IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.02.2008 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997 and A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997 Dr.M.Hanumantha Rao .... Appellant in A.S.No.145 of 1997 Pattammal .... Appellant in A.S.No.146 of 1997 M.Rukmani .... Appellant in A.S.No.147 of 1997 /Claimants in all petitions vs. 1. The Special Deputy Collector Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore, Chennai – 8. ...1st respondent/referring officer 2. Chief Executive Officer M.M.D.A., Chennai – 8. ...Respondents in all the appeals/ Respondent in all petitions Appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1994, L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1994 and L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1994 respectively on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.N.Nallappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P (AS) for R1 Mr.M.S.Govindarajan for R2 A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 The Special Deputy Collector (L.A) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore, Chennai –8. .... Appellant in all the appeals/ Referring officer in all petitions. vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Pattammal ..First respondent in A.S.No.885 of 1997 2. M.Rukmani ..First respondent in A.S.No.886 of 1997 3. Dr.M.Hanumantha Rao ..First respondent in A.S.No.887 of 1997 4. The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai – 8. .... Second Respondent in all the appeals/ Beneficiary in all petitions Appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1994, L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1994 and L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1994 respectively on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P (AS) For Respondents : Mr.S.Nallappan for R1 Mr.M.S.Govindarajan for R2 COMMON JUDGMENT A.S.No.145 of 1997 relates to S.No.65/1, an extent of 13 cents, A.S.No.146 of 1997 relates to S.No.63/4, an extent of 8 cents 19 sq.ft and A.S.No.147 of 1997 relates to S.No.65/1, an extent of 12 cents. 2. All these appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.8, 18 and 19 of 1994 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal / VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Appeals in A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 have been filed by the Referring Officer against the aforesaid Judgment and Decree. 3. Mr.S.Nallappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the lands were acquired for the purpose of forming bus and truck terminal at Koyambedu. It is not in dispute that the lands are situated at Koyambedu Village, Chennai and for the land acquisition proceedings, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (herein referred to as Act) was published in the official Gazette on 30.05.1990. After the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land acquisition officer conducted an enquiry and fixed the market value at Rs.7,246.35/- per cent. The claimants in the aforesaid L.A.O.P's had received the compensation under protest and at their request, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, C.W.1 and C.W.2 were examined, copy of the sale deeds, dated 26.02.1990 and 10.05.1989 were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2 respectively. The then land acquisition officer was examined as R.W.1 and Copy of the sale deed, dated 29.10.1987 was marked as Ex.R.1, Topo sketch of Koyambedu village was marked as Ex.R.2 and Copy of the Award dated 19.05.1993 in Award No.2/93 was marked as Ex.R.3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the land acquisition tribunal has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.27,335/- per cent. Aggrieved by which, the claimants as well as the land acquisition officer have preferred the aforesaid appeals. 5. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the land acquisition officer / appellant in A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 submitted a certified copy of the Judgment, dated 11.03.2003 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.534, 633 and 795 of 1997 and A.S.Nos.152, 760 to 764 and 828 of 1998 and A.S.No.34 of 2001 and Cross Obj.No.102 of 2001. The aforesaid appeals were preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.12.1995 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.11/92, 44/93, 1,2,4,7,9,10 and 14 of 1994 and the Judgment and Decree, dated 07.12.1999 made in L.A.O.P.No.3/94 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 6. As per the Judgment, it has been clearly held that Koyambedu vegetable market is located next to the acquired land, that apart, two National Highway Roads are also very close to the acquired lands. Near the acquired lands, several industries are located. Taking into consideration of the centrally located area of the acquired lands, the land acquisition officer could have decided to have the terminal for both bus and truck. One side of Poonamallee High Road is known as Anna Nagar, a fully developed both residential and commercial area is situated. After the formation of 100 feet ring road, almost the entire area to a length of 5 to 7 kms has been developed in all respects and therefore, it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, that the market value of land fixed by the land acquisition officer at Rs.7,246.35/- was very low. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, this Court in the said Common Judgment has held compensation at Rs.22,000/- per cent, if the acquired land is a smaller extent and for larger area of land, more than one acre of land, compensation was awarded only at Rs.18,000/- per cent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Mr.S.Nallappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants would contend that as per Ex.C.1, sale deed, dated 26.02.1990, an extent of 1903 sq.ft of land had been sold for a sale consideration of Rs.1,43,000/- at the rate of Rs.32,763/- per cent in S.No.107, which is available in serial number 707 of the sales statistics, relating to Koyambedu village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District for the period between 04.06.1987 and 03.06.1990. Similarly, as per Ex.C.2, sale deed, dated 10.05.1989, an extent of 385 sq.ft of land had been sold for the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,13,246.75/- per cent in S.No.227 pt, the same finds a place at serial number 437 of the aforesaid sales statistics. According to the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, compensation has to be paid, based on these two documents. 8. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the land acquisition officer, the aforesaid lands relating to Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are far away from the acquired lands. In the topo sketch, Ex.R.2, the acquired land as well as other nearby lands in the area, as shown, out of which, some of the lands relating to the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 11.03.2003 and the said fact is not in dispute, whereas the lands in S.No.107/2 and 227 pt described in Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are not shown in the topo-sketch. Therefore, it is clear that the aforesaid lands are not nearby the acquired lands, the same were not considered for fixing the market value. Since the lands relating to the batch of Common Judgment, dated 11.03.2003 are show in the topo-sketch, Ex.R.2, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid Judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 11.03.2003 is a covered judgment and as such binding on this Court, with reference to the land acquisition proceedings of this appeals. 9. Considering the aforesaid Judgment, dated 11.03.2003, this Court is of the view that the appellants / claimants in A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997 are entitled to get compensation at the market value of Rs.22,000/- per cent, since the aforesaid lands are less than one acre in extent, with all consequential benefits such as 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. 10. In the result, A.S.Nos.145, 146 and 147 of 1997 are dismissed. A.S.Nos.885, 886 and 887 of 1997 are partly allowed, whereby the appellant / land acquisition officer is directed to pay compensation at Rs.22,000/- per cent for the acquired lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest for one year from the date of award at 9% and 15% subsequent interest, as decided in the referred Judgment, dated 11.03.2003 by the Division Bench, after deducting the earlier payment already made to the claimants. Tsvn Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Registrar City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 6 ccs to Mr. N. Nallapan, SR 8010, 8011, 8012, 8013, 8014, 8015 + 1 ccs to the Government Pleader SR Nos.7727, 778, 7734, 7735, 7736, 7737 CMP(CO) SR/13.6.2008 A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997 and A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/