Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3343
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., represented by its Chief Manager, Hosur & Another
Versus
S.V. Nanjunda Chetty & Others
Case No : A.S. Nos. 836 to 839, 840 to 849, 851 to 854, 964 to 973, 975 to 979 & 982 to 985 of 2008, 894 to 896 & 922 to 924 of 2009 & M.P. Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2008, 1,1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2009
Decided On : 09-08-2010
For the Appellants :Rita Chandrasekar for M/s. Aiyer & Dolia, V. Ravi, Spl. G.P.(AS), Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Mani, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the market value of the acquired lands and the enhancement of compensation.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4(1), Section 5A, Section 18 - The court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/-per acre. The court also considered the evidence let in by both sides and Exs.C.1 and C.2 on one side and Ex.R.4 sale deed filed by the acquiring authority on the other side and gave its factual findings.
Fact of the Case:
The lands of claimants were acquired for the purpose of transmitting power from NTPC, Thalcher to Kolar, Karnataka and also to distribute the Tamil Nadus share of its power from the Central pool by establishing 400/220 KV Sub Station in that place. The claimants filed objections against the lower rate of compensation, and the matter was referred for determination of the market value of the lands under Section 18 to the jurisdictional reference court, which enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/-per acre.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the evidence let in by both sides and Exs.C.1 and C.2 on one side and Ex.R.4 sale deed filed by the acquiring authority on the other side and gave its factual findings. The court also held that sufficient deduction towards development charges should be made.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the market value of the acquired lands and the enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence let in by both sides and Exs.C.1 and C.2 on one side and Ex.R.4 sale deed filed by the acquiring authority on the other side and gave its factual findings. The court also held that sufficient deduction towards development charges should be made.
Final Decision: All Appeal Suits were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
1. Heard both sides. There are two sets of appeals in these batch of cases. One set of appeals were filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Power Grid)-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur (for short LAO), who is the acquiring authority. The second set of appeals were filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (for short PGCI) represented by its Chief Manager, Hosur, which is the requisitioning body. The table given below will show the number of LAOPs and the corresponding appeal suit numbers indicating in parenthesis either LAO or PGCI showing the respective appeals filed by them and the name of the claimants connected with such appeals.
Sl.No
Claimant
Name
A.S.No.
LAOP No.
Date of order in LAOP
1
S.V.Nanjunda Chetty
A.s.No.836 of 2008 (PGCI)
A.S.No.982 of 2008 (LAO)
LAOP.13 of 2001
4/12/2007
2
Jayaramappa
A.S.No.837 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.983 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.15 of 2001
-do-
3
Suseela
A.S.No.838 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.984 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.16 of 2001
-do-
4
Venkatesalu
A.S.No.839 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.985 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.17 of 2001
-do-
5
Makkamma
AS No.840 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.964 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.21 of 2001
-do-
6
Harish
AS No.841 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.965 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.22 of 2001
-do-
7
Ramachandran
AS No.842 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.966 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.24 of 2001
-do-
8
S.V.Lakshminarayana Chetty
S.V.Srikanta Gupta
A.S.No.843 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.967 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.25 of 2001
-do-
9
K.Ramachandaran
A.S.No.844 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.968 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.27 of 2001
-do-
10
S.V.Pandarinath
A.S.No.845 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.969 of 2007(LAO)
LAOP.28 of 2001
-do-
11
Chinnappa Puttappa
A.S.No.846 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.970 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.29 of 2001
-do-
12
Chinna Gooliappa Venkataraman
A.S.No.847 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.971 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.31 of 2001
-do-
13
Chinna Gooliappa
A.S.No.848 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.972 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.32 of 2001
-do-
14
Nagaraj
A.s.No.849 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.973 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.33 of 2001
-do-
15
Vediappan
A.S.No.851 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.975 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.35 of 2001
-do-
16
Nanjamma
A.S.No.852 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.976 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.36 of 2001
-do-
17
Chinna Yuvappa
A.S.No.853 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.977 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.37 of 2001
-do-
18
Savithri
A.S.No.854 of 2008(PGCI)
A.S.No.978 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.38 of 2001
-do-
19
Sampath
A.S.No.979 of 2008(LAO)
LAOP.39 of 2001
-do-
20
Venkataramanappa
A.S.No.894 of 2009(PGCI)
A.S.No.922 of 2009(LAO)
LAOP.26 of 2001
25.04.2008
21
Peria Yuvappa
A.S.No.895 of 2009(PGCI)
A.S.No.923 of 2009(LAO)
LAOP.30 of 2001
-do-
22
Pappanna
A.S.No.896 of 2009(PGCI)
A.S.No.924 of 2009(LAO)
LAOP.40 of 2001
-do-
2. The lands of claimants situated in Nallaganakothapalli and Marudandapalli villages were acquired for the purpose of transmitting power from NTPC, Thalcher to Kolar, Karnataka and also to distribute the Tamil Nadus share of its power from the Central pool by establishing 400/220 KV Sub Station in that place. On request made by the PGCI, the acquiring authority published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, dated 10.12.1997. An extent of 61.41 acres of lands were sought to be acquired in Marudandapalli as well as Nallaganakothapalli villages coming under Soolagiri Block of Hosur Taluk. Enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with by invoking the emergency clause vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Energy Department, dated 1.9.1999. Thereafter, following due procedure, the Award No.1 of 2000(F) came to be passed on 31.10.2000. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.31500/- per acre together with other statutory payments.
3. The land owners/claimants herein were aggrieved by the lower rate of compensation. Therefore, they filed their objections. In view of their objections, the mattes were referred for determination of the market value of the lands under Section 18 to the jurisdictional reference court, which in the present case is the Sub Court, Hosur. The Re
