rs.85/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,200/- per cent.

6. The learned Government Advocate has vehemently contended that even though 4(1) Notifications have been published on 28.12.1999, 20.10.1997, 23.07.1997, 24.07.1997, 08.11.1999 and 20.11.1997, from the year 1992 proceedings have been taken and in order to get more compensation Exs.C1 and C2 have come into existence and further the Land Acquisition Tribunal has relied upon Ex.C2 and in Ex.C2 only a small piece of land has been dealt with and the same is nothing but a house plot and therefore the value fixed in Ex.C2 cannot be a basis for fixing the value of the lands in question. Under the said circumstances the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is liable to be modified.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has also equally contended that Ex.C2 has come into existence on 03.05.1994 and 4(1) Notifications have come into existence on 28.12.1999, 20.10.1997, 23.07.1997, 24.07.1997, 08.11.1999 and 20.11.1997 and the property mentioned in Ex.C2 is nothing but punja land and it is not a house plot and the Land Acquisition Tribunal after considering the lie of the land mentioned in Ex.C2 as well as the lands which have been acquired has clearly come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,200/- per cent by way of compensation and therefore the quantum fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference.

8. It is an admitted fact that 4(1) Notifications have been issued on 28.12.1999, 20.10.1997, 23.07.1997, 24.07.1997, 08.11.1999 and 20.11.1997. Ex.C2 has come into existence on 03.05.1994, wherein the property which is comprised in Survey No.70/3 has been dealt with.

9. In fact, this Court has perused the combined sketch which has been marked as Ex.R3, wherein it is

clearly mentioned that Survey No.70/3 is situate on the western side of the properties, which have been acquired. Considering the fact that 4(1) Notifications have been issued on 28.12.1999, 20.10.1997, 23.07.1997, 24.07.1997, 08.11.1999 and 20.11.1997 and Ex.C2 has come into existence on 03.05.1994, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the value fixed in Ex.C2 can be a basis for fixing the value of the lands, which have been acquired.

10. Under Ex.C2 one cent of land has been sold for a sum Rs.1,234/-. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal after considering the other circumstances has fixed Rs.1,200/- per cent by way of compensation. Since 4(1) Notifications have been issued on 28.12.1999, 20.10.1997, 23.07.1997, 24.07.1997, 08.11.1999 and 20.11.1997 and since Ex.C2 has come into existence on 03.05.1994 and that too in respect of punja land and also considering that the lands which have been acquired are nothing but punja lands, it is needless to say that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference.

11. In fine, these appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. The awards passed in LAOP.Nos.26, 29 & 30 of 2002; 122, 121, 123 & 124 of 2002; 101 to 104 of 2002; 94 of 2002; 16, 17, 18, 20 & 22 of 2002; 99 and 101 of 2004 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi are confirmed.

3. Following the same, the present Appeal Suits are also dismissed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Court, Sivakasi.

Appeal Suit (MD)Nos.33 to 37 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2523 to 2527 of 2016 09.03.2016 SH/SK-SKN/SAR-II:23.06.2016:5P/2C