IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

A.S.No.7 of 2015

R.Krishnamoorthy

...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Special Tahsildar,

Land Acquisition, Unit-III,

Outer Ring Road Project,

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2.The Member Secretary,

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated

12.03.2012, passed in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2004 on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

For Appellant

: Mr.R.Rajesh

For Respondents

For R1

: Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

Government Advocate (CS)

For R2

: M/s.Veena Suresh

Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is filed as against the Judgment and

Decree dated 12.03.2012 made in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2004 on the

file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3.

The case of the claimant is that the first respondent

acquired the land belonged to the petitioner/claimant for

establishment of outer ring road by an award dated 03.09.2003.

The land acquired in Kolappanchery Village situated within CMDA

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

limit. There are number of commercial building and industrial

units situated very close to the acquired land. The acquired

land is very close and within three kilometers from Pattabiram

Railway Station and Chennai-Bangalore national highway road.

Therefore, the rate fixed by the land acquisition officer very

meager and not according to the market value. Hence he prayed

for enhancement of compensation.

4.

The acquisition officer filed counter stating that the

government has followed the procedure as contemplated under the

Land Acquisition Act and passed award dated 03.09.2003 and

granted compensation by fixing the value for the land at

Rs.700/- per cent. It requires no enhancement and prayed for

confirming the awards.

5.

On the side of the claimant, he examined C.W.1 and

marked Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4. On the side of the respondents, they

examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. On perusal of the

material produced on record and considering both the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and also

the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the

Court below fixed the land value at Rs.10,250/- per cent and

awarded solatium at 30% and ordered additional market value at

12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification. Further

ordered that the total of enhanced land value plus 30% of

solatium plus 12% interest are treated as total compensation and

the claimant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of

possession for one year and thereafter 15% per annum till the

date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal suit

has been preferred by the claimant.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/

claimant submitted that in similar case, in which the land was

acquired under the very same 4(1) notification dated 28.07.2000,

the land value fixed at Rs.20,000/- per cent by this Court by an

order dated 11.10.2011, in a batch of appeal suit in A.S.No.840

of 2009 etc. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the

compensation amount.

7.

It is relevant to extract the judgment dated 11.10.2011

passed by this Court in A.S.No.840 of 2009 etc., batch as

follows :-

“24. A.S.Nos.951 to 956 of 2009: The name

of the village is Kolappanchery. The date of 4

(1) Notification was 28.7.2000. The Land

Acquisition Officer had relied on a sale deed

dated 4.2.1999 for dry land and a sale deed

dated 6.7.99 for wet land. On the basis of

these two documents, he has fixed Rs.710/-per

cent for dry land and Rs.700/-per c