A.S.No.111 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on :24.02.2022

Pronounced on

:09.03.2022

Coram::

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Appeal Suit No.111 of 2005

Special Tahsildar

(Land Acquisition)

BHEL Unit

Ranipet.

.. Appellant

/versus/

1.Ms.Alpin Pio,

Chemicals Limited,

Madras its Managing Director,

2.Appavu Udayar

3.A.Mani

4.A.Srinivasan

5.T.Vilvam

6.T.Mani

7.Muniyammal

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.111 of 2005

8.Kasthuri

9.Selvam

.. Respondents

Prayer:

Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate

Judge of Vellore dated 03.08.1989 and made in L.A.O.P.No.461 of 1984.

For Appellant

:Mr.Tamil Nithi,

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondents

:Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan for R1

No appearance for R2 to R9

--------

J U D G M E N T

The appeal by the Special Thasildar(Land Acquisition) BHEL Unit,

Ranipet is against the award passed by the Reference Court fixing enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,200/- per cent as against the compensation of Rs.32/-

per cent fixed by the Acquisition Authority.

2.The land, which is the subject matter of this appeal, is part of vast

extend of land acquired for establishing BHEL at Ranipet. The Section 4(1)

Notification for acquisition of the 10.13 acres of land was issued on

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.111 of 2005

20/05/1981. Award No.25/1982 was passed on 22/11/1981. Against the said

award of granting Rs.32/- per cent, the respondents herein, who held 10.08

acres sought reference for higher compensation of Rs.1,500/- per cent land

and in addition Rs.2,73,000/- towards the cost of construction and Rs.2

crores for the loss of presumptive income. Later, the compensation claimed

for land amended to Rs.3,600/- per cent.

3.The Reference Court, considering the fact that prior to Section 4(1)

Notification, an extent of 24.89 acres of land was pooled together by the first

respondent company from various land holders and got consolidated to start

a distillery. It has obtained license to commence the industries and quota for

molasses which is one of the main raw material. It has also commenced

construction in the land. In view of the notification, the claimant/first

respondent lost part of the land and also forced to relocate its industry. The

Acquisition Authority failed to consider the fact that the land acquired is an

industrial land. The market value of the land ascertained on the presumption

that it is 'manavari punja land' based on the classification made few decades

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.111 of 2005

ago unmindful of the fact that the land held by the claimant for industry

purpose. Further, the fixation of value based on data sale which took place

on 16/03/1979, for the acquisition Notification under Section 4(1) dated

20/05/1981 is not a proper data, since it fail to reflect the market value on

the date of Notification.

4.The Reference Court, therefore, taking note of the title deed of the

claimants and the data sales produced by the claimants, took the mean

average and fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,200/- per cent for 10.08 acres

of land held by the claimant/first respondent.

5.The said fixation of market value is under challenge in this appeal.

The reading of the grounds of appeal filed in cyclostyle form contains

several grounds totally irrelevant to the facts of the case, which in view of

this Court deserves the appeal to be dismissed with exemplary costs for

preferring appeal recklessly adverting to facts totally unconnected and

irrelevant to the case in hand. However, this Court inclined to hear the

4/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.111 of 2005

appeal, since the learned Additional Government Pleader apologies for the

error and pleaded to place his submission primarily on the legal aspect

namely the omission to deduct development charg