2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR – Appellant
Versus
K.MUTHU – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 10-11-2025
PRONOUNCED ON: -12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S.Nos.72, 74 & 75 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.660, 662 &663 of 2020
A.S.No.72 of 2020
The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition Unit-V, Outer Ring Road Project,
CMDA, Koyembedu,
Chennai 107.
... Appellant
Vs.
1. K.Muthu
2. K.Ravi 3. K.Vasu
4. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai -8.
... Respondents
PRAYER in A.S.No.72 of 2020:
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in LAOP No.157 of 2008 dated
23.10.2017.
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.660 of 2020 To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.157 of
2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
A.S.No.74 of 2020 The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Unit-V, Outer Ring Road Project, CMDA, Koyembedu, Chennai 107.
... Appellant Vs.
1. G.Srinivasan
2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai -8.
... Respondents PRAYER in A.S.No.74 of 2020:
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamalee in LAOP No.308 of 2008 dated
23.10.2017.
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.662 of 2020 To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.308 of
2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal,III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee pending disposal of the above appeal.
A.S.No.75 of 2020 The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Unit-V, Outer Ring Road Project, CMDA, Koyembedu, Chennai 107.
... Appellant Vs.
1. K.Muthu
2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai -8.
... Respondents PRAYER in A.S.No.75 of 2020:
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamalee in LAOP No.309 of 2008 dated
23.10.2017.
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.663 of 2020 To stay the execution of the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.309 of
2008 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the Land Acquisition Claim Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee pending disposal of the above appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.G,Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader in A.S.Nos.72 & 74 of 2020 Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate in A.S.No.75 of 2020 For Respondent : Mr.P.Manikannan in all Appeal Suits COMMON JUDGEMENT Heard.
2.These appeal suits are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.157 of 2008, 308 of 2008 and 309 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, whereby the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- per Are (approximately
30,364 /- per cent)
3. In these appeals, the appellant is the Referring Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, and the respondents are the claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the same rank as they stood before the Reference Court.
4.These first appeals arise out of references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) in respect of lands situated in Morai Village, Poonamallee Taluk, acquired for the formation of the Outer Ring Road (Phase–I). The Section 4(1) notification was issued on 28.10.2003, and the enquiry was conducted on 17.11.2003. By Award No.15 of 2006 dated 20.09.2006, the Land Acquisition Officer (“LAO”) fixed the market value at Rs.500/- per cent (Rs.1,235/- per Are).
5.The acquisition pertains to a linear road project traversing Morai Village. The LAO recorded that several sale transactions were examined and, by adopting one data sale as comparable, fixed the marke