Dr.M.Hanumantha Rao v. The Special Deputy Collector Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore, Chennai – 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.02.2008CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANA.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997andA.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997Dr.M.Hanumantha Rao .... Appellant in A.S.No.145 of 1997Pattammal .... Appellant in A.S.No.146 of 1997M.Rukmani .... Appellant in A.S.No.147 of 1997/Claimants in all petitionsvs.1. The Special Deputy Collector Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Egmore, Chennai – 8....1st respondent/referring officer2. Chief Executive Officer M.M.D.A., Chennai – 8. ...Respondents in all the appeals/Respondent in all petitionsAppeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Actagainst the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made inL.A.O.P.No.19 of 1994, L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1994 and L.A.O.P.No.18 of1994 respectively on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, CityCivil Court, Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.N.Nallappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P (AS) for R1 Mr.M.S.Govindarajan for R2A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997The Special Deputy Collector (L.A)Chennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityEgmore, Chennai –8. .... Appellant in all the appeals/Referring officer in all petitions.vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. Pattammal ..First respondent in A.S.No.885 of 19972. M.Rukmani ..First respondent in A.S.No.886 of 19973. Dr.M.Hanumantha Rao ..First respondent in A.S.No.887 of 19974. The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai – 8. .... Second Respondent in all the appeals/Beneficiary in all petitionsAppeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Actagainst the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made inL.A.O.P.No.8 of 1994, L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1994 and L.A.O.P.No.19 of1994 respectively on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, CityCivil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P (AS)For Respondents : Mr.S.Nallappan for R1 Mr.M.S.Govindarajan for R2COMMON JUDGMENTA.S.No.145 of 1997 relates to S.No.65/1, an extent of 13cents, A.S.No.146 of 1997 relates to S.No.63/4, an extent of 8cents 19 sq.ft and A.S.No.147 of 1997 relates to S.No.65/1, anextent of 12 cents.2. All these appeals have been preferred by the claimantsagainst the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.1996 made inL.A.O.P.Nos.8, 18 and 19 of 1994 on the file of the LandAcquisition Tribunal / VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,Chennai. Appeals in A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 have been filed bythe Referring Officer against the aforesaid Judgment and Decree.3. Mr.S.Nallappan, learned counsel appearing for theappellants contended that the lands were acquired for the purposeof forming bus and truck terminal at Koyambedu. It is not indispute that the lands are situated at Koyambedu Village, Chennaiand for the land acquisition proceedings, Notification underSection 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinreferred to as Act) was published in the official Gazette on30.05.1990. After the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act,the land acquisition officer conducted an enquiry and fixed themarket value at Rs.7,246.35/- per cent. The claimants in theaforesaid L.A.O.P's had received the compensation under protestand at their request, the matter was referred under Section 18 ofthe Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, C.W.1 and C.W.2were examined, copy of the sale deeds, dated 26.02.1990 and10.05.1989 were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2 respectively. The thenland acquisition officer was examined as R.W.1 and Copy of thesale deed, dated 29.10.1987 was marked as Ex.R.1, Topo sketch ofKoyambedu village was marked as Ex.R.2 and Copy of the Awarddated 19.05.1993 in Award No.2/93 was marked as Ex.R.3.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the landacquisition tribunal has enhanced the compensation by fixing themarket value of the acquired land at Rs.27,335/- per cent.Aggrieved by which, the claimants as well as the land acquisitionofficer have preferred the aforesaid appeals.5. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS)appearing for the land acquisition officer / appellant inA.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997 submitted a certified copy of theJudgment, dated 11.03.2003 rendered by a Division Bench of thisCourt in A.S.Nos.534, 633 and 795 of 1997 and A.S.Nos.152, 760 to764 and 828 of 1998 and A.S.No.34 of 2001 and Cross Obj.No.102 of2001. The aforesaid appeals were preferred against the Judgmentand Decree, dated 01.12.1995 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.11/92, 44/93,1,2,4,7,9,10 and 14 of 1994 and the Judgment and Decree, dated07.12.1999 made in L.A.O.P.No.3/94 on the file of the VIAssistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 6. As per the Judgment, it has been clearly held thatKoyambedu vegetable market is located next to the acquired land,that apart, two National Highway Roads are also very close to theacquired lands. Near the acquired lands, several industries arelocated. Taking into consideration of the centrally located areaof the acquired lands, the land acquisition officer could havedecided to have the terminal for both bus and truck. One side ofPoonamallee High Road is known as Anna Nagar, a fully developedboth residential and commercial area is situated. After theformation of 100 feet ring road, almost the entire area to alength of 5 to 7 kms has been developed in all respects andtherefore, it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court,that the market value of land fixed by the land acquisitionofficer at Rs.7,246.35/- was very low. Considering the oral anddocumentary evidence adduced by both sides, this Court in thesaid Common Judgment has held compensation at Rs.22,000/- percent, if the acquired land is a smaller extent and for largerarea of land, more than one acre of land, compensation wasawarded only at Rs.18,000/- per cent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Mr.S.Nallappan, learned counsel appearing for theappellants / claimants would contend that as per Ex.C.1, saledeed, dated 26.02.1990, an extent of 1903 sq.ft of land had beensold for a sale consideration of Rs.1,43,000/- at the rate ofRs.32,763/- per cent in S.No.107, which is available in serialnumber 707 of the sales statistics, relating to Koyambeduvillage, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District for theperiod between 04.06.1987 and 03.06.1990. Similarly, as perEx.C.2, sale deed, dated 10.05.1989, an extent of 385 sq.ft ofland had been sold for the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- at therate of Rs.1,13,246.75/- per cent in S.No.227 pt, the same findsa place at serial number 437 of the aforesaid sales statistics.According to the learned counsel appearing for the claimants,compensation has to be paid, based on these two documents.8. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing for the land acquisition officer, the aforesaidlands relating to Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are far away from theacquired lands. In the topo sketch, Ex.R.2, the acquired land aswell as other nearby lands in the area, as shown, out of which,some of the lands relating to the judgment of the Division Bench,dated 11.03.2003 and the said fact is not in dispute, whereas thelands in S.No.107/2 and 227 pt described in Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 arenot shown in the topo-sketch. Therefore, it is clear that theaforesaid lands are not nearby the acquired lands, the same werenot considered for fixing the market value. Since the landsrelating to the batch of Common Judgment, dated 11.03.2003 areshow in the topo-sketch, Ex.R.2, this Court is of the consideredview that the aforesaid Judgment rendered by the Division Benchon 11.03.2003 is a covered judgment and as such binding on thisCourt, with reference to the land acquisition proceedings of thisappeals.9. Considering the aforesaid Judgment, dated 11.03.2003,this Court is of the view that the appellants / claimants inA.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997 are entitled to get compensation atthe market value of Rs.22,000/- per cent, since the aforesaidlands are less than one acre in extent, with all consequentialbenefits such as 12% additional amount, 30% solatium andinterest, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.10. In the result, A.S.Nos.145, 146 and 147 of 1997 aredismissed. A.S.Nos.885, 886 and 887 of 1997 are partly allowed,whereby the appellant / land acquisition officer is directed topay compensation at Rs.22,000/- per cent for the acquired lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with 12% additional amount, 30% solatium and interest for oneyear from the date of award at 9% and 15% subsequent interest, asdecided in the referred Judgment, dated 11.03.2003 by theDivision Bench, after deducting the earlier payment already madeto the claimants. TsvnSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The RegistrarCity Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 6 ccs to Mr. N. Nallapan, SR 8010, 8011, 8012, 8013, 8014, 8015+ 1 ccs to the Government Pleader SR Nos.7727, 778, 7734, 7735,7736, 7737CMP(CO)SR/13.6.2008 A.S.Nos.145 to 147 of 1997and A.S.Nos.885 to 887 of 1997