IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 16.07.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice K. CHANDRU A.S. Nos.172 to 176 and 182 to 186 of 2007 and M.P. Nos.2 of 2007 (5 M.Ps.) The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition Officer), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupattur. ... Appellant/Referring Officer in all AS ..Vs.. Kandan S/o. Thanjan ... Respondent in A.S.172/07/Claimant Anbazhagan S/o. Kuzhandhai ... Respondent in A.S.173/07/Claimant Mani S/o. Kulandai ... Respondent in A.S.174/07/Claimant Sigamani S/o. Sevathan ... Respondent in A.S.175/07/Claimant Chinnathambi S/o. Puttan ... Respondent in A.S.176/07/Claimant Rajakannu S/o. Vandikkaran @ Chinnavan ... Respondent in A.S.182/07/Claimant 1. Kannupaiyan (died) S/o.Vandikkaran @ Chinnapaiyan 2. Janaki W/o. Kannupaiyan (Late) 3. Annamalai S/o. Kannupaiyan (Late) 4. Chandran S/o. Kannupaiyan (Late) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Sampangi D/o. Kannupaiyan (Late) ...Respondents in A.S.183/07/Claimants RR2 to 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole Respondent vide order of Court dated 25.3.2008 made in M.P.1/08 1. Annamalai (died) S/o. Periya Paiyan 2. Lakshmi D/o. Simni @ Annamalai 3. Paranjothi D/o. Simni @ Annamalai 4. Veeramani S/o. Simni @ Annamalai 5. Anjala D/o. Simni @ Annamalai 6. Ranchetham D/o. Simni @ Annamalai ...Respondents/ claimants in A.S.184/07 (RR2 to 6 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent vide order of Court dated 9.6.2008 made in M.P.1/08 1. Manikkammal W/o. Chinnaraj 2. Baskaran S/o. Chinnaraj 3. Amudha D/o. Chinnaraj 4. Chandran S/o. Chinnaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Jayakumar S/o. Chinnaraj ...Respondents/ Claimants in A.S.185/07 Arumugam S/o. Chinnavan ...Respondents in A.S.186/07/Claimants Appeal suit Nos. 172 to 176 and 182 to 186 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur in L.A.O.P. Nos.8 of 1994, 9/94, 10/94, 11/94, 12/94, 3/94, 4/94, 5/94, 6/94, 7/94, respectively. For Appellant : Mr. V. Ravi, Spl. Govt. Pleader (AS) For Respondents : Mr. P.S. Kothandaraman COMMON JUDGMENT Heard Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents in various appeals. 2. All the appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Sub Court, Tirupathur in L.A.O.P. Nos.3 to 12 of 1994. The respective lands of the claimants situated in Konerikuppam village, Tirupathur were acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to Adi Dravidars belonging to Madapalli village. The Acquiring Authority fixed the compensation @ Rs.11,688/- per acre. The landlord has objected to the low rate of compensation. The matters were referred for determination of market value to the jurisdictional reference Court viz. the Sub Court, Tirupathur. 3. The following table will show the L.A.O.P. number and the corresponding appeal numbers and the names of the respondents. Sl.No. L.A.O.P. NO. APPEAL NOS. NAMES OF RESPONDENTS 1 8 of 1994 172 of 2007 Kandan 2 9 of 1994 173 of 2007 Anbazhagan 3 10 of 1994 174 of 2007 Mani 4 11 of 1994 175 of 2007 Sigamani 5 12 of 1994 176 of 2007 Chinnathambi 6 3 of 1994 182 of 2007 Rajakannu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. L.A.O.P. NO. APPEAL NOS. NAMES OF RESPONDENTS 7 4 of 1994 183 of 2007 1. Kannupaiyan (died) 2. Janaki 3. Annamalai 4. Chandran 5. Sampangi (R2 to R5 are brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased sole respondent as per order dt.25.3.2008 in M.P. No.1/2008) 8 5 of 1994 184 of 2007 1. Annamalai (died) 2. Lakshmi 3. Paranjothi 4. Veeramani 5. Anjala 6. Ranchetham (R2 to R6 are brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased sole respondent as per order dt, 9.6.2008 made in M.P. No.1/2008 9 6 of 1994 185 of 2007 1. Manikkammal 2. Baskaran 3. Amudha 4. Chandran 5. Jayakumar 10 7 of 1994 186 of 2007 Arumugam 4. Before the Reference Court, on the side of the respondents/claimants, eleven witnesses were examined viz. C.Ws.1 to 11 and on their side, 4 documents viz. Ex.C.1 and 2 were marked . On the side of the appellant, the Acquiring Officer V. Murugesh was examined as R.W.1 and four documents viz. Ex.R1 to R4 were marked. The Court below, on the basis of these materials, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the compensation fixed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the appellant is not adequate and the claimants were entitled for higher rate of compensation. 5. The Court below framed on the basis of the pleadings two issues as below:- "(i) Whether the Acquiring Authority vide award dated 23/3/94 in No.10 of 1993 had fixed the correct compensation and is justifiable? and (ii) If not, to what compensation each one of the claimants is entitled to?" 6. The Court below found Ex.C2, which is marked through C.W.11 Meenakshi, is the sale deed relating to sale of two different lands in survey Nos.546/1 and 545/1 bearing total extent of 1 acre 30 cents with a well as well as another land in survey No.544/1B to the extent of 30 cents were sold for the value of Rs.88,770/-, but the market value found in that land was shown as Rs.1,08,420/-. If the said document Ex.C2 is taken as basis, then the value of the land per cent comes to Rs.457.40 which was made as early as 8.2.1991 which roughly worked out to a sq.ft. value of Rs.1.04 paise. 7. The evidence of all the claimants also show that since portion of their lands are taken over, the remaining lands available will automatically go down and nearby lands, many factories and market including cotton markets are in existence. The lands, which are now acquired, can be used as house-sites. Therefore, they are entitled to get Rs.2,000/- per cent which approximately works out to Rs.4.58 paise, but the Court below also found from the statistical data collected that survey No.6 which relates to survey No.128/5 was not perused. 8.. On the other hand, sl.No.6 in Ex.R.3 was produced as a data land but the said land has no comparable value to the lands which are acquired. In that view of the matter, we found that the compensation ordered was on the lower side and the claimants are entitled for higher compensation. Though the claimants have requested compensation @ Rs.4.58 per sq.ft., the Court below found that the lands require development charges and therefore, 35% was shown as deduction towards development charges and arrived at a figure of Rs.2.98 which was rounded off to Rs.3/- per sq.ft. Therefore, it ordered compensation on the basis that the claimants are entitled for the market value @ Rs.3/- per sq.ft. It also ordered other statutory compensation viz. 30% solatium and statutory interest payable by a common judgment dated 12.11.2003. 9. In assailing the said judgment in the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the contention raised was that Ex.C1 and C2 sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deeds are not acceptable. Even though they are found acceptable, the Court below ought not to have made it as basis and fixation of Rs.3/- is exorbitantly high. In the present case, the acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites and therefore, while acquiring the lands, the purpose for which the acquisition is made and the potential value can also be taken note of. In that view of the matter, the compensation was correctly arrived at by the Court below. 10. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Sangunthala Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 while laying down the guidelines for acquisition, made the following observations as found in paragraphs 24 to 26 as follows:- " 24. In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the RWs is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future. 25. The other important factor is the proximity of the plots to two residential colonites i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on record that Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to conclude that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonites. 26. It should also be taken into consideration that the disputed lands were situated near the factory premises and further were adjoining the main road which connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaid lands are potential house sites." 11. In the light of the above factual matrix involved, the appeals are mis-conceived and the judgment of the Court below does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Though common judgment is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed in respect of ten appeals, it is made clear that the learned Special Government Pleader is entitled for separate set of fees. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ssa. To 1. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition Officer), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupattur. 2. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 51782, 51783 10 ccs to Mr.P.S. Kothandaraman, Advocate, Sr. 51421 to 51430 A.S. Nos.172 to 176 and 182 to 186 of 2007 and connected M.Ps. CK, PKB (CO) kk 26/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/