Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The Special Tahsildar (LA) TACID Oragadam Scheme - Appellant
Versus
B.Jayalakshmi - Respondent
Appeal Suit Nos.710 to 870, 872 to 883, 889, 891 to 902, 909, 912, 916, 918 of 2024 Appeal Suit Nos.556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 566, 567, 568 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos.22834, 22835, 22836, 22837, 22840, 22841, 22842, 22844, 22846, 22847, 22848, 22849, 22851, 22854, 22855, 22857, 22859, 22861, 22862, 22863, 22864, 22865, 22866, 22867, 22868, 22869, 22871, 22872, 22873, 22874, 22875, 22877, 22878, 22879, 22880, 22881, 22883, 22884, 22885, 22887, 22888, 22889, 22891, 22894, 22895, 22896, 22899, 22900, 22901, 22903, 22904, 22906, 22907, 22909, 22911, 22912, 22913, 22914, 22915, 22916, 22917, 22918, 22919, 22920, 22921, 22923, 22925, 22926, 22928, 22929, 22931, 22933, 22936, 22937, 22938, 22939, 22943, 22944, 22945, 22946, 22947, 22948, 22949, 22950, 22951, 22952 22953, 22954, 22955, 22956, 22957, 22958, 22959,22962, 22963, 22964, 22965, 22966, 22968, 22969, 22970, 22971, 22972, 22975, 22979, 22980, 22983, 22984, 22986, 22990, 22993, 22996, 22998, 23000, 23005, 23006, 23007 23008, 23011, 23012, 23014, 23020, 23028, 23029,23031, 23032, 23033, 23034, 23035, 23036, 23038, 23039 23040, 23041, 23042, 23045, 23046, 23047, 23048, 23049, 23050, 23051, 23052, 23053, 23055, 23056, 23058, 23060, 23061, 23062, 23063, 23064, 23065, 23067, 23070, 23073, 23077, 23080, 23098, 23204, 23208, 23213, 23219, 23224, 23227, 23228, 23230, 23234, 23236, 23239, 23240, 23244, 23461, 23267, 23466, 23468, 23471, 23474, 23476, 23477, 23480, 23482, 23483, 23485, 23486, 23487, 23826, 24032, 24094 & 24144 of 2024
Decided on : 07-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview and background of land acquisition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding compensation details (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. contentions of the parties involved in the appeals (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. evidence considerations affecting compensation adjustments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's affirmation of tribunal's compensation determination. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's views on the reasonability of compensation determination (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. discussion on admissibility of development charges (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. final judgment and dismissal of appeals (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant in these appeals is the State. All these Appeal Suits arise out of the common judgement dated 30.09.2021 and individual decree (s) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Jude) at Kancheepuram [for short, “the Tribunal”] in L.A.O.P.No.192 of 2008 and batch of cases enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,754/- per cent from Rs.300/- per cent fixed by the LAO for the land(s) acquired from the land owner(s).
2. The appellant in these appeal suits is the Referring Officer - Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID, Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram District. The private respondent(s) are claimants and the Managing Director, SIPCOT TACID Division, the official respondent is the requisitioning body.
3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant in these appeals will be referred to as the State while the private respondent(s) will be referred to as the claimants and the official respondent will be referred to as the requisitioning body wherever the context so requires.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal Suits in common are as follows:-
(a) Each of the claimant(s) either individually or jointly owned/possessed varying extents of land at various survey numbers located in Orgadam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
(b) A total extent of 113.35.5 Hectares of land in the said village were proposed to be acquired by the State under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short, “the LA Act, 1894”) at the instance of State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) for setting up of Industrial Development Complex by the SIPCOT and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by TACID.
(c) For the purpose of acquisition of lands, notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 were issued in the Tamil Nadu Gazette in the instant cases between 01.06.1998 and 28.04.2000. The acquisition was made by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894, and hence, after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act, 1894 a declaration under Section 6 was issued on various dates between 18.06.1998 and 11.02.2000. The details of Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Declarations issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the 113.35.5 Hectares of land situated at Oragadam village and acquired form the claimants covered under different awards are as follows:
| Award No.1/2000 dated 15.03.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 08.06.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 09.07.1998 |
| Award No.2/2000 dated 21.01.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 01.06.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 18.06.1998 |
| Award No.4/2000 dated 28.02.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 14.07.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 21.07.1998 |
| Award No.5/2000 dated 30.06.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 05.06.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 09.07.1998 |
| Award No.6/2000 dated 20.04.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 19.03.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 02.06.1999 |
| Award No.7/2000 dated 22.05.200 | 4(1) Notification dated 27.01.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 24.12.1998 |
| Award No.8/2000 dated 31.08.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 13.01.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 08.02.1999 |
| Award No.9/2000 dated 06.09.2000 | 4(1) Notification dated 24.08.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 28.12.1998 |
| Award No.1/2001 dated 30.04.2001 | 4(1) Notification dated 05.02.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 05.05.1999 |
| Award No.2/2001 dated 02.05.2001 | 4 |
Market value in land acquisition must reflect fair compensation by considering local comparable sales despite development charges; enhancements by tribunal upheld as reasonable.
The court reaffirmed that compensation for acquired land must reflect fair market value, taking into account adequate comparable sales while establishing that evidence must support any deductions for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of sale instances/exemplars from the acquired land for determining the market value and the appropriateness of deductions towards dev....
Acquisition of land – Generally, sale instances with respect to small plots/parcels of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining compensation.
Court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction.
The highest sale instance must be considered for compensation valuation, and deductions for development charges must reflect the land's actual condition.
Compensation for acquired land should be based on comparable sale instances, with necessary deductions for larger plots to ensure fair valuation.
Acquisition of land - Quantum of compensation - Court is guided by relevant and admissible evidence and practical or pragmatic ways of commercial transactions, suitable adjustment towards deduction f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
