Madrasdated High Court · 2025

A.S.No.257 of 2025COMMON JUDGEMENTThe appellant in these appeal suits is the State. All these Appeal Suits arise out of the common judgement dated 30.11.2021 and individual decree (s) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Kancheepuram [for short, “the Tribunal”] in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of cases whereby the tribunal determined the market value at the rate of Rs.8,720/- per cent and after applying 20% deduction towards development charges, enhanced the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- per cent apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, “the LA Act, 1894”]. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer.2. The appellant in these appeal suits is the Referring Officer – Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID, Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai. The private respondent(s) is/are claimants and the Managing Director, SIPCOT TACID Division, the official respondent is the requisitioning body. 3. These appeal suits are directed against the common order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram. There are 248 appeal suits listed before this court. Of which, in 133 cases, as stated in the preamble of this order, the claimant(s) in the appeal suits, as mentioned under Sl.Nos.1 to 27, 29 & and claimants 2 and 3 under Sl.No.198 of the cause list, entered appearance through 7 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025counsel M/s.A.Jagadeeswari, P.N.Udhayakumar, D.Sathyanarayana, E.Karthik Raja & K.R.Vinodhinee, and the claimant in the appeal suit, as mentioned under Sl.No.28 of the cause list, entered appearance through counsel M/s.V.Anil Kumar, S.V.Sundara Rajan, B.Vasanthi & A.Samyuktha. In some cases, despite notice having been served, none appeared in person nor entered appearance through counsel, and in some other cases, the appellant/LAO could not serve notice, and in yet another set of cases, the appellant/complainant or one of the appellants/claimants was reported dead.4. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases in so far as the contesting private respondents/claimants. This court will make appropriate reference and discussion on the merits in respect of rest of the cases at a latter part of this judgement. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases as they relate to the private respondents/claimants who contest the appeal suits filed by the LAO challenging the enhancement of compensation. In the later part of this judgement, this court will refer to and discuss the merits of the other categories of cases where notice was served on the private respondents/claimants, but they had not entered appearance; notice not served; and the claimant(s) reported dead.5. Prior to moving forward, this court deems it appropriate to state that the entire matter relates to acquisition of various parcels of land comprised in various survey numbers in Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, 8 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025for setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (for short, “the TACID).6. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant in these appeals will be referred to as “LAO” while the private respondent(s) will be referred to as “claimants” and the official respondent will be referred to as the “requiring body” wherever the context so requires.7. 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 Mathur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.(b) A total extent of 159.03.0 Hectares of land in the said village were proposed to be acquired by the State under 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 9 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202520.11.1998 and 05.10.2000 and the same were published in the local daily newspaper. 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 declarations under Section 6 were issued on various dates between 28.12.1998 and 15.07.1999. The details of Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Declarations issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the 159.03.0 Hectares of land situated at Mathur village and acquired from the claimants covered under different awards are as follows:SI.No.Award NumberAward DateDate of Publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act,1894 in theGovernment GazetteUnder Section(6) Declaration1.1/200023.03.200007.12.199822.01.19992.2/200015.03.200007.12.199809.02.19993.1/200027.03.200007.12.199822.01.19994.1/200023.03.200020.11.199828.12.19985.1/200031.07.200020.11.199828.12.19986.2/200015.05.200014.12.199809.02.19997.6/200015.09.200014.12.199808.07.19998.6/200008.06.200114.12.199808.07.19999.3/199919.07.200114.12.199805.07.199910.5/200009.03.200125.01.199906.05.199911.5/200015.03.200125.01.199906.05.199912.1/200103.05.200125.01.199902.06.199913.3/200031.05.200027.01.199910.06.199914.6/200025.04.200127.01.199902.06.199915.4/200015.02.200127.01.199906.05.199916.2/200016.05.200127.01.199910.06.199917.3/200031.05.200127.01.199910.06.199918.5/200004.09.200018.02.199906.07.199919.4/200015.06.200010.03.199915.07.199920.7/200019.07.200110.03.199906.07.199910 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025SI.No.Award NumberAward DateDate of Publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act,1894 in theGovernment GazetteUnder Section(6) Declaration21.3/200217.11.200205.10.200013.11.2000(d) Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), after due enquiry, determined the compensation payable for the land at Rs.200/- by the above said awards.(e) Many Central and State Government Offices are located nearby the lands acquired for the Oragadam Industrial Scheme besides several Nationalized and Multinational Banking Institutions; (f) The Government of India had proposed to form Greener International Airport at Sriperumbudur. There is a proposal from the Government of Tamil Nadu to lay a 200-foot road from Mamallapuram to Ennore Port via Oragadam, and the ground-level work for the above two projects was already complete.(g) The subject lands under acquisition were house sites. The sale exemplars gathered by the LAO for fixation of market value of the acquired lands relate to house sites and the lands were sold at square foot basis. While so, the market value fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural lands is not fair and it is against law as well. 11 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025(h) Purchase of house site in the vicinity of Orgadam or Mathur was not affordable to a person of middle class. The LAO has not followed the principles laid down under Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894 while fixing compensation for the lands acquired from the claimants. (i) Not being satisfied with the compensation as determined by the LAO, the claimant(s) made his/their written objection(s) for enhancement of compensation stating that acquired lands abutted Singaperumal Koil – Sriperumbudur State Highway and is very close to National Highways (NH4) and Grand Southern Trunk Road. The market value of the land covered under the acquisition at the time of 4(1) notifications was not less than a sum of Rs.3,000/- per square feet. (j) On such objections, the Referring Officer made individual reference(s) to the Tribunal at Kanchipuram under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the lands comprised in various survey numbers situate at Mathur village and the tribunal, in turn, took those reference on file and assigned numbers to the references.8. The Referring Officer opposed the claim petitions stating that the awards were passed strictly in accordance with law. The counter affidavit filed by the LAO was adopted by the requisitioning body. The Referring Officer inter alia contended in his counter that the awards were passed considering the various aspects and features of the lands acquired that were projected by the claimants. Public interest outweighs the private interest. Since the compensation for the acquired lands was 12 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025fixed on the existing statistics, the claim of land owners that the value of the acquired lands should be above the value determined by the LAO is incorrect and untenable. 9. The details of lands owned by the claimants comprised in various survey numbers in Mathur Village, LAOPs assigned to the reference(s) made by the Referring Officer at the behest of the claimants and the appeal suit numbers are as follows: -Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date202520081.257460 P. Ganesan508/2A20.02.06/20008.6.20012.272333Mrs. D.Chandrika468/40.0205/200009.03.20013.386334Thomas Jayapaul468/10.19.05/200009.03.20014.327335Wilson Martin375/3A10.02.55/200009.03.20015.276336Dhamodaran477/1A0.04.05/200009.03.20016.258337R.Desigan468/42419sq.ft5/200009.03.20017.385340Noyel Davis395/B20.04.54/200015.02.20018.454341Tupendra Gupta402/2A100.04.04/200015.02.20019.438342Sudhakar402/2A110.04.04/200015.02.200110.408344Chandra390/1E60.02.54/200015.02.200111.401345V.Radhakrishnamoorthi402/2A120.05.54/200015.02.200112.458346Duraiswamy396/7396/80.01.50.02.54/200015.02.200113.270348Mariya Anandan402/1A1B0.02.04/200013 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date15.02.200114.429349Ethirajammal396/2B,396/1A0.06.54/200015.02.200115.478350Govindharajulu402/2A50.05.04/200015.02.200116.421351Jayashree402/20.06.54/200015.02.200117.431352Mohana Rao390A/1E50.02.54/200015.02.200118.416354Robert (died)1.Therasa Kristy2.Jacob Arokiyaraj3.John Vivek4.James Ashok395/B20.04.54/200015.02.200119.301356Sampangi396/2A1A0.06.04/200015.02.200120.457357Aseena Jan396/3C0.01.54/200015.02.200121.362358N.K.Palraj415/1A0.02.54/200015.02.200122.455359Janarthanam402/2A4402/480.05.04/200015.02.200123.365360Niranjan babu402/2A1A402/2A30.02.00.04.5 4/200015.02.200124.483361Anthony Louis395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200125.254362K.Abdullah (Died)1.Asina Bee 2.Hilal3.Naseem Banu 4.Jala5.Ajiz Banu396/32400sq.ft4/200015.02.200126.433363Somasundram396/2A1A0.02.54/200015.02.200127.231364Vyjayanthi Mala (died) 1.Radhakrishna Moorthy2.Venkata Sureshbabu402/2A90.04.54/200015.02.200128.426365Padmini395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200114 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date29.308366Edward Anthoni Loys395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200130.456367Arjunan390A/1E20.05.04/200015.06.200031.406368Ramesh Babu402/2A70.09.05/200022.09.200032.300369Selvaraj411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200033.428370Bagavath Singh411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200034.298371Thoodore Daniel411/1A411/2A10.02.50.02.50.05.05/200022.09.200035.360372Sriram408/10.02.05/200022.09.200036.367373Devika411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200037.338374Priya411/2A10.02.55/200022.09.200038.410375Deenadayalan411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200039.232376Poonguzhali411/2A10.04.05/200022.09.200040.273377Dilli Babu411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200041.333378Sennakesavan411/10.01.05/200022.09.200042.442379Venkatesan411/1A0.01.55/200022.09.200043.409380Kalidoss411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200044.439381Indhumathi411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200045.293382S.P.Kudari411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200046.310383Santha408/10.02.05/200022.09.200047.248384Kannan409/10.02.05/200022.09.200048.440387Mariya Fathima409/3 409/40.02.05/200022.09.200049.306389Meena411/2A1408/20.01.00.01.05/200022.09.200015 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date50.246390Rajasekaran411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200051.253391Balakrishnan411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200052.392392Srinivasan411/1A0.01.55/200022.09.200053.448393Malathi411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200054.446394Geetha411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200055.399395Ramesh411/210.02.05/200022.09.200056.407396Ganesh Babu411/1B0.01.55/200022.09.200057.464397Kanagarathinam411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200058.403398M.Vasudevan412/1A1414/2A10.00.50.01.51/200118.01.200159.477399Parvathi408/1408/2411/2A1Total 0.00.50.00.50.01.00.02.05/200022.09.200060.289401Santhanam404A/1A0.03.01/200118.01.200161.326403Vasanthakumari404B/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200162.241406Gopal Kumar430/10.02.01/200118.01.200163.320407Manohar413/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200164.299408C.Vasantha415/1G0.02.01/200118.01.200165.331409Revathi Hari Prasath4300.02.01/200118.01.200166.249411Thiruvengadam414/2, 412/10.02.01/200118.01.200167.480412Usha412/1A1415/1A1Total0.0050.01.50.02.01/200118.01.200168.479414S.Meena415/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200169.267415D.P.Rajendran414/1A,414/2A10.02.00.02.01/200118.01.200116 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date70.304416AnbuDurai415/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200171.368417Soundar Raj412/1A1430/1A0.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200172.371418J.Ruth414/2A10.02.01/200118.01.200173.382419Narayanan415/1F0.02.01/200118.01.200174.376420J.Jagajothi412/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200175.307421R.Nedumaran414/1A1414/2A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200176.369422S.Janaki414/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200177.280423Sundari Ammal412/1A1412/2A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200178.339424N.G.Kanniappan414/2A1415/1A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200179.291425C.Kousalya412/1A1413/1A0.03.00.01.01/200118.01.200180.239426A.Lorthusamy404A/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200181.354427N.Panneerselvam404A/1A0.01.51/200118.01.200182.381428R.Dhanasekaran430/10.02.01/200118.01.200183.356429Mrs.A.Tamilkodi412/1A10.03.51/200118.01.200184.481430D.Ramalingam414/2A2415/2A60.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200185.482431R.Vasantha412/1A1414/2A10.02.50.01.01/200118.01.200186.414432Rajam Baskaran404/A20.02.01/200118.01.200187.383433Sivadasan430/10.02.01/200118.01.200188.450435L.Bramarambal411/1A0.0055/200022.09.200089.465437C.P.George430/10.02.01/200118.01.200190.311438R.Radha Krishnan404B/1A414/2A10.01.00.01.51/200118.01.200117 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date415/1A10.01.091.318439Amsammal404A/2A0.03.01/200118.01.200192.316440Jayammal414/1A,414/2A10.03.50.00.51/200118.01.200193.240443T.G.Sreenivasan404/A10.02.01/200118.01.200194.247444Mrs.Latha412/1A1414/2A1415/1A10.00.50.00.50.01.01/200118.01.200195.330446Thangaraj415/1A10.03.51/200118.01.200196.294447Sundaravadivel412/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200197.303448Srinivasan.S412/1A2414/2A30.00.50.01.51/200118.01.200198.278449Mrs.Prasanna 415/1E0.02.01/200118.01.200199. 282450Hari Prasad430/10.03.01/200118.01.2001100.418451Janakiraman404A/1A0.02.01/200118.01.2001101.363452Swamyam Prabha508/1A10.01.56/200015.09.2000102.324453Chendamarai Kannan516/1A1E0.02.56/200015.09.2000103.302454S.Siva Kumar516/1A1A0.03.06/200015.09.2000104.286455Santhanam515/10.03.56/200008.06.2001105.432456Meenatchi516/2A, 2B0.02.06/200015.09.2000106.437457Puspa508/2B1, 2B20.02.06/200015.09.2000107.444458Kathavarayan508/1P0.02.06/200015.09.2000108.443459V.Subramaniam516/1A1A0.02.06/200015.09.2000109.400461Arumugam508/1A1507/7A10.01.50.01.56/200015.09.2000110.436462S.Pasupathy508/1A0.02.06/200015.09.2000111.445463Gopal508/1I0.01.56/200018 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date15.09.2000112.419464Lalitha508/1A10.04.06/200015.09.2000113.317465Ganesan516/1A1D0.02.06/200015.09.2000114.243466Anuradha516/1A1C0.02.56/200015.09.2000115.372467Rajkumar508/2A, 3B0.04.56/200015.09.2000116.244468Sowryammal508/2A, 3A0.01.56/200015.09.2000117.252469V.Venkata Subramaniam507/7A1508/1A10.01.50.01.56/200015.09.2000118.263470Ganesan508/1C0.04.06/200015.09.2000119.265471D.Varalakshmi516/1A1A0.03.06/200015.09.2000120.296475Rajeshwari453/A0.03.01/200031.07.2000121.435476Subburaj (died) 1.S.Chinnathambi2.S.P.Kumar 3.S.P.Anandha Kumar450/2A20.06.51/200031.07.2000122.357477Subbaiyan453/A0.04.51/200031.07.2000123.451478Anitha Parameswaran453/A0.06.52/200031.07.2000124.453479Mrs.AyshaKhadar (died)1.S.A.Kadhar2.Syed Imran Kadhar 3.SayyadaRubina Kadhar397A/2A1397A/4A0.01.00.05.56/200025.04.2001125.352480S.A.Khadar401/1A1A0.12.06/200025.04.2001126.345481V.Sathyan404A/1B0.03.51/200118.01.2001127.350482C.Pushpalatha402/2A80.05.54/200015.02.2001128.346483Banumathy (died) 1.Ganesan2.Arun475/50.03.55/200009.03.200119 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date129.347485T.Saroja471/20.02.01/199927.03.2000130.353487Amaravathy472/1A1A0.05.01/199927.03.2000131.348489Kavanlal472/1A1B0.02.01/199927.03.2000132.290491Santha James472/1A1A0.05.01/199927.03.2000133.434494M.Baskaran474/3D0.02.51/199927.03.2000134.297495R.Mohana474/3G0.03.51/199927.03.2000135.277496ThirupuraSundari472/1A1A0.04.01/199927.03.2000136.343497Bangarusamy (died) 1.Kanchana2.Uma Maheshwari 3.Anand4.Sumathi529/2A1A20.04.57/200019.07.2001137.380498Deenadayalan529/1A2A1A10.04.07/200019.07.2001138.342499Ezhil Chezhiyan529/2A1B0.07.07/200019.07.2001139.285500Kalyani529/1A2A1A0.02.07/200019.07.2001140.358502Nirmala399/10.02.06/200025.04.2000141.266503C.Marimuthu432/1A0.02.02/200016.05.2001142.274504Sharmila430/1, 431/10.07.01/200003.05.2001143.237505Radhakumari399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001144.269506Garajala Parvathy399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001145.315507A.Soundar pandian 399/1400/5A0.00.50.01.506/200025.04.2001146.364508Katari Swamalatha3990.02.006/200025.04.2001147.251509Anisatti Maheswari399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001148.250510S.Gurusamy401/80.11.006/200025.04.200120 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date149.391511D.Chandramohan399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001150.422512Sambasiva Rao397A/4A0.03.006/200025.04.2001151.398514Parameswari401/20.11.006/200025.04.2001152.394516Gnanam 472/1A1A0.03.01/199927.03.2000153.344517Srinivasa Ragavan412/1A10.05.51/200118.01.2001154.295518R.Ananthi415/1A1430/10.03.00.02.01/200118.01.2001155.287519A.Mythily415/1A10.01.51/200118.01.2001156.411520A.Ramanathan430/10.02.01/200118.01.2001157.377523S.Lourdhusamy404A/2A0.03.51/200118.01.2001158.412524Banumathi S.Kamdar (Died)1.Sandeep S. Kamdar2.Poorna S. Kamdar3.Seeman Nithish Naik4.Seejal N Shah417/4429/3429/3Total0.28.50.34.00.08.00.70.52/200016.05.2001159.425525M.Anjaneyappa4910.02.52/200015.03.2000160.283526V.Ranganatha Mudaliar (Died)1.V.Devigi Bai2.G.Thulasi Bai3.R.Srinivasa Mudaliar4.G.G.Jaya Sures433/1A1434/1A436/10.10.00.05.00.20.52/200016.05.2001161.255527B.Venkatesan387/20.00.54/200015.06.2000162.325528R.Rajeswari381/2B0.10.54/200015.06.2000163.234529Pandian381/20.02.54/200015.06.2000164.312531N.L.Suresh Babu396/2A1B0.02.04/200015.06.2000165.275532Baskaran465/420.02.54/200117.04.200221 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date166.288533P.Girija (died)1.Pagadala Gopala Krishna2.Pagadala Gopi Chanth3.Pagadala Kalpana Naidu4.Pagadala Renuka457B/1A1C0.08.04/200017.04.2002167.271535S.Mannar456/90.01.04/200117.04.2002168.336536M.Krishnaveni (died) 1.T.A.Muniyan 2.Palanivelan3.Kalai Amudha456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002169.487538S.Bakyalakshmi456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002170.473539S.Gopal456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002171.469540P.V.Seshadri464/3A120.01.54/200117.04.2002172.467541Shabjad Begam456/190.01.04/200117.04.2002173.313542V.Saroja456/50.01.04/200117.04.2002174.468543Gopalakrishnan457/1A457/1B0.02.04/200117.04.2002175.476544K.Lakshmi456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002176.471545Muniyan456/10.04.04/200117.04.2002177.462546K.Viswanathan464/3A20.02.04/200117.04.2002178.309547M.Neela456/110.01.04/200117.04.2002179.314548Soosai Mary456/70.01.04/200117.04.2002180.449549D.E.Elumalai456/80.01.04/200117.04.2002181.245550Shanmugam457/1A1A0.02.04/200117.04.2002182.3375511.Vijaya Kumar 2.Dhanasekar464/3A13465/250.01.00.00.54/200117.04.2002183.427552Sakunthala439/14000 sq.ft3/200222 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date17.11.2002184.268553Agarwal439/13800 sq.ft3/200217.11.2002185.321554Manju Agarwal439/13865 sq.ft3/200217.11.2002186.261557N.Pitchammal (Died) 1.S.Ramgopal439/3167sq.mtrs3/200217.11.2002187.235560Savithri439/31800 Sq.ft3/200217.11.2002188.259561Rajeswari466/2A0.10.02/200015.03.2000189.329562Janakiraman478/1B0.07.02/200015.03.2000190.305563Srinivasan478/1A1A0.02.52/200015.03.2000191.284564P.Jayakrishnan (died)1.Kalyani435/10.02.02/200015.03.2000192.319566Tamilarasi491/1A1A0.03.02/200015.03.2000193.322568Rajeswari372/1A1A0.02.852/200101.10.2001194.441569Arun Baskar372/1A1A10.02.52/200101.10.2001195.389570Loganathan3750.03.02/200101.10.2001196.335571Indirani372/1A1A1373/100.00.50.01.02/200101.10.2001197.256573Arumugam507/100.01.53/200015.05.2000198.260576Abdul Latheef433/60.00.52/200016.05.2001199.452579P.Thillai Palam428/1D0.04.53/200031.05.2001200.340581SanthilalJ. Kamdar (died)1.Banumathi 2.Sandeep 3,Poorna4.Seema Nithish Naik5.Seejal N Shah418/1A3425/4A2426/3B428/1A3Total0.14.00.39.00.05.50.53.01.11.51.11.53/200031.05.200123 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date201.447582Sakkubai396/10, 114800sq.ft.4/200015.02.2001202.281583G.Raghvan390/1E10.02.54/200015.02.2001203.323584Sakku Bai396/90.04.54/200015.02.2001204.341585Sivakumar467/2A6,2AB0.04.55/200015.03.2001205.238599Smt.Yogambal430/20.02.01/200118.01.2001206.395601Chandran526/1A, 2A,324800Sq.ft7/200019.07.2001207.392602Gangadhara Rao4381800Sq.ft3/200217.11.2002208.397604J.Subbulakshmi408/10.02.05/200022.09.2000209.373605Vijayalakshmi439/3167sq.mtr3/200217.11.2002210.396606K.Parameswaran516/1A20.02.06/200015.09.2000211.374607K.Rajan412/1A1413/1A0.01.00.01.01/200118.01.2001212.405608N.G.Bharat411/1A0.04.05/200022.09.2000213.463609Fanindranath Panday516/1A50.02.56/200005.09.2000214.404612Anilkumar Singh516/1A30.02.56/200005.09.2000215.485614A.Palanisamy 396/2A1A0.02.04/200015.02.2001216.417615S.Vasantha457B/1A1A0.02.51/200015.03.2000217.378616Helan Samuvel (Died)1.SamuelManogara Pandiyan2.Sunil Sam3.Jeril John439/1334sq.mtr3/200217.11.2002218.370617A.Lourdusamy396/2B,1S0.02.04/200015.02.200124 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date219.460618K.Durga Rao516/1A40.02.06/200015.09.2000220.470619S.V.Raghavan411/2A10.01.55/200022.09.2000221.413620C.Thirunavakkarasu529/2A1A1A0.09.07/200019.07.2001222.366621M.Raman396/3A0.04.04/200015.02.2001223.474622A.N.Noor Mohamed529/190.10.07/200019.07.2001224.430625T.Narayanan (died) 1.Kalyani2.Rajan 3.Vijayalakshmi381/2A0.02.54/200015.06.2000225.359629S.Kamatchi529/2A1A1A0.03.07/200019.07.2001226.402631Gopalakrishnan529/1A2A1A10.02.07/200019.07.2001227.424632N.Ganesan381/2A0.06.54/200015.06.2000228.351633S.Pandurangan529/1A2A1A10.04.57/200019.07.2001229.375639Chokkalingam411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.2000230.242640Babu430/19600sq.ft1/200118.01.2001231.475642Seetha434/2,433/6, 431/313800sq.ft2/200015.03.2000232.279643Mohana402/1B0.02.04/200015.02.2001233.466644Anthony Mary526/28, 29,357200sq.ft7/200019.07.2001234.361645K.Balasubramaniam455/80.02.54/200117.04.2002235.461646Sivagami464/50.01.54/200117.04.2002236.390648Kandaswamy464/3A60.01.54/200117.04.2002237.379649A.M.Srinivasan455/70.02.54/200117.04.2002238.355651M.R.Jagannathan455/20.01.54/200125 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date17.04.2002239.472653S.Krishna Gandhi464/3G464/3A1C465/90.01.50.02.00.02.04/200117.04.2002240.420655 Sivagami w/o Satya Narayanan 464/50.01.54/200117.04.2002241.3936561.Sivanandam (died) 2.Parameshwari3.Radhika Olivannan 4.R.Ramya464/3A70.01.54/200117.04.2002242.459658D.Karunagaran464/3A1G0.03.04/200117.04.2002243.328659S.Latha Srinivasan464/3A4464/3A5464/3A1E0.03.00.01.50.02.54/200117.04.2002244.264661Shankari Ammal464/3N0.03.54/200117.04.2002245.388662K.Srinivasan (died)1.S.Saraswathi 2.K.S.Raghunathan464/3A110.01.54/200117.04.2002246.415663R.Pasupathy455/10, 110.03.54/200117.04.2002247.292664S.Shyamala411/1A0.04.05/200022.09.2000248.4231077Leela W/o. Sampath412/1A10.02.51/200118.01.200110. Since the issue was common and the awards relate to one single village, the tribunal had proceeded to try all the claim petitions jointly and recorded common evidence. During enquiry, common evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008. During enquiry, on the side of the claimant(s), one Ganesan, claimant in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C.1 to C.9 were marked, while, on the side of the LAO and Requiring Body, Tmt.Thenmozhi, Special Tahsildar (LA) was examined as R.W.1, however, no document was marked on the side of the LAO and Requiring Body.26 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202511.1 The tribunal upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the available oral and documentary evidence, proceeded to pass order/award. 11.2 The tribunal has formulated a lone question as to whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- per cent?11.3 The tribunal after having rejected Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 Lease Deeds dated 19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited, based on the sale deeds marked under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 dated 09.10.1997 assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- and after applying a deduction of 20% towards development charges, determined the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent. The tribunal has further held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation at the enhanced market value together with additional market value @ 12% from the date of publication of 4(1) Notification(s) till the date of taking possession; 30% solatium; 9% interest for one year from the date of taking over possession of the acquired land(s); and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till date of deposit of the entire compensation amount. It is this common order and decree(s) passed in the respective references which are now under challenge in these appeal suits. 12. Heard both sides.13. It is relevant to note that in respect of the lands acquired from the claimants comprised in various survey numbers, different awards passed by the 27 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025LAO, however, most of the sale exemplars are one and the same in all the awards. The learned counsel on either side shortlisted those sale deeds, tabulated hardly 250 sale exemplars and produced the same before the court for perusal. It is seen from the tabulated statement that though not less than 200 sale transactions were considered by the LAO for each of the awards, the total sale transactions taken into consideration by the LAO were in all only 250.14.1 The law officers appearing on behalf of the respective appellants would submit that (i) the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.8,720/- per cent is on the higher side. (ii) Though different notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, expressing the intent of the government to acquire the lands in Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were published between 20.11.1998 and 05.10.2000, the administrative sanction was made as early as on 09.05.1997. Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds were executed on 14.10.1997 after the Government had accorded sanction on 05.10.1997 for acquisition of the acquired land for the setting up of an industrial development complex by one Mrs.Saraswathy Nair, who is also a claimant in one of the references (L.A.O.P.No.600 of 2008) for her own interest for the purpose of inflating the market value of the property in anticipation of the acquisition proceedings in this case. The tribunal has failed to take note of the 28 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025fact that the said Saraswathy Nair has also laid a claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands comprised in S.Nos.438, 439/1, 440/1, 440/5, 442, 451/1A, 451/1B, 451/2 & 452/A of Mathur village. (iii) Mere acceptance of Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 in evidence by the court would not mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The court is granted discretion to be used judicially, that is, after considering all the relevant factors, but the tribunal has not at all exercised its judicious mind and has simply been swayed by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.6. There was also no evidence available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were comparable to the acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter of the sale were abutting the main road and when a large chunk of land measuring 159.03.0 Hectares have been acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 whereunder only small-sized housing sites were sold.(iv) The LAO had, himself, considered several sale deeds, overall, 250 different sale transactions that had taken place in a period of three years immediately preceding the date of the 4(1) notifications, of which 249 sale transactions were rejected by the LAO, finding those transfers relate to either housing sites, dry land or natham land, and the LAO had taken into consideration a sale transaction vide Doc.No.4444 dated 12.08.1996 whereby an extent of 72 cents of land was sold for Rs.14,400/- which means that one cent of land was sold for Rs.200/-, which reflected the transfer of agricultural land, and based on such sale deed, the LAO determined 29 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the market value for the acquired land at Rs.200/- per cent. However, the tribunal, going by the market value of small-sized house sites sold under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, assessed the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants to be Rs.8,720/- per cent, and after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges, the tribunal determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.6,976/- per cent. Therefore, the order of the tribunal enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.300/- per cent as fixed by the LAO is not sustainable in law and on fact.14.2 The learned law officers appearing for the respective appellants would, without prejudice to their above submissions, strenuously submit that the tribunal has failed to consider the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of deduction of development charges if the land is acquired for habitation or industrial purposes. According to them, the tribunal has failed to consider the size and nature of the lands acquired and the size and nature of the lands sold under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, and they would not be sufficient to form a reasonable basis to determine the market value of a large chunk of land. This court, being an appellate court, can very well re-examine the available sale exemplars and re-determine the market value of the acquired land based on the highest of bona fide sale exemplars that reflect the true potential and value of the land at the time of acquisition.14.3. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO would, in 30 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025support of their contention that the market value determined by the tribunal was based on the sale instances, which were in respect of individual plots of land much smaller in comparison to the land acquired in Mathur village, and for a cut of development charges ranging between 33 1/3% and 53%, placed much reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1996 9 SCC 640]; (ii) Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2012) 1 SCC 390]; and (iii) Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745].15.1 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SIPCOT would also on his part strenuously submit that the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.6,976/-per cent, after deducting 20% for development charges from the market value assessed at Rs. 8,720/- per cent, is significantly excessive and totally not indicative of the market value that existed on the date of the 4(1) notifications. This court, being an appellate court, can re-appreciate the entire evidence and redetermine the market value of the acquired lands based on the other available highest bona fide sale exemplars which are comparable by size and potentiality. 15.2 The size of plot of the land covered by the sales should be comparable to the land acquired. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar 31 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025potential as that of the acquired land. Sale exemplars should reflect the true potential and value of the land at the time of acquisition. 15.3 Mr.R.Viduthalai would further submit that the SIPCOT has spent more than Rs.3000 crores to develop the lands acquired from the claimants, however, the tribunal has failed to follow the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, which has consistently ruled that deductions are appropriate to cover the costs of developing land when it is acquired for public use, more particularly for habitation and industrial purposes, and cannot be used right away in its current condition. 15.4 Mr.R.Viduthalai while concluding his arguments fairly brought to the notice of this court the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this court in A.S.No.710 of 2024 [The Special Tahsildar (LA) TACID Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai v. B. Jayalakshmi] for the lands situated in Oragadam Village, which had also been acquired for the industrial development purposes as in the present cases, wherein this court affirmed the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,874/- per cent after applying a cut of 20% towards development charges. According to him, the location of the acquired land is one of the important factors in the determination of market value. The Oragadam village is situated at the junction where the Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil and Walajabad-Tambaram State Highways intersect, whereas Mathur village is situated 2.5 km away from Oragadam village. 32 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025The data lands cannot be compared to the acquired land, as the data lands were abutting the Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil State Highways. The lands in Mathur village have less potential value compared to the lands in Orgadam village. Nevertheless, he would point out the legal principle of uniform compensation, regardless of land categorisation when every parcel of land from different villages was acquired for the same purpose – an industrial development scheme.15.5 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel would, in support of his contention relating to the issue of percentage of deduction, placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma [Civil Appeal Nos.6986-6987 of 2018 dated 25.07.2018] & Sanath Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another [Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011]16. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would contend as follows:(i) The tribunal has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,976/- per cent after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges on the market value actually assessed at Rs.8,720/- per cent as the sale exemplars relate to small-sized housing plots as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- 33 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025per cent which is fair and just. It does not require any interference. (ii) The contention of the learned senior counsel Mr R. Viduthalai appearing for the requiring body that for the lands acquired from the Oragadam village, this court upheld the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent, and therefore, to maintain uniformity among the landowners who lost their lands to the acquisition, the same market value being fixed is not legally sound. The market value of the lands in each village may differ depending upon the proximity and potentiality.(iii) The market value of the acquired lands has to be determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification.(iv) The arguments of the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the appellant/LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body/SIPCOT sales under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 had been brought into existence only to inflate the market value of the agricultural land in question is unfounded and thoroughly baseless. (v) Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 are registered sale deeds, and they carry a presumption of genuineness. Nothing was elicited from C.W.1 during his cross-examination that 34 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025market value was inflated to get higher compensation. Therefore, the tribunal was right in determining the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. Mere reason that the vendor in the sale exemplars is one of the claimants – Saraswathy Nair, who made a claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of her remaining lands, particularly in respect of the land measuring 0.95 hectares comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village – by itself is not sufficient to doubt the genuineness and bona fides of the sale transaction.(vi) According to the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, R.W.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that the acquired lands are already developed and 95% of the acquired land were house sites. In cases where small pieces of land are taken into consideration for determining the value of large extent of land, and when the acquired land are already developed, no development charges could be ordered to be deducted, however, in the instant cases, the reference court applied a cut of 20% which is justified and no interference is required in regard to deduction of charges as well. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 (ii) Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai [(2023 SAR (Civ) 49]; (iii) Balwan Singh v. The State of Haryana [2022 SAR (civ) 941]; and (iv) Union of India v. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC 6556].35 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202517. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the available records carefully.18. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeal suits are: (1) Is the market value as determined by the tribunal on the higher side and not representative of the market value that prevailed on the date when the first notification of a series of notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, was issued?(2) To what relief reliefs are the parties entitled?19.1 The tribunal adopted the comparable sale method and based on Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7, it has assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- per cent and after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges, it has determined the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent. Aggrieved over the enhancement of market value from Rs.300/- as fixed by the LAO to Rs.6,976/- per cent, the referring officer is before this court with the present appeal suits.19.2 On the side of the claimants Ex.C.6 and C.7 sale exemplars, no other sale exemplars was produced. Those sale exemplars were in fact considered and rejected by the LAO as could be seen from the sale exemplars tabulated and produced by the State as well as the SIPCOT. 36 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202519.3 Ex.C.6 is a sale deed dated 14.10.1997, vide Doc.No.5901 of 1997, executed by Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power of Attorney – G.K.Nair in favour of one Kuruvilla Varkey conveying 1800 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. If we work out the market value on square feet basis, it comes to Rs.20/- per square feet and in other words Rs.8720/- per cent. Ex.C.7 is the other sale deed. This sale was also made on the same day when sale under Ex.C.6 was made. This was the sale made by the very same vendor-Saraswathy Nair represented by her husband G.K.Nair in favour of one T.K.Manoj vide Doc.No.5901 conveying 1800 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.457/1A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. Thus, the value of land is Rs.8720/- per cent. 20. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the referring officer and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body would predominantly contend that Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars cannot be relied upon because they were executed after the administrative sanction for acquisition was granted on 09.05.1997. When the genuineness and bona fides of the sales had not been proved by way of oral evidence, and further, there was also no evidence available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were comparable to the acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter of the sale were abutting the main road and when a large chunk of land measuring 159.03.0 Hectares have been 37 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 whereunder only a small-sized housing sites were sold. Furthermore, according to them, the vendor in those sale exemplars purportedly inflated the market value sensing the acquisition proposed to be made. They further contended that the vendor in the exemplars under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 was also a claimant in L.A.O.P. No.600 of 2008 wherein she made a claim for enhanced compensation for her lands comprised in different survey numbers including the land in S.No.452/A (remaining portion of data land under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7). 21. It is the settled law that the burden of establishing the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. Equally, the State must have been fair and reasonable in compensating the displaced landowners. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, [(2010) 5 SCC 708], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the dual onus on both claimants and the State in establishing the fair market value. 22. The learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would, on the other hand, contend that, Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 being registered documents carry a presumption of genuineness of its contents. The referring officer had rejected those sale exemplars merely on the ground that the land covered under the same were house sites and not on any other grounds. When the same were produced in evidence 38 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025by C.W.1, LAO did not make any effort to rebut the presumption. Nothing was elicited from C.W.1 to hold that the sale transactions under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were not genuine and bona fide. Therefore, now, it is not open for the appellant/LAO to question the genuineness and bona fide at the appellate stage. 23. The market value is the price that a purchaser is willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller. No doubt, a registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness; such presumption is, however, rebuttable, and not absolute. Admissibility of a document cannot vouchsafe the reliability of its contents. 24. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, [(2001) 3 SCC 530], a full bench of Hon’ble the supreme court (three-judge bench) has held as follows:“14. The words ‘may be accepted as evidence’ in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price 39 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025of the land concerned.”25. The above said view in V.Narasaiah’s case (cited supra) was affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1284 at page 282. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows: “35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf.” 26. Thus, the law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and evidentiary value of document produced under Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894 now is that the landowner who produces the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document need not examine the vendee or the vendor of that document. However, the court is expected to apply its judicial mind to the 40 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors.27. This court is informed that much before the notification proposing to acquire the lands in Mathur village, the notification for the acquisition of lands in Oragadam village for the setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by the SIPCOT and for the setting up of Special Economic Zones by TACID had been issued.28. Even though the arguments advanced by the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body that the vendor of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, viz., Saraswathy, having sensed the proposed acquisition in the Oragadam village and neighbourhood, purportedly inflated the market value appears to be attractive to some extent, this court is unable to acknowledge the same for the simple reason that, the market value has to be determined by the court with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the same village where the acquired land is situated or in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894. Finding the most similar examples among the real examples would require considering the proximity from both the time and situation perspectives.41 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202529. The claimants, during the trial, placed reliance mainly upon Ex.C.4 lease deed, dated 19.08.2010 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Typres Limited in respect of 2.12 Acres comprised in S.Nos.454/2B and 454/1C2 of Mathur Village and S.Nos.31/23B, 31/1A2, 31/1B and 31/1C of Oragadam Village. As per this lease deed, the market value of the land was Rs.48,000/- per cent. Similarly, the claimants placed reliance on Ex.C.5 lease deed. This deed relates to lease of 1.99 Acres of land. As per this lease deed, market value of the land was Rs.1,97,698/- per cent. Next, the claimants relied upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds dated 14.10.1997 executed by Mrs. Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power Agent G.K.Nair in respect of 1800 square feet of housing sites for Rs.36,000/- each in favour of Kuruvilla Varkey and T.K.Manoj respectively. According to these sale transactions, a cent of land was sold at Rs.8720/-30. This court has meticulously gone through Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7 lease deeds and sale deeds.31. Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 are lease agreements entered by the SIPCOT with M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited dated 19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 respectively relate to post acquisition and much after the acquired lands have been well developed. Therefore, these documents cannot be taken into consideration for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands. 42 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202532. The location of the housing sites involved in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 would only probablise the fact Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 were executed at the instance and for the interest of the claimant Saraswathy in one of the references for the purpose of placing reliance on an inflated market value of the property in anticipation of acquisition proceedings in the instant cases. Except for Ex.C.6 and Ex.C7 no other sale made for such higher market value. In the said circumstances, this court had a doubt over the genuineness of the transaction in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. The tribunal has failed to apply its judicial mind and notice the sudden inflation in the market value of the land in Mathur Village. Further, it is seen that the lands covered by Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 are small-sized housing sites. This factor was also not taken into consideration by the tribunal while relying upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars. 33. On a careful perusal of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, this court is of the view that lands covered by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 cannot be said to be comparable to the vast extent of land acquired in Mathur village. As rightly pointed out by the learned law officer(s) for the LAO and the learned senior counsel for the SIPCOT, the lands covered by Ex.C.6 and C.7 were abutting the Sriperumbudur – Singaperumal Koil, and they are also small-sized housing plots. Therefore, house sites covered by the sale exemplars cannot be said to be similar to the acquired land which is situated on the backside of the lands covered by sale exemplars. Although the lands covered by the sale exemplars are comparable in size and type to the lands acquired from each of 43 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the landowners comprised in various survey numbers, the acquired lands might not have had the same potential as the lands covered by the sale exemplars. Frontage land is typically worth more than back land when it comes to real estate pricing. This is primarily because frontage land offers access to a road or street, which can be vital for companies, residential projects, and other uses. The value of the land usually drops as the distance from the road increases. Even if it is a small-sized plot, either a commercial or housing plot, if it is abutting the highways, it has a greater value than the back land. However, the belting method of valuation cannot be adopted in view of the settled legal position that there could not be discrimination among the landowners when various parcels of land have been acquired from different landowners for a single purpose. There should be uniform compensation rates irrespective of land categorisation when the entire land is acquired for a single public purpose. [vide Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564]. 34. Furthermore, merely because Ex.C.6 & C.7 carry a presumption of genuineness and the LAO has not chosen to rebut such presumption, this court cannot simply go by the said sale exemplars. A duty is cast upon this court to ascertain the fact whether the sale transactions under ExC.6 and ExC.7 were genuine and bona fide. On a careful comparison of sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 with the other available sale exemplars, this court is unable to find any sale transaction in 2007 at such a higher market value. The only other sale transfer was 44 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025in respect of 1980 square feet of land vide Doc. No. 5709 of 1997, about which reference will be made at an appropriate place in this judgement. Therefore, this court has no other option except to discount Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars, as the lands covered under the same are not comparable to the acquired lands, and the market value reflected therein is not indicative of the prevailing market value of the property in the vicinity, and if they are taken into consideration to determine the market value of the acquired land, certainly it would only lead to an inflated valuation.35. Except Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7, there are no other documents produced by the claimant to establish the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.3000/- per square feet in Mathur Village at the time of 4(1) Notification as claimed by them in the respective references. 36. If the sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 are discounted, the next sale exemplars which reflect highest sale price are sale deeds (i) vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 03.10.1997 executed by Parvathi represented by Power of Attorney N.Muralidharan in favour of Vidhya Muralidharan conveying 1980 square feet of land for Rs.35,000/- which means a cent of land was sold at Rs.7,707/-. It is seen from the above sale deed that the Power Agent- N.Muralidharan is none other than the husband of the purchaser-Vidhya. The said Vidhya Muralidharan, in turn, on 45 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202528.07.1998 sold the land purchased under Doc.No.3618 of 1998 in favour of Srikanth and Mrs.Rangamani for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/- which means a cent of land was sold at Rs.8,810/-. 37. It is seen from the sale deed vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 28.07.1998 executed by Parvathi represented by her Power Agent – N.Muralidharan in favour of Vidhya Muralidharan that the said Parvathy had purchased it on 15.03.1995 under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1379 of 1995 from T.V.Ranganathan and Roslyn Mary Pushpam for Rs.19,800/- which means a cent of land was purchased for Rs.4,360/-. However, within a period of 18 months, she had sold her property for Rs.35,000/- with an increase of 43.43% and within ten months thereafter, Vidhya Muralidharan sold her property to P.Srikanth and S.Rangamani for Rs.40,000/- with an increase of 12.5%. This court, going by the documents available on record, is of the view that the market value reflected in the above sale deed is not in alignment with the market value that prevailed then. It can be safely inferred that prior to the 4(1) notifications, if a smaller extent of land is sold out for an exorbitant price, it would certainly be an indication that such transfers were effected solely for the purpose of establishing inflation in the market value. In addition, this sale exemplar is also liable to be discarded for the reasons assigned in respect of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars.46 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202538. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a citizen, is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. In the instant cases, a vast extent of land in the village – Mathur – had already been converted into house sites by the time when the proposed acquisition was notified, and more than 95% of the acquired land, as admitted by R.W.1 were house sites. Those house sites situated in Mathur village had been acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial development complex, and the lands under acquisition not only had potential value but were also developed and situated in the already developed area. The adjacent areas were also already developed. It was admitted by R.W.1 in the cross-examination. The relevant portion of the cross examination of R.W.1 reads as follows:- “////////////jpUbgUk;g[J}h; kw;Wk; ,U';fhl;L nfhl;il jpl;l';fSf;F kj;jpapy; xuflk; jpl;lk; mike;Js;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lk; mikg;gjw;F Kd;ng m';F bjhHpw;rhiyfs; kw;Wk; gs;spfs; ,a';fp te;jd vd;why; rupjhd;/ mnjnghy; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epy';fs; rp';fbgUkhs; nfhtpy; L: jpUbgUk;g[J}h; khepy beL";rhiy xl;oa gFjpfs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mnjnghy; jhk;guj;jpy; ,Ue;J thyh$hghj; bry;Yk; rhiyapd; xl;oa gFjp Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjp vd;why; rupjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l 47 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025epy';fSf;F mUfhikapy; $p/v!;/o/ njrpa beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; mnjnghy; brd;idapy; ,Ue;J bg';fS:h; bry;Yk; vd;/vr;/4 njrpa beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkYk; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epy';fSf;F fpHf;fpy; kPdk;ghf;fk;. jhk;guk; nghd;w tsu;e;j gFjpfs; cs;sd vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;fpy; thyh$hghj; kw;Wk; fh";rpg[uk; gFjpfs; cs;sd/ bjw;fpy; rp';fbgUkhs; kw;Wk; br';fy;gl;L rhiy cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ tlf;fpy; jpUbgUk;g[J}h; cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf epyk; Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt mLf;F kho FoapUg;g[fs; fl;lg;gl;L ,Ue;jd vd;why; rupjhd;/ epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s epy';fSf;F mUfpy; cs;s rhiyfs; ngUe;J nghf;Ftuj;J cs;s rhiyfs;s vd;why; rupjhd;/ jkpHf muR khky;yg[uj;jpy; ,Ue;J xuflk; tHpahf vz;Qq}h; rhiyf;fhf epy Mu;$pj gzpfs; eilbgw;W tUfpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ jpUg;bgUk;g[J}upy; gRik tpkhd epiyak; mikg;gjw;fhf Ma;t[ gzp eilbgw;W tUfpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go xuflk; jpl;;;lj;jpw;fhf epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt tsu;r;rp mile;j gFjpfshf ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; bgUk;ghyhdit tPl;L kidfs; vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go tPl;L kidfs; kjpg;g[k; gd;kl';F cau;e;J ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/48 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025//////////////////////////////////////////////////tpw;gid g[s;sptptu';fspd; go bgUk;ghyhd tPl;L kidfs; 95 rjtPjj;jpw;F nkyhd tpw;gidfs; tPl;L kid rk;ke;jkhd Mtz';fs; vd;why; rupjhd;/ ,Hg;gPL epu;zak; bra;tjw;fhf eh';fs; vLj;J bfhz;l epyk; tptrha epyk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ …….”39. It is seen from the award that the LAO had relied on the sale of agricultural land made on 12.08.1996, whereunder an extent of 72 cents was sold for Rs.14,400/-, which in terms of cent value worked out to Rs.200/-. Since the acquired lands were substantially developed by the time when 4(1) notifications were issued, the market value fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural land cannot be said to be correct. The LAO fixed the market value of the purchased land using the lowest of the sale exemplars and simply discounted all other sale exemplars on the ground that they were house sites. When more than 95% of the acquired lands are house sites, the LAO should have taken the highest of bona fide sale exemplars relating to the house site which is comparable to the acquired lands. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the sale exemplars must be genuine and representative of the market value. Except for the documents (vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 03.10.1997 and Doc.No.3618 of 1998 49 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025dated 28.07.1998) and Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 there is no other sale made at such an inflated rate. Therefore, the above-mentioned documents, vide Doc. Nos. 5709 of 1997 and 3168 of 1998, also cannot be taken into consideration, and they are liable to be discounted from being relied on to determine the market value. 41. Therefore, this court has no other option to determine the market value of the acquired land from other sale exemplars available, which were considered and discarded by the LAO and to determine the market value of the acquired land. The next 10 highest sale exemplars available as per the list of sale exemplars are as follows: -Sl.No.SurveyNumberExtentin square feetDocumentNumberDate of DocumentValue of land(in rupees)Value of per cent of land (in rupees)1.239/54A1361115005.03.19992170469532.414/2196946803.02.20002874863663.381/3,3B3328616820.12.19984070061314.381/33328660630.12.19984659261045.4381800349211.07.20002500060416.239/54A1890329918.06.19991512058007.363/A872747024.12.19971133656688.432/12400372524.01.20002880052319.381/5B2430199910.04.199626730479910. 414/21969529118.09.199928747442950 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202542. On a careful consideration of the above sale particulars, this court finds that under the sale exemplar found in Sl.No.1 - Doc.No.1150 dated 05.03.1999 it is seen that a house site measuring 1361 square feet was sold for Rs.21,704/- by one Alamelu Ammal in favour of Kasthuribai. This sale exemplar cannot be taken into consideration as the sale in that deed is dated much after the first 4(1) notification which was issued on 20.11.1998. The sale exemplars under Serial Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 also cannot be taken into consideration for the similar reason assigned herein above. 43. In the case of State of Punjab v. Hans Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or, in its absence, the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value may be taken for the determination of the market value of the acquired land. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows:“4. ..............................It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market 51 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025value."44. Reverting to the instant cases, the next highest available sale exemplar is at Serial No. 7 mentioned in the above tabular column. This transaction relates to a sale of 872 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.363/A of Mathur village. This house site was sold for Rs.11,336/-, and the value of the land in terms of cent value is Rs.5,668/-. This house site is part of the approved layout and comparable to the acquired lands, most of which were house sites. This sale exemplar, although size-wise not comparable to the acquired lands. This sale exemplar also seems to be genuine and bona fide, and the value for which the property was transferred is found to be aligned with the market value prevailing in the vicinity on the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, i.e., 20.11.1998, in respect of the lands covered under Award No.1 of 2000 dated 23.03.2000. Thus, it is evident from the above said sale exemplars that the market value could have been not less than Rs.6,668/- per cent on the date of 4(1) notification. Based on this sale exemplar, the market value of the acquired land can be fixed. If so, the market value of the acquired lands could be assessed at Rs.5,668/- per cent. Because the highest of bona fide sale which has been relied upon to determine the market value of the acquired land being smaller in extent, a reasonable percentage of deduction has to be applied towards development charges.52 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025DEDUCTION CHARGES:-JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY MR.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL: 45.1 In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432, while reaffirming the view taken in the case of Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [(2011) 6 SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held it would be just and reasonable to allow deduction @ 20%. By applying the above method, the market value for the acquired land is fixed at Rs 1,82,000/- minus Rs 36,400 (towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs 1,45,600/- rounded at Rs 1,45,000/- per acre which is quite fair, reasonable and acceptable.45.2 In the case of Balwan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. The State of Haryana [2022 SAR (Civ) 941], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the value of small developed plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land, a cut towards deduction charges could be made ranging from 20% to 75%.45.3 In the case of Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai [2023 SAR (Civ) 49 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1612], the Hon’ble Supreme Court denied the deduction of development charges on the ground that the lands were acquired 40 years back and the compensation was decided by the LAO after litigating in courts only at Rs.6/- per square yard for the lands in the heart of the city of Hyderabad, where the cost of the land has been increased more than 100 times.53 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202545.4 In the case of Union of India v. K. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC 6556], a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the value of small developed plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of land, the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor to be considered to apply a deduction towards development charges.JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE LAW OFFICERS:46.1 In the case of Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 9 SCC 640], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value and the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the deduction of 65% towards development charges as the land under acquisition situated in an undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development. 46.2 In the case of Chandrashekar (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2012) 1 SCC 390], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld a deduction of 55% towards development charges on the ground that the exemplar sale transaction pertained to a developed site, while the acquired land was totally undeveloped. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also affirmed further deduction of 10% made by the Karnataka High Court towards de-escalation and 5% towards the waiting period in 54 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the absence of any challenge thereto.46.3 In the case of Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745] upon which much reliance was placed by the learned law officers for the LAO, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its judgement in the case of Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar v. Sub-Divisional Officer [(1996) 7 SCC 554] has held that the courts may determine the compensation on square foot basis on case to case basis, if there are no other sale instances available, however, subject to a reasonable deduction towards development charges. JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANTS:47. In the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma [(2018) 8 SCC 485], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that that while determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands especially when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. 48. This court is conscious of the principle of deductions towards development charges. Deducting development charges is to account for the expenses and 55 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025resources required to prepare the site for its intended use, which typically includes amenities and infrastructure. Such deduction must ensure that the landowner gets fair compensation that reflects. The percentage of deduction of developments charges may vary depending on nature of land, extent of development required and the purpose of acquisition. However, there is no straight-jacket formula for the deduction of development charges and it is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the development charges.49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in the cases where the highest sale exemplar which was the basis for the determination of market value of the acquired land, a reasonable percentage of deduction towards development charges should be applied based on the situation of land and the need for development. 50. In the case of Sanath Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another [Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:“8. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of ?rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 278 : (2003) 1 SCC 354, this Court 56 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025held :-"............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by 57 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than ?rd and in some cases less than ?rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose."9. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tej Bhojwani v. State of U.P., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 551 : (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 496 : (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 186 : (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, this Court held under :-"Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail 58 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025price" as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land.The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost."10. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court ordained deduction of 53% of market value towards development charges only on the ground that substantial amount was spent for providing the facilities like road, power supply, water supply drainage etc. for multinationals, NRI's and others who would like to set up industries in the complex.11. In our view, the reasons assigned by the High Court increasing the percentage of deduction from 40 to 53 are legally untenable. While determining market value of the acquired land, the court must always bear in mind that in majority of cases the 59 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025acquisition of land deprives the land owner of his only source of livelihood and sustenance. The acquiring authority and the beneficiaries of acquisition can always recover the cost of land from the allottees of plots. If the allotment is made to industrial entrepreneurs, they will invariably pass on the cost of land to the consumers of their products. Therefore, while increasing the percentage of deduction from the market value determined by the Reference Court, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect and should have, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, refrained from increasing the percentage of cut from 40 to 53, which resulted in depriving the landowners of their right to receive just and reasonable compensation.”51. Neither the LAO nor the requiring party established the need for development contemplated and the possible expenditure of such development by positive evidence to show that such development charges were justifiable. 52. The categorical admission by R.W.1 in his cross-examination, which has been excerpted above in Tamil, would indicate that the acquired land was partially developed, with good road access and having the amenity of electricity and water. Considering the fact that the acquired lands are already substantially developed and they had been acquired for the industrial purpose, and further development would not cost much, 20% of deduction towards development charges and for smaller extent of house site would be reasonable and justified.60 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202553. In the light of the discussions already made, if 20% deduction is applied on the assessed market value of Rs.5,668/- per cent, the market value of the acquired land could be determined at Rs.4,535/- per cent. 54. The State for the purpose of setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (for short, “the TACID”) acquired a vast extent of lands from Oragadam, Mathur, Panrutti, Vallam, Panappakkam, Karanithangal and Vaipur villages. As already stated above, not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, each of the landowners requested for making a reference to the tribunal for enhancement of market value. On such references, the tribunal, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State is before this court. 55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting claimants would fairly bring to the notice of this court the details of the market value fixed by the LAO and market value enhanced by the Tribunal. Those details are tabulated hereunder for easy reference:VillageMarket Value fixed by the LAO(per cent)Market value enhanced by the Tribunal(per cent)OragadamRs.300/-Rs.4,754/-MathurRs.200/-Rs.6,976/-PanrutiRs.250/-Rs.4,560/-61 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025VallamRs.230/-Rs.6,931/-Rs.7,762/-Rs.8,693/-PanapakkamRs.300/-Rs.2,700/-KaranithangalRs.300/-Rs.4,100/-56. On appeal against the enhancement of the market value by the tribunal, the State/LAO preferred appeal suits and this court, according to the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, dismissed the same. The details of the appeal suit numbers and date of disposal of the appeal suits are as follows:VillageAppeal SuitNumberDate of DisposalPanruti420 to 428 of 201630.09.2022Oragadam710 of 2024 and a batch of cases07.02.2025Panapakkam52 of 2025 and a batch of cases12.02.202557. Reverting to the cases on hand, as already discussed above, the market value of the acquired land has been determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. This court, very recently, in the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai v.1. B.Jayalakshmi [A.S.No.710 of 2024 dated 07.02.2025] upheld the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. This 62 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025was after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. 58. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination among the land owners and pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others.59. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, the Honourable Supreme Court has as follows:- “15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local 63 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration…….”60. Similar view was taken in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 565], has held as follows:“When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the 64 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025order passed in review is also to be set aside.”61. This acquisition relates to Mathur village which is a neighbourhood of Oragdam. In the case of acquisition of lands relating to Oragadam village, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the requiring body and the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, this court upheld the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. If the landowners are awarded compensation at the market value of Rs.4,535/- per cent, it would certainly amount to discrimination among the landowners whose lands had been acquired simultaneously for a single purpose – industrial development.62. In the light of the principle of uniform compensation rates in land acquisition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is inclined to match the market value as determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent for the lands acquired from the landowners in Mathur village with that of the market value as determined at Rs.4,754/- per cent for the lands acquired in Orgadam village for the very same purpose. The claimants are entitled to solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. This point is answered accordingly. Point No.2:63. For the foregoing discussions, the order/award passed by the tribunal requires interference insofar as the market value is concerned. The market value of 65 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the acquired land is fixed at Rs.4,754/- per cent. The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.4,754/- per cent together with additional market value, solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. Except the modification made by this court to the extent indicated above, in all other aspects, the common order and award of the tribunal shall stand maintained. This point is answered accordingly. 64. During the course of the hearing of the appeals on the earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that some of the private respondent(s) have not entered appearance through counsel despite service of notice; in a few other cases, the service of notice by the appellant could not be effected on private respondent(s) due to various reasons; and in some other cases, as noted already, it was reported that the claimants died.65. In the above circumstances, this court passed an interim order on 24.04.2025 directing the appellant/LAO to take out paper publication as regards the pendency of the appeal suit(s) and also to enable the interested person, any legal heir of the deceased claimants who are having interest in the compensation to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings. On 29.04.2025, when the appeals suits came up for hearing, no person came forward with a claim. Mrs R. Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, filed the paper publication taken out by the appellant/LAO as directed by this court on 24.04.2025. This court had directed the 66 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025names of those private respondents to be printed on the cause list and posted the matters on 30.04.2025. 66. It is pertinent to note that acquisition in this case was initiated in a phased manner, and notification(s) under 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 were issued between 07.12.1998 and 05.10.2000 which were followed by Section 6 declarations; after award enquiries in each of the acquisition proceedings, separate awards were passed between 15.03.2000 and 17.11.2022; not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, the land owners made a claim for enhancement of compensation individually and the same were referred by the LAO to the tribunal. The tribunal took on file those reference in 2008 and disposed of the same by a common judgement dated 30.11.2021 made in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of references. Thereafter these appeals came to be filed in 2023 and the appellant/LAO was able to get the appeal suits numbered only in February/March, 2025. Almost 24 years have elapsed after the acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The landowners could have been moved out of the addresses originally furnished in the reference(s). The appellant/LAO was unable to complete the service of notice. 67. It is evident that the interests of the absent parties, falling under three distinct categories, are adequately represented by the other landowners, who are large in number. It is pertinent to note that learned counsel who appeared on behalf of all the claimants before the tribunal had entered appearance before this court on behalf of the claimant(s) only in respect of 134 appeal suits. The claim for 67 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025enhancement advanced by a larger number of landowners encompasses and reflects the interests of the non-appearing parties.68. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to their rights by their absence. In order to sub-serve the cause of substantial justice, and bearing in mind the broader principles of fairness and equity, this Court is of the considered view that the matter may be proceeded with, treating the interests of the non-appearing parties as effectively safeguarded.69. In the case of Abdul Marim v. State of M.P. [AIR 1964 MP 171 (MP)], a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not suit proceedings and Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be read as creating a fiction for deeming “proceedings before the court under the Act” as proceedings in any suit. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement reads as follows:“It is obvious enough that reference proceedings under section 18 are not suit proceedings. An application for reference under section 18 is not made by the person interested to the Court but to the Collector asking him to make a reference to the Court. The reference is made not by the party but by the Collector albeit at the instance of the party. If the reference proceedings had been suit proceedings, then there would have been no necessity of inserting in the Act section 53 laying down that “Save insofar as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the 68 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Court under this Act”. So also there would have been no need to create the fiction embodied in section 26(2) that an award made under section 18 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the proceedings under section 18 of the Act had been proceedings in a suit, then the Code of Civil Procedure would have applied automatically and the award under that provision would have been even without the aid of fiction a decree within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is noteworthy that section 53 of the Act has not the effect of making “all proceedings before the Court under the Act suit proceedings”. All that it does is to apply to the proceedings before the Court under the Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure unless any of the provisions is “inconsistent with anything contained in the Act”. It is one thing to say that the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the proceedings under the Act and very much another to say that they are suit proceedings and consequently the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to them. Section 53 cannot be read as creating a fiction for deeming “proceedings before the Court under the Act” as proceedings in any suit. It is thus plain that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to proceedings under section 18 of the Act taking those proceedings as suit proceedings in reality or fictionally under the Code of Civil Procedure. Its applicability to proceedings under section 18 of the Act can only be by virtue of section 53 and subject to the limitation contained in that section. The limitation is that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure intended to be applied must not be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. For the purpose of inconsistency it is not 69 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025necessary that there should be an express provision to the contrary in the Act itself. It would be enough if the applicability of a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure to any proceedings before the Court under the Act would be incompatible with the nature of the proceedings.” 70. The above said view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemareddi (D) Through LRs. v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani [2019 SAR (Civil) 690], where the Apex Court considered a similar issue involving abatement of proceedings due to the non-impleadment of legal representatives. In that case, though the High Court had held that the appeal abated in its entirety due to failure to bring the legal heirs of one of the appellants on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:“...if the so-called procedural requirement is drawn from a wholesome principle of substantive law to advance the cause of justice, the same may not be overlooked.”71. In the instant cases, the claimant(s) in some of the cases appear to have died between the date of award passed by the tribunal and before filing of the appeal suits by the LAO. The LAO was able to get the appeal suits numbered only in 2025 though they were filed in 2023 itself due to certain technicalities. 72. The death of the claimant(s) in some of the cases occurred after the decree but before the appeal against the award of the tribunal are preferred and before the service of notice in the appeal suits it is the duty of the LAO/appellant herein to furnish details of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant. 70 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025However, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that there are difficulties in getting the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased claimants as the last whereabouts of such deceased claimants are not known and it was reported that they moved out of their addresses furnished in the reference long back. 73. The principle laid down in the said decisions squarely applies to the case at hand which reinforces the view that procedural lapses should not defeat the ends of justice, particularly when the substantive rights of absent parties are adequately protected through effective representation by a larger number of landowners. 74. This court is also of the view there could be no dismissal of the appeal as abated as it would only cause hardship to the family of the landowners who lost their lands due to acquisition for the purpose of industrial development. Therefore, this court does not want to dismiss the appeal suit as abated insofar as the cases where the claimant(s) were reportedly died. 75. Considering the fact that rights and interests of the claimants, who have refrained from entering appearance either in person or through a counsel, despite service of notice for the reasons known to them or could not enter appearance for want of knowledge about the pendency of the appeal suits because of non-service of notice as the case may be, and in some cases where the sole claimant died, are adequately and effectively protected by other landowners involved in the case, this 71 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025court had proceeded to pass orders on the appeal suits without waiting for them to come or waiting for the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s) to be impleaded in the appeal suits. 76. The absent claimants are entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate application(s) for withdrawal of the compensation amount as per law. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased sole claimant in the respective appeal suits are also entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate application(s) for withdrawal of the compensation amount and the tribunal on proper enquiry on the legal heirship of the deceased claimant(s) and proper identification by their counsel, pass appropriate order for the release of the compensation in their favour as per rules. 77. The Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to identify the whereabouts of the absent claimant(s) and notify them that the appeal suit(s) preferred against them by the LAO has/have been disposed of and that they are entitled to the compensation once it is deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.78. The Government of Tamil Nadu is also directed to identify the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s) and their whereabouts and notify them that the appeal suit(s) preferred by the LAO against the person(s) whose name(s) were registered in the record as landowner(s) has/have been disposed of and that they, being the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s), are entitled to the compensation once it is deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.79. The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate responsible officers/staff 72 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025members, as may be necessary and required, to undertake the above exercise and complete the same as expeditiously as possible.In the result, the appeal suits are partly allowed and the common order/award passed by the tribunal is modified to the following effect:i)The market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,976/- per cent as determined by the tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.4,754/- per cent insofar as the references under appeal are concerned. ii)The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the reduced market rate together with, additional market value, solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under LA Act, 1894iii)The appellant in these appeal suits or the authority concerned is directed to deposit the compensation as directed above, if not already deposited pursuant to the orders of the reference court under appeal.iv)The appellant/State is entitled to get the excess amount, if any, deposited, returned subject to the satisfaction of the decree amount(s).v)The law officer(s) who represented the appellant in the 73 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025respective appeal suits, as well as the learned senior counsel represented on behalf of the SIPCOT and the learned counsel on record for the SIPCOT, who assisted the senior counsel, shall be entitled to separate fees for each appeal.vi)It is made clear that the claimants are at liberty to approach the reference court for withdrawal of the compensation as directed above in accordance with law. vii)There shall be no order as to costs. viii)The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate responsible officers/staff members, as may be necessary and required, to enforce the directions issued in the preceding paragraphs of this judgement.The impugned common order and individual decree(s) are modified to the extent indicated above and in other respects the same shall stand confirmed. Consequently, connected CMPs are closed. Index : yes / no30..04..2025Neutral citation : yes / nokmkNote: The Registry is directed to type out cause title for rest of the appeal suits and 74 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025issue certified copies to the parties.75 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,kmk A.S.No.257 of 2025and a batch of cases30..04..202576 of 76

A.S.No.257 of 2025COMMON JUDGEMENTThe appellant in these appeal suits is the State. All these Appeal Suits arise out of the common judgement dated 30.11.2021 and individual decree (s) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Kancheepuram [for short, “the Tribunal”] in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of cases whereby the tribunal determined the market value at the rate of Rs.8,720/- per cent and after applying 20% deduction towards development charges, enhanced the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- per cent apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, “the LA Act, 1894”]. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer.2. The appellant in these appeal suits is the Referring Officer – Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID, Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai. The private respondent(s) is/are claimants and the Managing Director, SIPCOT TACID Division, the official respondent is the requisitioning body. 3. These appeal suits are directed against the common order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram. There are 248 appeal suits listed before this court. Of which, in 133 cases, as stated in the preamble of this order, the claimant(s) in the appeal suits, as mentioned under Sl.Nos.1 to 27, 29 & and claimants 2 and 3 under Sl.No.198 of the cause list, entered appearance through 7 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025counsel M/s.A.Jagadeeswari, P.N.Udhayakumar, D.Sathyanarayana, E.Karthik Raja & K.R.Vinodhinee, and the claimant in the appeal suit, as mentioned under Sl.No.28 of the cause list, entered appearance through counsel M/s.V.Anil Kumar, S.V.Sundara Rajan, B.Vasanthi & A.Samyuktha. In some cases, despite notice having been served, none appeared in person nor entered appearance through counsel, and in some other cases, the appellant/LAO could not serve notice, and in yet another set of cases, the appellant/complainant or one of the appellants/claimants was reported dead.4. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases in so far as the contesting private respondents/claimants. This court will make appropriate reference and discussion on the merits in respect of rest of the cases at a latter part of this judgement. Let this court first decide the merits of the cases as they relate to the private respondents/claimants who contest the appeal suits filed by the LAO challenging the enhancement of compensation. In the later part of this judgement, this court will refer to and discuss the merits of the other categories of cases where notice was served on the private respondents/claimants, but they had not entered appearance; notice not served; and the claimant(s) reported dead.5. Prior to moving forward, this court deems it appropriate to state that the entire matter relates to acquisition of various parcels of land comprised in various survey numbers in Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, 8 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025for setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (for short, “the TACID).6. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant in these appeals will be referred to as “LAO” while the private respondent(s) will be referred to as “claimants” and the official respondent will be referred to as the “requiring body” wherever the context so requires.7. 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 Mathur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.(b) A total extent of 159.03.0 Hectares of land in the said village were proposed to be acquired by the State under 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 9 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202520.11.1998 and 05.10.2000 and the same were published in the local daily newspaper. 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 declarations under Section 6 were issued on various dates between 28.12.1998 and 15.07.1999. The details of Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Declarations issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the 159.03.0 Hectares of land situated at Mathur village and acquired from the claimants covered under different awards are as follows:SI.No.Award NumberAward DateDate of Publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act,1894 in theGovernment GazetteUnder Section(6) Declaration1.1/200023.03.200007.12.199822.01.19992.2/200015.03.200007.12.199809.02.19993.1/200027.03.200007.12.199822.01.19994.1/200023.03.200020.11.199828.12.19985.1/200031.07.200020.11.199828.12.19986.2/200015.05.200014.12.199809.02.19997.6/200015.09.200014.12.199808.07.19998.6/200008.06.200114.12.199808.07.19999.3/199919.07.200114.12.199805.07.199910.5/200009.03.200125.01.199906.05.199911.5/200015.03.200125.01.199906.05.199912.1/200103.05.200125.01.199902.06.199913.3/200031.05.200027.01.199910.06.199914.6/200025.04.200127.01.199902.06.199915.4/200015.02.200127.01.199906.05.199916.2/200016.05.200127.01.199910.06.199917.3/200031.05.200127.01.199910.06.199918.5/200004.09.200018.02.199906.07.199919.4/200015.06.200010.03.199915.07.199920.7/200019.07.200110.03.199906.07.199910 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025SI.No.Award NumberAward DateDate of Publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act,1894 in theGovernment GazetteUnder Section(6) Declaration21.3/200217.11.200205.10.200013.11.2000(d) Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), after due enquiry, determined the compensation payable for the land at Rs.200/- by the above said awards.(e) Many Central and State Government Offices are located nearby the lands acquired for the Oragadam Industrial Scheme besides several Nationalized and Multinational Banking Institutions; (f) The Government of India had proposed to form Greener International Airport at Sriperumbudur. There is a proposal from the Government of Tamil Nadu to lay a 200-foot road from Mamallapuram to Ennore Port via Oragadam, and the ground-level work for the above two projects was already complete.(g) The subject lands under acquisition were house sites. The sale exemplars gathered by the LAO for fixation of market value of the acquired lands relate to house sites and the lands were sold at square foot basis. While so, the market value fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural lands is not fair and it is against law as well. 11 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025(h) Purchase of house site in the vicinity of Orgadam or Mathur was not affordable to a person of middle class. The LAO has not followed the principles laid down under Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894 while fixing compensation for the lands acquired from the claimants. (i) Not being satisfied with the compensation as determined by the LAO, the claimant(s) made his/their written objection(s) for enhancement of compensation stating that acquired lands abutted Singaperumal Koil – Sriperumbudur State Highway and is very close to National Highways (NH4) and Grand Southern Trunk Road. The market value of the land covered under the acquisition at the time of 4(1) notifications was not less than a sum of Rs.3,000/- per square feet. (j) On such objections, the Referring Officer made individual reference(s) to the Tribunal at Kanchipuram under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the lands comprised in various survey numbers situate at Mathur village and the tribunal, in turn, took those reference on file and assigned numbers to the references.8. The Referring Officer opposed the claim petitions stating that the awards were passed strictly in accordance with law. The counter affidavit filed by the LAO was adopted by the requisitioning body. The Referring Officer inter alia contended in his counter that the awards were passed considering the various aspects and features of the lands acquired that were projected by the claimants. Public interest outweighs the private interest. Since the compensation for the acquired lands was 12 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025fixed on the existing statistics, the claim of land owners that the value of the acquired lands should be above the value determined by the LAO is incorrect and untenable. 9. The details of lands owned by the claimants comprised in various survey numbers in Mathur Village, LAOPs assigned to the reference(s) made by the Referring Officer at the behest of the claimants and the appeal suit numbers are as follows: -Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date202520081.257460 P. Ganesan508/2A20.02.06/20008.6.20012.272333Mrs. D.Chandrika468/40.0205/200009.03.20013.386334Thomas Jayapaul468/10.19.05/200009.03.20014.327335Wilson Martin375/3A10.02.55/200009.03.20015.276336Dhamodaran477/1A0.04.05/200009.03.20016.258337R.Desigan468/42419sq.ft5/200009.03.20017.385340Noyel Davis395/B20.04.54/200015.02.20018.454341Tupendra Gupta402/2A100.04.04/200015.02.20019.438342Sudhakar402/2A110.04.04/200015.02.200110.408344Chandra390/1E60.02.54/200015.02.200111.401345V.Radhakrishnamoorthi402/2A120.05.54/200015.02.200112.458346Duraiswamy396/7396/80.01.50.02.54/200015.02.200113.270348Mariya Anandan402/1A1B0.02.04/200013 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date15.02.200114.429349Ethirajammal396/2B,396/1A0.06.54/200015.02.200115.478350Govindharajulu402/2A50.05.04/200015.02.200116.421351Jayashree402/20.06.54/200015.02.200117.431352Mohana Rao390A/1E50.02.54/200015.02.200118.416354Robert (died)1.Therasa Kristy2.Jacob Arokiyaraj3.John Vivek4.James Ashok395/B20.04.54/200015.02.200119.301356Sampangi396/2A1A0.06.04/200015.02.200120.457357Aseena Jan396/3C0.01.54/200015.02.200121.362358N.K.Palraj415/1A0.02.54/200015.02.200122.455359Janarthanam402/2A4402/480.05.04/200015.02.200123.365360Niranjan babu402/2A1A402/2A30.02.00.04.5 4/200015.02.200124.483361Anthony Louis395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200125.254362K.Abdullah (Died)1.Asina Bee 2.Hilal3.Naseem Banu 4.Jala5.Ajiz Banu396/32400sq.ft4/200015.02.200126.433363Somasundram396/2A1A0.02.54/200015.02.200127.231364Vyjayanthi Mala (died) 1.Radhakrishna Moorthy2.Venkata Sureshbabu402/2A90.04.54/200015.02.200128.426365Padmini395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200114 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date29.308366Edward Anthoni Loys395B/20.02.04/200015.02.200130.456367Arjunan390A/1E20.05.04/200015.06.200031.406368Ramesh Babu402/2A70.09.05/200022.09.200032.300369Selvaraj411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200033.428370Bagavath Singh411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200034.298371Thoodore Daniel411/1A411/2A10.02.50.02.50.05.05/200022.09.200035.360372Sriram408/10.02.05/200022.09.200036.367373Devika411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200037.338374Priya411/2A10.02.55/200022.09.200038.410375Deenadayalan411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200039.232376Poonguzhali411/2A10.04.05/200022.09.200040.273377Dilli Babu411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200041.333378Sennakesavan411/10.01.05/200022.09.200042.442379Venkatesan411/1A0.01.55/200022.09.200043.409380Kalidoss411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200044.439381Indhumathi411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200045.293382S.P.Kudari411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200046.310383Santha408/10.02.05/200022.09.200047.248384Kannan409/10.02.05/200022.09.200048.440387Mariya Fathima409/3 409/40.02.05/200022.09.200049.306389Meena411/2A1408/20.01.00.01.05/200022.09.200015 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date50.246390Rajasekaran411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200051.253391Balakrishnan411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200052.392392Srinivasan411/1A0.01.55/200022.09.200053.448393Malathi411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200054.446394Geetha411/1A0.02.05/200022.09.200055.399395Ramesh411/210.02.05/200022.09.200056.407396Ganesh Babu411/1B0.01.55/200022.09.200057.464397Kanagarathinam411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.200058.403398M.Vasudevan412/1A1414/2A10.00.50.01.51/200118.01.200159.477399Parvathi408/1408/2411/2A1Total 0.00.50.00.50.01.00.02.05/200022.09.200060.289401Santhanam404A/1A0.03.01/200118.01.200161.326403Vasanthakumari404B/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200162.241406Gopal Kumar430/10.02.01/200118.01.200163.320407Manohar413/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200164.299408C.Vasantha415/1G0.02.01/200118.01.200165.331409Revathi Hari Prasath4300.02.01/200118.01.200166.249411Thiruvengadam414/2, 412/10.02.01/200118.01.200167.480412Usha412/1A1415/1A1Total0.0050.01.50.02.01/200118.01.200168.479414S.Meena415/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200169.267415D.P.Rajendran414/1A,414/2A10.02.00.02.01/200118.01.200116 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date70.304416AnbuDurai415/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200171.368417Soundar Raj412/1A1430/1A0.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200172.371418J.Ruth414/2A10.02.01/200118.01.200173.382419Narayanan415/1F0.02.01/200118.01.200174.376420J.Jagajothi412/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200175.307421R.Nedumaran414/1A1414/2A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200176.369422S.Janaki414/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200177.280423Sundari Ammal412/1A1412/2A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200178.339424N.G.Kanniappan414/2A1415/1A10.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200179.291425C.Kousalya412/1A1413/1A0.03.00.01.01/200118.01.200180.239426A.Lorthusamy404A/1A0.02.01/200118.01.200181.354427N.Panneerselvam404A/1A0.01.51/200118.01.200182.381428R.Dhanasekaran430/10.02.01/200118.01.200183.356429Mrs.A.Tamilkodi412/1A10.03.51/200118.01.200184.481430D.Ramalingam414/2A2415/2A60.01.50.00.51/200118.01.200185.482431R.Vasantha412/1A1414/2A10.02.50.01.01/200118.01.200186.414432Rajam Baskaran404/A20.02.01/200118.01.200187.383433Sivadasan430/10.02.01/200118.01.200188.450435L.Bramarambal411/1A0.0055/200022.09.200089.465437C.P.George430/10.02.01/200118.01.200190.311438R.Radha Krishnan404B/1A414/2A10.01.00.01.51/200118.01.200117 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date415/1A10.01.091.318439Amsammal404A/2A0.03.01/200118.01.200192.316440Jayammal414/1A,414/2A10.03.50.00.51/200118.01.200193.240443T.G.Sreenivasan404/A10.02.01/200118.01.200194.247444Mrs.Latha412/1A1414/2A1415/1A10.00.50.00.50.01.01/200118.01.200195.330446Thangaraj415/1A10.03.51/200118.01.200196.294447Sundaravadivel412/1A10.02.01/200118.01.200197.303448Srinivasan.S412/1A2414/2A30.00.50.01.51/200118.01.200198.278449Mrs.Prasanna 415/1E0.02.01/200118.01.200199. 282450Hari Prasad430/10.03.01/200118.01.2001100.418451Janakiraman404A/1A0.02.01/200118.01.2001101.363452Swamyam Prabha508/1A10.01.56/200015.09.2000102.324453Chendamarai Kannan516/1A1E0.02.56/200015.09.2000103.302454S.Siva Kumar516/1A1A0.03.06/200015.09.2000104.286455Santhanam515/10.03.56/200008.06.2001105.432456Meenatchi516/2A, 2B0.02.06/200015.09.2000106.437457Puspa508/2B1, 2B20.02.06/200015.09.2000107.444458Kathavarayan508/1P0.02.06/200015.09.2000108.443459V.Subramaniam516/1A1A0.02.06/200015.09.2000109.400461Arumugam508/1A1507/7A10.01.50.01.56/200015.09.2000110.436462S.Pasupathy508/1A0.02.06/200015.09.2000111.445463Gopal508/1I0.01.56/200018 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date15.09.2000112.419464Lalitha508/1A10.04.06/200015.09.2000113.317465Ganesan516/1A1D0.02.06/200015.09.2000114.243466Anuradha516/1A1C0.02.56/200015.09.2000115.372467Rajkumar508/2A, 3B0.04.56/200015.09.2000116.244468Sowryammal508/2A, 3A0.01.56/200015.09.2000117.252469V.Venkata Subramaniam507/7A1508/1A10.01.50.01.56/200015.09.2000118.263470Ganesan508/1C0.04.06/200015.09.2000119.265471D.Varalakshmi516/1A1A0.03.06/200015.09.2000120.296475Rajeshwari453/A0.03.01/200031.07.2000121.435476Subburaj (died) 1.S.Chinnathambi2.S.P.Kumar 3.S.P.Anandha Kumar450/2A20.06.51/200031.07.2000122.357477Subbaiyan453/A0.04.51/200031.07.2000123.451478Anitha Parameswaran453/A0.06.52/200031.07.2000124.453479Mrs.AyshaKhadar (died)1.S.A.Kadhar2.Syed Imran Kadhar 3.SayyadaRubina Kadhar397A/2A1397A/4A0.01.00.05.56/200025.04.2001125.352480S.A.Khadar401/1A1A0.12.06/200025.04.2001126.345481V.Sathyan404A/1B0.03.51/200118.01.2001127.350482C.Pushpalatha402/2A80.05.54/200015.02.2001128.346483Banumathy (died) 1.Ganesan2.Arun475/50.03.55/200009.03.200119 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date129.347485T.Saroja471/20.02.01/199927.03.2000130.353487Amaravathy472/1A1A0.05.01/199927.03.2000131.348489Kavanlal472/1A1B0.02.01/199927.03.2000132.290491Santha James472/1A1A0.05.01/199927.03.2000133.434494M.Baskaran474/3D0.02.51/199927.03.2000134.297495R.Mohana474/3G0.03.51/199927.03.2000135.277496ThirupuraSundari472/1A1A0.04.01/199927.03.2000136.343497Bangarusamy (died) 1.Kanchana2.Uma Maheshwari 3.Anand4.Sumathi529/2A1A20.04.57/200019.07.2001137.380498Deenadayalan529/1A2A1A10.04.07/200019.07.2001138.342499Ezhil Chezhiyan529/2A1B0.07.07/200019.07.2001139.285500Kalyani529/1A2A1A0.02.07/200019.07.2001140.358502Nirmala399/10.02.06/200025.04.2000141.266503C.Marimuthu432/1A0.02.02/200016.05.2001142.274504Sharmila430/1, 431/10.07.01/200003.05.2001143.237505Radhakumari399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001144.269506Garajala Parvathy399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001145.315507A.Soundar pandian 399/1400/5A0.00.50.01.506/200025.04.2001146.364508Katari Swamalatha3990.02.006/200025.04.2001147.251509Anisatti Maheswari399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001148.250510S.Gurusamy401/80.11.006/200025.04.200120 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date149.391511D.Chandramohan399/10.02.006/200025.04.2001150.422512Sambasiva Rao397A/4A0.03.006/200025.04.2001151.398514Parameswari401/20.11.006/200025.04.2001152.394516Gnanam 472/1A1A0.03.01/199927.03.2000153.344517Srinivasa Ragavan412/1A10.05.51/200118.01.2001154.295518R.Ananthi415/1A1430/10.03.00.02.01/200118.01.2001155.287519A.Mythily415/1A10.01.51/200118.01.2001156.411520A.Ramanathan430/10.02.01/200118.01.2001157.377523S.Lourdhusamy404A/2A0.03.51/200118.01.2001158.412524Banumathi S.Kamdar (Died)1.Sandeep S. Kamdar2.Poorna S. Kamdar3.Seeman Nithish Naik4.Seejal N Shah417/4429/3429/3Total0.28.50.34.00.08.00.70.52/200016.05.2001159.425525M.Anjaneyappa4910.02.52/200015.03.2000160.283526V.Ranganatha Mudaliar (Died)1.V.Devigi Bai2.G.Thulasi Bai3.R.Srinivasa Mudaliar4.G.G.Jaya Sures433/1A1434/1A436/10.10.00.05.00.20.52/200016.05.2001161.255527B.Venkatesan387/20.00.54/200015.06.2000162.325528R.Rajeswari381/2B0.10.54/200015.06.2000163.234529Pandian381/20.02.54/200015.06.2000164.312531N.L.Suresh Babu396/2A1B0.02.04/200015.06.2000165.275532Baskaran465/420.02.54/200117.04.200221 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date166.288533P.Girija (died)1.Pagadala Gopala Krishna2.Pagadala Gopi Chanth3.Pagadala Kalpana Naidu4.Pagadala Renuka457B/1A1C0.08.04/200017.04.2002167.271535S.Mannar456/90.01.04/200117.04.2002168.336536M.Krishnaveni (died) 1.T.A.Muniyan 2.Palanivelan3.Kalai Amudha456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002169.487538S.Bakyalakshmi456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002170.473539S.Gopal456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002171.469540P.V.Seshadri464/3A120.01.54/200117.04.2002172.467541Shabjad Begam456/190.01.04/200117.04.2002173.313542V.Saroja456/50.01.04/200117.04.2002174.468543Gopalakrishnan457/1A457/1B0.02.04/200117.04.2002175.476544K.Lakshmi456/10.01.04/200117.04.2002176.471545Muniyan456/10.04.04/200117.04.2002177.462546K.Viswanathan464/3A20.02.04/200117.04.2002178.309547M.Neela456/110.01.04/200117.04.2002179.314548Soosai Mary456/70.01.04/200117.04.2002180.449549D.E.Elumalai456/80.01.04/200117.04.2002181.245550Shanmugam457/1A1A0.02.04/200117.04.2002182.3375511.Vijaya Kumar 2.Dhanasekar464/3A13465/250.01.00.00.54/200117.04.2002183.427552Sakunthala439/14000 sq.ft3/200222 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date17.11.2002184.268553Agarwal439/13800 sq.ft3/200217.11.2002185.321554Manju Agarwal439/13865 sq.ft3/200217.11.2002186.261557N.Pitchammal (Died) 1.S.Ramgopal439/3167sq.mtrs3/200217.11.2002187.235560Savithri439/31800 Sq.ft3/200217.11.2002188.259561Rajeswari466/2A0.10.02/200015.03.2000189.329562Janakiraman478/1B0.07.02/200015.03.2000190.305563Srinivasan478/1A1A0.02.52/200015.03.2000191.284564P.Jayakrishnan (died)1.Kalyani435/10.02.02/200015.03.2000192.319566Tamilarasi491/1A1A0.03.02/200015.03.2000193.322568Rajeswari372/1A1A0.02.852/200101.10.2001194.441569Arun Baskar372/1A1A10.02.52/200101.10.2001195.389570Loganathan3750.03.02/200101.10.2001196.335571Indirani372/1A1A1373/100.00.50.01.02/200101.10.2001197.256573Arumugam507/100.01.53/200015.05.2000198.260576Abdul Latheef433/60.00.52/200016.05.2001199.452579P.Thillai Palam428/1D0.04.53/200031.05.2001200.340581SanthilalJ. Kamdar (died)1.Banumathi 2.Sandeep 3,Poorna4.Seema Nithish Naik5.Seejal N Shah418/1A3425/4A2426/3B428/1A3Total0.14.00.39.00.05.50.53.01.11.51.11.53/200031.05.200123 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date201.447582Sakkubai396/10, 114800sq.ft.4/200015.02.2001202.281583G.Raghvan390/1E10.02.54/200015.02.2001203.323584Sakku Bai396/90.04.54/200015.02.2001204.341585Sivakumar467/2A6,2AB0.04.55/200015.03.2001205.238599Smt.Yogambal430/20.02.01/200118.01.2001206.395601Chandran526/1A, 2A,324800Sq.ft7/200019.07.2001207.392602Gangadhara Rao4381800Sq.ft3/200217.11.2002208.397604J.Subbulakshmi408/10.02.05/200022.09.2000209.373605Vijayalakshmi439/3167sq.mtr3/200217.11.2002210.396606K.Parameswaran516/1A20.02.06/200015.09.2000211.374607K.Rajan412/1A1413/1A0.01.00.01.01/200118.01.2001212.405608N.G.Bharat411/1A0.04.05/200022.09.2000213.463609Fanindranath Panday516/1A50.02.56/200005.09.2000214.404612Anilkumar Singh516/1A30.02.56/200005.09.2000215.485614A.Palanisamy 396/2A1A0.02.04/200015.02.2001216.417615S.Vasantha457B/1A1A0.02.51/200015.03.2000217.378616Helan Samuvel (Died)1.SamuelManogara Pandiyan2.Sunil Sam3.Jeril John439/1334sq.mtr3/200217.11.2002218.370617A.Lourdusamy396/2B,1S0.02.04/200015.02.200124 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date219.460618K.Durga Rao516/1A40.02.06/200015.09.2000220.470619S.V.Raghavan411/2A10.01.55/200022.09.2000221.413620C.Thirunavakkarasu529/2A1A1A0.09.07/200019.07.2001222.366621M.Raman396/3A0.04.04/200015.02.2001223.474622A.N.Noor Mohamed529/190.10.07/200019.07.2001224.430625T.Narayanan (died) 1.Kalyani2.Rajan 3.Vijayalakshmi381/2A0.02.54/200015.06.2000225.359629S.Kamatchi529/2A1A1A0.03.07/200019.07.2001226.402631Gopalakrishnan529/1A2A1A10.02.07/200019.07.2001227.424632N.Ganesan381/2A0.06.54/200015.06.2000228.351633S.Pandurangan529/1A2A1A10.04.57/200019.07.2001229.375639Chokkalingam411/2A10.02.05/200022.09.2000230.242640Babu430/19600sq.ft1/200118.01.2001231.475642Seetha434/2,433/6, 431/313800sq.ft2/200015.03.2000232.279643Mohana402/1B0.02.04/200015.02.2001233.466644Anthony Mary526/28, 29,357200sq.ft7/200019.07.2001234.361645K.Balasubramaniam455/80.02.54/200117.04.2002235.461646Sivagami464/50.01.54/200117.04.2002236.390648Kandaswamy464/3A60.01.54/200117.04.2002237.379649A.M.Srinivasan455/70.02.54/200117.04.2002238.355651M.R.Jagannathan455/20.01.54/200125 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Sl.No.Appeal Suit No.LAOP NoAppellant(s)/Claimant(s) NameSurvey NoExtent inHectare Award No.& Date17.04.2002239.472653S.Krishna Gandhi464/3G464/3A1C465/90.01.50.02.00.02.04/200117.04.2002240.420655 Sivagami w/o Satya Narayanan 464/50.01.54/200117.04.2002241.3936561.Sivanandam (died) 2.Parameshwari3.Radhika Olivannan 4.R.Ramya464/3A70.01.54/200117.04.2002242.459658D.Karunagaran464/3A1G0.03.04/200117.04.2002243.328659S.Latha Srinivasan464/3A4464/3A5464/3A1E0.03.00.01.50.02.54/200117.04.2002244.264661Shankari Ammal464/3N0.03.54/200117.04.2002245.388662K.Srinivasan (died)1.S.Saraswathi 2.K.S.Raghunathan464/3A110.01.54/200117.04.2002246.415663R.Pasupathy455/10, 110.03.54/200117.04.2002247.292664S.Shyamala411/1A0.04.05/200022.09.2000248.4231077Leela W/o. Sampath412/1A10.02.51/200118.01.200110. Since the issue was common and the awards relate to one single village, the tribunal had proceeded to try all the claim petitions jointly and recorded common evidence. During enquiry, common evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008. During enquiry, on the side of the claimant(s), one Ganesan, claimant in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C.1 to C.9 were marked, while, on the side of the LAO and Requiring Body, Tmt.Thenmozhi, Special Tahsildar (LA) was examined as R.W.1, however, no document was marked on the side of the LAO and Requiring Body.26 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202511.1 The tribunal upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the available oral and documentary evidence, proceeded to pass order/award. 11.2 The tribunal has formulated a lone question as to whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- per cent?11.3 The tribunal after having rejected Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 Lease Deeds dated 19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited, based on the sale deeds marked under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 dated 09.10.1997 assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- and after applying a deduction of 20% towards development charges, determined the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent. The tribunal has further held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation at the enhanced market value together with additional market value @ 12% from the date of publication of 4(1) Notification(s) till the date of taking possession; 30% solatium; 9% interest for one year from the date of taking over possession of the acquired land(s); and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till date of deposit of the entire compensation amount. It is this common order and decree(s) passed in the respective references which are now under challenge in these appeal suits. 12. Heard both sides.13. It is relevant to note that in respect of the lands acquired from the claimants comprised in various survey numbers, different awards passed by the 27 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025LAO, however, most of the sale exemplars are one and the same in all the awards. The learned counsel on either side shortlisted those sale deeds, tabulated hardly 250 sale exemplars and produced the same before the court for perusal. It is seen from the tabulated statement that though not less than 200 sale transactions were considered by the LAO for each of the awards, the total sale transactions taken into consideration by the LAO were in all only 250.14.1 The law officers appearing on behalf of the respective appellants would submit that (i) the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.8,720/- per cent is on the higher side. (ii) Though different notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, expressing the intent of the government to acquire the lands in Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were published between 20.11.1998 and 05.10.2000, the administrative sanction was made as early as on 09.05.1997. Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds were executed on 14.10.1997 after the Government had accorded sanction on 05.10.1997 for acquisition of the acquired land for the setting up of an industrial development complex by one Mrs.Saraswathy Nair, who is also a claimant in one of the references (L.A.O.P.No.600 of 2008) for her own interest for the purpose of inflating the market value of the property in anticipation of the acquisition proceedings in this case. The tribunal has failed to take note of the 28 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025fact that the said Saraswathy Nair has also laid a claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands comprised in S.Nos.438, 439/1, 440/1, 440/5, 442, 451/1A, 451/1B, 451/2 & 452/A of Mathur village. (iii) Mere acceptance of Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 in evidence by the court would not mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The court is granted discretion to be used judicially, that is, after considering all the relevant factors, but the tribunal has not at all exercised its judicious mind and has simply been swayed by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.6. There was also no evidence available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were comparable to the acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter of the sale were abutting the main road and when a large chunk of land measuring 159.03.0 Hectares have been acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 whereunder only small-sized housing sites were sold.(iv) The LAO had, himself, considered several sale deeds, overall, 250 different sale transactions that had taken place in a period of three years immediately preceding the date of the 4(1) notifications, of which 249 sale transactions were rejected by the LAO, finding those transfers relate to either housing sites, dry land or natham land, and the LAO had taken into consideration a sale transaction vide Doc.No.4444 dated 12.08.1996 whereby an extent of 72 cents of land was sold for Rs.14,400/- which means that one cent of land was sold for Rs.200/-, which reflected the transfer of agricultural land, and based on such sale deed, the LAO determined 29 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the market value for the acquired land at Rs.200/- per cent. However, the tribunal, going by the market value of small-sized house sites sold under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, assessed the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants to be Rs.8,720/- per cent, and after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges, the tribunal determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.6,976/- per cent. Therefore, the order of the tribunal enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.300/- per cent as fixed by the LAO is not sustainable in law and on fact.14.2 The learned law officers appearing for the respective appellants would, without prejudice to their above submissions, strenuously submit that the tribunal has failed to consider the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of deduction of development charges if the land is acquired for habitation or industrial purposes. According to them, the tribunal has failed to consider the size and nature of the lands acquired and the size and nature of the lands sold under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, and they would not be sufficient to form a reasonable basis to determine the market value of a large chunk of land. This court, being an appellate court, can very well re-examine the available sale exemplars and re-determine the market value of the acquired land based on the highest of bona fide sale exemplars that reflect the true potential and value of the land at the time of acquisition.14.3. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO would, in 30 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025support of their contention that the market value determined by the tribunal was based on the sale instances, which were in respect of individual plots of land much smaller in comparison to the land acquired in Mathur village, and for a cut of development charges ranging between 33 1/3% and 53%, placed much reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1996 9 SCC 640]; (ii) Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2012) 1 SCC 390]; and (iii) Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745].15.1 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SIPCOT would also on his part strenuously submit that the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.6,976/-per cent, after deducting 20% for development charges from the market value assessed at Rs. 8,720/- per cent, is significantly excessive and totally not indicative of the market value that existed on the date of the 4(1) notifications. This court, being an appellate court, can re-appreciate the entire evidence and redetermine the market value of the acquired lands based on the other available highest bona fide sale exemplars which are comparable by size and potentiality. 15.2 The size of plot of the land covered by the sales should be comparable to the land acquired. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar 31 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025potential as that of the acquired land. Sale exemplars should reflect the true potential and value of the land at the time of acquisition. 15.3 Mr.R.Viduthalai would further submit that the SIPCOT has spent more than Rs.3000 crores to develop the lands acquired from the claimants, however, the tribunal has failed to follow the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, which has consistently ruled that deductions are appropriate to cover the costs of developing land when it is acquired for public use, more particularly for habitation and industrial purposes, and cannot be used right away in its current condition. 15.4 Mr.R.Viduthalai while concluding his arguments fairly brought to the notice of this court the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this court in A.S.No.710 of 2024 [The Special Tahsildar (LA) TACID Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai v. B. Jayalakshmi] for the lands situated in Oragadam Village, which had also been acquired for the industrial development purposes as in the present cases, wherein this court affirmed the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,874/- per cent after applying a cut of 20% towards development charges. According to him, the location of the acquired land is one of the important factors in the determination of market value. The Oragadam village is situated at the junction where the Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil and Walajabad-Tambaram State Highways intersect, whereas Mathur village is situated 2.5 km away from Oragadam village. 32 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025The data lands cannot be compared to the acquired land, as the data lands were abutting the Sriperumbudur-Singaperumal Koil State Highways. The lands in Mathur village have less potential value compared to the lands in Orgadam village. Nevertheless, he would point out the legal principle of uniform compensation, regardless of land categorisation when every parcel of land from different villages was acquired for the same purpose – an industrial development scheme.15.5 Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel would, in support of his contention relating to the issue of percentage of deduction, placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma [Civil Appeal Nos.6986-6987 of 2018 dated 25.07.2018] & Sanath Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another [Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011]16. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would contend as follows:(i) The tribunal has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,976/- per cent after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges on the market value actually assessed at Rs.8,720/- per cent as the sale exemplars relate to small-sized housing plots as against the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.200/- 33 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025per cent which is fair and just. It does not require any interference. (ii) The contention of the learned senior counsel Mr R. Viduthalai appearing for the requiring body that for the lands acquired from the Oragadam village, this court upheld the market value determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent, and therefore, to maintain uniformity among the landowners who lost their lands to the acquisition, the same market value being fixed is not legally sound. The market value of the lands in each village may differ depending upon the proximity and potentiality.(iii) The market value of the acquired lands has to be determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification.(iv) The arguments of the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the appellant/LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body/SIPCOT sales under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 had been brought into existence only to inflate the market value of the agricultural land in question is unfounded and thoroughly baseless. (v) Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 are registered sale deeds, and they carry a presumption of genuineness. Nothing was elicited from C.W.1 during his cross-examination that 34 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025market value was inflated to get higher compensation. Therefore, the tribunal was right in determining the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. Mere reason that the vendor in the sale exemplars is one of the claimants – Saraswathy Nair, who made a claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of her remaining lands, particularly in respect of the land measuring 0.95 hectares comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village – by itself is not sufficient to doubt the genuineness and bona fides of the sale transaction.(vi) According to the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, R.W.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that the acquired lands are already developed and 95% of the acquired land were house sites. In cases where small pieces of land are taken into consideration for determining the value of large extent of land, and when the acquired land are already developed, no development charges could be ordered to be deducted, however, in the instant cases, the reference court applied a cut of 20% which is justified and no interference is required in regard to deduction of charges as well. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 (ii) Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai [(2023 SAR (Civ) 49]; (iii) Balwan Singh v. The State of Haryana [2022 SAR (civ) 941]; and (iv) Union of India v. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC 6556].35 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202517. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the available records carefully.18. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeal suits are: (1) Is the market value as determined by the tribunal on the higher side and not representative of the market value that prevailed on the date when the first notification of a series of notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, was issued?(2) To what relief reliefs are the parties entitled?19.1 The tribunal adopted the comparable sale method and based on Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7, it has assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.8,720/- per cent and after giving a cut of 20% towards development charges, it has determined the market value at Rs.6,976/- per cent. Aggrieved over the enhancement of market value from Rs.300/- as fixed by the LAO to Rs.6,976/- per cent, the referring officer is before this court with the present appeal suits.19.2 On the side of the claimants Ex.C.6 and C.7 sale exemplars, no other sale exemplars was produced. Those sale exemplars were in fact considered and rejected by the LAO as could be seen from the sale exemplars tabulated and produced by the State as well as the SIPCOT. 36 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202519.3 Ex.C.6 is a sale deed dated 14.10.1997, vide Doc.No.5901 of 1997, executed by Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power of Attorney – G.K.Nair in favour of one Kuruvilla Varkey conveying 1800 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.452/A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. If we work out the market value on square feet basis, it comes to Rs.20/- per square feet and in other words Rs.8720/- per cent. Ex.C.7 is the other sale deed. This sale was also made on the same day when sale under Ex.C.6 was made. This was the sale made by the very same vendor-Saraswathy Nair represented by her husband G.K.Nair in favour of one T.K.Manoj vide Doc.No.5901 conveying 1800 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.457/1A of Mathur village for Rs.36,000/-. Thus, the value of land is Rs.8720/- per cent. 20. The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the referring officer and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body would predominantly contend that Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars cannot be relied upon because they were executed after the administrative sanction for acquisition was granted on 09.05.1997. When the genuineness and bona fides of the sales had not been proved by way of oral evidence, and further, there was also no evidence available to show that the lands sold under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were comparable to the acquired lands as the lands which were subject matter of the sale were abutting the main road and when a large chunk of land measuring 159.03.0 Hectares have been 37 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025acquired, the tribunal ought not to have taken Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 whereunder only a small-sized housing sites were sold. Furthermore, according to them, the vendor in those sale exemplars purportedly inflated the market value sensing the acquisition proposed to be made. They further contended that the vendor in the exemplars under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 was also a claimant in L.A.O.P. No.600 of 2008 wherein she made a claim for enhanced compensation for her lands comprised in different survey numbers including the land in S.No.452/A (remaining portion of data land under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7). 21. It is the settled law that the burden of establishing the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. Equally, the State must have been fair and reasonable in compensating the displaced landowners. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, [(2010) 5 SCC 708], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the dual onus on both claimants and the State in establishing the fair market value. 22. The learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants would, on the other hand, contend that, Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 being registered documents carry a presumption of genuineness of its contents. The referring officer had rejected those sale exemplars merely on the ground that the land covered under the same were house sites and not on any other grounds. When the same were produced in evidence 38 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025by C.W.1, LAO did not make any effort to rebut the presumption. Nothing was elicited from C.W.1 to hold that the sale transactions under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 were not genuine and bona fide. Therefore, now, it is not open for the appellant/LAO to question the genuineness and bona fide at the appellate stage. 23. The market value is the price that a purchaser is willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller. No doubt, a registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness; such presumption is, however, rebuttable, and not absolute. Admissibility of a document cannot vouchsafe the reliability of its contents. 24. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, [(2001) 3 SCC 530], a full bench of Hon’ble the supreme court (three-judge bench) has held as follows:“14. The words ‘may be accepted as evidence’ in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price 39 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025of the land concerned.”25. The above said view in V.Narasaiah’s case (cited supra) was affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1284 at page 282. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows: “35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf.” 26. Thus, the law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and evidentiary value of document produced under Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894 now is that the landowner who produces the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document need not examine the vendee or the vendor of that document. However, the court is expected to apply its judicial mind to the 40 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors.27. This court is informed that much before the notification proposing to acquire the lands in Mathur village, the notification for the acquisition of lands in Oragadam village for the setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by the SIPCOT and for the setting up of Special Economic Zones by TACID had been issued.28. Even though the arguments advanced by the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the requiring body that the vendor of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, viz., Saraswathy, having sensed the proposed acquisition in the Oragadam village and neighbourhood, purportedly inflated the market value appears to be attractive to some extent, this court is unable to acknowledge the same for the simple reason that, the market value has to be determined by the court with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the same village where the acquired land is situated or in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894. Finding the most similar examples among the real examples would require considering the proximity from both the time and situation perspectives.41 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202529. The claimants, during the trial, placed reliance mainly upon Ex.C.4 lease deed, dated 19.08.2010 entered by the SIPCOT with M/s. Apollo Typres Limited in respect of 2.12 Acres comprised in S.Nos.454/2B and 454/1C2 of Mathur Village and S.Nos.31/23B, 31/1A2, 31/1B and 31/1C of Oragadam Village. As per this lease deed, the market value of the land was Rs.48,000/- per cent. Similarly, the claimants placed reliance on Ex.C.5 lease deed. This deed relates to lease of 1.99 Acres of land. As per this lease deed, market value of the land was Rs.1,97,698/- per cent. Next, the claimants relied upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale deeds dated 14.10.1997 executed by Mrs. Saraswathy Nair represented by her Power Agent G.K.Nair in respect of 1800 square feet of housing sites for Rs.36,000/- each in favour of Kuruvilla Varkey and T.K.Manoj respectively. According to these sale transactions, a cent of land was sold at Rs.8720/-30. This court has meticulously gone through Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7 lease deeds and sale deeds.31. Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 are lease agreements entered by the SIPCOT with M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited dated 19.08.2010 and 23.11.2012 respectively relate to post acquisition and much after the acquired lands have been well developed. Therefore, these documents cannot be taken into consideration for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands. 42 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202532. The location of the housing sites involved in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 would only probablise the fact Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 were executed at the instance and for the interest of the claimant Saraswathy in one of the references for the purpose of placing reliance on an inflated market value of the property in anticipation of acquisition proceedings in the instant cases. Except for Ex.C.6 and Ex.C7 no other sale made for such higher market value. In the said circumstances, this court had a doubt over the genuineness of the transaction in Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. The tribunal has failed to apply its judicial mind and notice the sudden inflation in the market value of the land in Mathur Village. Further, it is seen that the lands covered by Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 are small-sized housing sites. This factor was also not taken into consideration by the tribunal while relying upon Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars. 33. On a careful perusal of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7, this court is of the view that lands covered by Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 cannot be said to be comparable to the vast extent of land acquired in Mathur village. As rightly pointed out by the learned law officer(s) for the LAO and the learned senior counsel for the SIPCOT, the lands covered by Ex.C.6 and C.7 were abutting the Sriperumbudur – Singaperumal Koil, and they are also small-sized housing plots. Therefore, house sites covered by the sale exemplars cannot be said to be similar to the acquired land which is situated on the backside of the lands covered by sale exemplars. Although the lands covered by the sale exemplars are comparable in size and type to the lands acquired from each of 43 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the landowners comprised in various survey numbers, the acquired lands might not have had the same potential as the lands covered by the sale exemplars. Frontage land is typically worth more than back land when it comes to real estate pricing. This is primarily because frontage land offers access to a road or street, which can be vital for companies, residential projects, and other uses. The value of the land usually drops as the distance from the road increases. Even if it is a small-sized plot, either a commercial or housing plot, if it is abutting the highways, it has a greater value than the back land. However, the belting method of valuation cannot be adopted in view of the settled legal position that there could not be discrimination among the landowners when various parcels of land have been acquired from different landowners for a single purpose. There should be uniform compensation rates irrespective of land categorisation when the entire land is acquired for a single public purpose. [vide Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564]. 34. Furthermore, merely because Ex.C.6 & C.7 carry a presumption of genuineness and the LAO has not chosen to rebut such presumption, this court cannot simply go by the said sale exemplars. A duty is cast upon this court to ascertain the fact whether the sale transactions under ExC.6 and ExC.7 were genuine and bona fide. On a careful comparison of sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 with the other available sale exemplars, this court is unable to find any sale transaction in 2007 at such a higher market value. The only other sale transfer was 44 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025in respect of 1980 square feet of land vide Doc. No. 5709 of 1997, about which reference will be made at an appropriate place in this judgement. Therefore, this court has no other option except to discount Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars, as the lands covered under the same are not comparable to the acquired lands, and the market value reflected therein is not indicative of the prevailing market value of the property in the vicinity, and if they are taken into consideration to determine the market value of the acquired land, certainly it would only lead to an inflated valuation.35. Except Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7, there are no other documents produced by the claimant to establish the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.3000/- per square feet in Mathur Village at the time of 4(1) Notification as claimed by them in the respective references. 36. If the sale exemplars under Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 are discounted, the next sale exemplars which reflect highest sale price are sale deeds (i) vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 03.10.1997 executed by Parvathi represented by Power of Attorney N.Muralidharan in favour of Vidhya Muralidharan conveying 1980 square feet of land for Rs.35,000/- which means a cent of land was sold at Rs.7,707/-. It is seen from the above sale deed that the Power Agent- N.Muralidharan is none other than the husband of the purchaser-Vidhya. The said Vidhya Muralidharan, in turn, on 45 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202528.07.1998 sold the land purchased under Doc.No.3618 of 1998 in favour of Srikanth and Mrs.Rangamani for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/- which means a cent of land was sold at Rs.8,810/-. 37. It is seen from the sale deed vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 28.07.1998 executed by Parvathi represented by her Power Agent – N.Muralidharan in favour of Vidhya Muralidharan that the said Parvathy had purchased it on 15.03.1995 under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1379 of 1995 from T.V.Ranganathan and Roslyn Mary Pushpam for Rs.19,800/- which means a cent of land was purchased for Rs.4,360/-. However, within a period of 18 months, she had sold her property for Rs.35,000/- with an increase of 43.43% and within ten months thereafter, Vidhya Muralidharan sold her property to P.Srikanth and S.Rangamani for Rs.40,000/- with an increase of 12.5%. This court, going by the documents available on record, is of the view that the market value reflected in the above sale deed is not in alignment with the market value that prevailed then. It can be safely inferred that prior to the 4(1) notifications, if a smaller extent of land is sold out for an exorbitant price, it would certainly be an indication that such transfers were effected solely for the purpose of establishing inflation in the market value. In addition, this sale exemplar is also liable to be discarded for the reasons assigned in respect of Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 sale exemplars.46 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202538. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a citizen, is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. In the instant cases, a vast extent of land in the village – Mathur – had already been converted into house sites by the time when the proposed acquisition was notified, and more than 95% of the acquired land, as admitted by R.W.1 were house sites. Those house sites situated in Mathur village had been acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial development complex, and the lands under acquisition not only had potential value but were also developed and situated in the already developed area. The adjacent areas were also already developed. It was admitted by R.W.1 in the cross-examination. The relevant portion of the cross examination of R.W.1 reads as follows:- “////////////jpUbgUk;g[J}h; kw;Wk; ,U';fhl;L nfhl;il jpl;l';fSf;F kj;jpapy; xuflk; jpl;lk; mike;Js;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lk; mikg;gjw;F Kd;ng m';F bjhHpw;rhiyfs; kw;Wk; gs;spfs; ,a';fp te;jd vd;why; rupjhd;/ mnjnghy; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epy';fs; rp';fbgUkhs; nfhtpy; L: jpUbgUk;g[J}h; khepy beL";rhiy xl;oa gFjpfs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mnjnghy; jhk;guj;jpy; ,Ue;J thyh$hghj; bry;Yk; rhiyapd; xl;oa gFjp Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjp vd;why; rupjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l 47 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025epy';fSf;F mUfhikapy; $p/v!;/o/ njrpa beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; mnjnghy; brd;idapy; ,Ue;J bg';fS:h; bry;Yk; vd;/vr;/4 njrpa beL";rhiy bry;fpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkYk; xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;F Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epy';fSf;F fpHf;fpy; kPdk;ghf;fk;. jhk;guk; nghd;w tsu;e;j gFjpfs; cs;sd vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;fpy; thyh$hghj; kw;Wk; fh";rpg[uk; gFjpfs; cs;sd/ bjw;fpy; rp';fbgUkhs; kw;Wk; br';fy;gl;L rhiy cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ tlf;fpy; jpUbgUk;g[J}h; cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ xuflk; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf epyk; Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt mLf;F kho FoapUg;g[fs; fl;lg;gl;L ,Ue;jd vd;why; rupjhd;/ epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s epy';fSf;F mUfpy; cs;s rhiyfs; ngUe;J nghf;Ftuj;J cs;s rhiyfs;s vd;why; rupjhd;/ jkpHf muR khky;yg[uj;jpy; ,Ue;J xuflk; tHpahf vz;Qq}h; rhiyf;fhf epy Mu;$pj gzpfs; eilbgw;W tUfpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ jpUg;bgUk;g[J}upy; gRik tpkhd epiyak; mikg;gjw;fhf Ma;t[ gzp eilbgw;W tUfpwJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go xuflk; jpl;;;lj;jpw;fhf epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; Vw;fdnt tsu;r;rp mile;j gFjpfshf ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ epy Mu;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpfs; bgUk;ghyhdit tPl;L kidfs; vd;why; rupjhd;/ nkw;go tPl;L kidfs; kjpg;g[k; gd;kl';F cau;e;J ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/48 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025//////////////////////////////////////////////////tpw;gid g[s;sptptu';fspd; go bgUk;ghyhd tPl;L kidfs; 95 rjtPjj;jpw;F nkyhd tpw;gidfs; tPl;L kid rk;ke;jkhd Mtz';fs; vd;why; rupjhd;/ ,Hg;gPL epu;zak; bra;tjw;fhf eh';fs; vLj;J bfhz;l epyk; tptrha epyk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ …….”39. It is seen from the award that the LAO had relied on the sale of agricultural land made on 12.08.1996, whereunder an extent of 72 cents was sold for Rs.14,400/-, which in terms of cent value worked out to Rs.200/-. Since the acquired lands were substantially developed by the time when 4(1) notifications were issued, the market value fixed by the LAO based on the sale of agricultural land cannot be said to be correct. The LAO fixed the market value of the purchased land using the lowest of the sale exemplars and simply discounted all other sale exemplars on the ground that they were house sites. When more than 95% of the acquired lands are house sites, the LAO should have taken the highest of bona fide sale exemplars relating to the house site which is comparable to the acquired lands. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the sale exemplars must be genuine and representative of the market value. Except for the documents (vide Doc.No.5709 of 1997 dated 03.10.1997 and Doc.No.3618 of 1998 49 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025dated 28.07.1998) and Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 there is no other sale made at such an inflated rate. Therefore, the above-mentioned documents, vide Doc. Nos. 5709 of 1997 and 3168 of 1998, also cannot be taken into consideration, and they are liable to be discounted from being relied on to determine the market value. 41. Therefore, this court has no other option to determine the market value of the acquired land from other sale exemplars available, which were considered and discarded by the LAO and to determine the market value of the acquired land. The next 10 highest sale exemplars available as per the list of sale exemplars are as follows: -Sl.No.SurveyNumberExtentin square feetDocumentNumberDate of DocumentValue of land(in rupees)Value of per cent of land (in rupees)1.239/54A1361115005.03.19992170469532.414/2196946803.02.20002874863663.381/3,3B3328616820.12.19984070061314.381/33328660630.12.19984659261045.4381800349211.07.20002500060416.239/54A1890329918.06.19991512058007.363/A872747024.12.19971133656688.432/12400372524.01.20002880052319.381/5B2430199910.04.199626730479910. 414/21969529118.09.199928747442950 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202542. On a careful consideration of the above sale particulars, this court finds that under the sale exemplar found in Sl.No.1 - Doc.No.1150 dated 05.03.1999 it is seen that a house site measuring 1361 square feet was sold for Rs.21,704/- by one Alamelu Ammal in favour of Kasthuribai. This sale exemplar cannot be taken into consideration as the sale in that deed is dated much after the first 4(1) notification which was issued on 20.11.1998. The sale exemplars under Serial Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 also cannot be taken into consideration for the similar reason assigned herein above. 43. In the case of State of Punjab v. Hans Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or, in its absence, the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value may be taken for the determination of the market value of the acquired land. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows:“4. ..............................It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market 51 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025value."44. Reverting to the instant cases, the next highest available sale exemplar is at Serial No. 7 mentioned in the above tabular column. This transaction relates to a sale of 872 square feet of housing site comprised in S.No.363/A of Mathur village. This house site was sold for Rs.11,336/-, and the value of the land in terms of cent value is Rs.5,668/-. This house site is part of the approved layout and comparable to the acquired lands, most of which were house sites. This sale exemplar, although size-wise not comparable to the acquired lands. This sale exemplar also seems to be genuine and bona fide, and the value for which the property was transferred is found to be aligned with the market value prevailing in the vicinity on the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, i.e., 20.11.1998, in respect of the lands covered under Award No.1 of 2000 dated 23.03.2000. Thus, it is evident from the above said sale exemplars that the market value could have been not less than Rs.6,668/- per cent on the date of 4(1) notification. Based on this sale exemplar, the market value of the acquired land can be fixed. If so, the market value of the acquired lands could be assessed at Rs.5,668/- per cent. Because the highest of bona fide sale which has been relied upon to determine the market value of the acquired land being smaller in extent, a reasonable percentage of deduction has to be applied towards development charges.52 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025DEDUCTION CHARGES:-JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY MR.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL: 45.1 In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432, while reaffirming the view taken in the case of Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [(2011) 6 SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held it would be just and reasonable to allow deduction @ 20%. By applying the above method, the market value for the acquired land is fixed at Rs 1,82,000/- minus Rs 36,400 (towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs 1,45,600/- rounded at Rs 1,45,000/- per acre which is quite fair, reasonable and acceptable.45.2 In the case of Balwan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. The State of Haryana [2022 SAR (Civ) 941], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the value of small developed plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land, a cut towards deduction charges could be made ranging from 20% to 75%.45.3 In the case of Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai [2023 SAR (Civ) 49 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1612], the Hon’ble Supreme Court denied the deduction of development charges on the ground that the lands were acquired 40 years back and the compensation was decided by the LAO after litigating in courts only at Rs.6/- per square yard for the lands in the heart of the city of Hyderabad, where the cost of the land has been increased more than 100 times.53 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202545.4 In the case of Union of India v. K. K.Rajeswari [CDJ 2024 MHC 6556], a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the value of small developed plots was the basis to determine the market value of a large tract of land, the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor to be considered to apply a deduction towards development charges.JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE LAW OFFICERS:46.1 In the case of Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 9 SCC 640], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value and the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the deduction of 65% towards development charges as the land under acquisition situated in an undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development. 46.2 In the case of Chandrashekar (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2012) 1 SCC 390], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld a deduction of 55% towards development charges on the ground that the exemplar sale transaction pertained to a developed site, while the acquired land was totally undeveloped. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also affirmed further deduction of 10% made by the Karnataka High Court towards de-escalation and 5% towards the waiting period in 54 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the absence of any challenge thereto.46.3 In the case of Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745] upon which much reliance was placed by the learned law officers for the LAO, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its judgement in the case of Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar v. Sub-Divisional Officer [(1996) 7 SCC 554] has held that the courts may determine the compensation on square foot basis on case to case basis, if there are no other sale instances available, however, subject to a reasonable deduction towards development charges. JUDGEMENT RELIED ON BY THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANTS:47. In the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma [(2018) 8 SCC 485], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that that while determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands especially when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. 48. This court is conscious of the principle of deductions towards development charges. Deducting development charges is to account for the expenses and 55 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025resources required to prepare the site for its intended use, which typically includes amenities and infrastructure. Such deduction must ensure that the landowner gets fair compensation that reflects. The percentage of deduction of developments charges may vary depending on nature of land, extent of development required and the purpose of acquisition. However, there is no straight-jacket formula for the deduction of development charges and it is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the development charges.49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in the cases where the highest sale exemplar which was the basis for the determination of market value of the acquired land, a reasonable percentage of deduction towards development charges should be applied based on the situation of land and the need for development. 50. In the case of Sanath Kumar v. The Special Tahsildar and another [Civil Appeal Nos.7852-7853 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:“8. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of ?rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 278 : (2003) 1 SCC 354, this Court 56 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025held :-"............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by 57 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than ?rd and in some cases less than ?rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose."9. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tej Bhojwani v. State of U.P., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 551 : (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 496 : (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 186 : (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, this Court held under :-"Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail 58 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025price" as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land.The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost."10. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court ordained deduction of 53% of market value towards development charges only on the ground that substantial amount was spent for providing the facilities like road, power supply, water supply drainage etc. for multinationals, NRI's and others who would like to set up industries in the complex.11. In our view, the reasons assigned by the High Court increasing the percentage of deduction from 40 to 53 are legally untenable. While determining market value of the acquired land, the court must always bear in mind that in majority of cases the 59 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025acquisition of land deprives the land owner of his only source of livelihood and sustenance. The acquiring authority and the beneficiaries of acquisition can always recover the cost of land from the allottees of plots. If the allotment is made to industrial entrepreneurs, they will invariably pass on the cost of land to the consumers of their products. Therefore, while increasing the percentage of deduction from the market value determined by the Reference Court, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect and should have, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, refrained from increasing the percentage of cut from 40 to 53, which resulted in depriving the landowners of their right to receive just and reasonable compensation.”51. Neither the LAO nor the requiring party established the need for development contemplated and the possible expenditure of such development by positive evidence to show that such development charges were justifiable. 52. The categorical admission by R.W.1 in his cross-examination, which has been excerpted above in Tamil, would indicate that the acquired land was partially developed, with good road access and having the amenity of electricity and water. Considering the fact that the acquired lands are already substantially developed and they had been acquired for the industrial purpose, and further development would not cost much, 20% of deduction towards development charges and for smaller extent of house site would be reasonable and justified.60 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 202553. In the light of the discussions already made, if 20% deduction is applied on the assessed market value of Rs.5,668/- per cent, the market value of the acquired land could be determined at Rs.4,535/- per cent. 54. The State for the purpose of setting up of an Industrial Development Complex by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short, “the SIPCOT”) and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (for short, “the TACID”) acquired a vast extent of lands from Oragadam, Mathur, Panrutti, Vallam, Panappakkam, Karanithangal and Vaipur villages. As already stated above, not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, each of the landowners requested for making a reference to the tribunal for enhancement of market value. On such references, the tribunal, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State is before this court. 55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting claimants would fairly bring to the notice of this court the details of the market value fixed by the LAO and market value enhanced by the Tribunal. Those details are tabulated hereunder for easy reference:VillageMarket Value fixed by the LAO(per cent)Market value enhanced by the Tribunal(per cent)OragadamRs.300/-Rs.4,754/-MathurRs.200/-Rs.6,976/-PanrutiRs.250/-Rs.4,560/-61 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025VallamRs.230/-Rs.6,931/-Rs.7,762/-Rs.8,693/-PanapakkamRs.300/-Rs.2,700/-KaranithangalRs.300/-Rs.4,100/-56. On appeal against the enhancement of the market value by the tribunal, the State/LAO preferred appeal suits and this court, according to the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, dismissed the same. The details of the appeal suit numbers and date of disposal of the appeal suits are as follows:VillageAppeal SuitNumberDate of DisposalPanruti420 to 428 of 201630.09.2022Oragadam710 of 2024 and a batch of cases07.02.2025Panapakkam52 of 2025 and a batch of cases12.02.202557. Reverting to the cases on hand, as already discussed above, the market value of the acquired land has been determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. This court, very recently, in the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai v.1. B.Jayalakshmi [A.S.No.710 of 2024 dated 07.02.2025] upheld the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. This 62 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025was after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. 58. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination among the land owners and pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others.59. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, the Honourable Supreme Court has as follows:- “15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local 63 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration…….”60. Similar view was taken in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 565], has held as follows:“When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the 64 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025order passed in review is also to be set aside.”61. This acquisition relates to Mathur village which is a neighbourhood of Oragdam. In the case of acquisition of lands relating to Oragadam village, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the requiring body and the learned senior counsel for the contesting claimants, this court upheld the market value as determined by the tribunal at Rs.4,754/- per cent. If the landowners are awarded compensation at the market value of Rs.4,535/- per cent, it would certainly amount to discrimination among the landowners whose lands had been acquired simultaneously for a single purpose – industrial development.62. In the light of the principle of uniform compensation rates in land acquisition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is inclined to match the market value as determined by this court at Rs.4,535/- per cent for the lands acquired from the landowners in Mathur village with that of the market value as determined at Rs.4,754/- per cent for the lands acquired in Orgadam village for the very same purpose. The claimants are entitled to solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. This point is answered accordingly. Point No.2:63. For the foregoing discussions, the order/award passed by the tribunal requires interference insofar as the market value is concerned. The market value of 65 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025the acquired land is fixed at Rs.4,754/- per cent. The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.4,754/- per cent together with additional market value, solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under the LA Act, 1894. Except the modification made by this court to the extent indicated above, in all other aspects, the common order and award of the tribunal shall stand maintained. This point is answered accordingly. 64. During the course of the hearing of the appeals on the earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that some of the private respondent(s) have not entered appearance through counsel despite service of notice; in a few other cases, the service of notice by the appellant could not be effected on private respondent(s) due to various reasons; and in some other cases, as noted already, it was reported that the claimants died.65. In the above circumstances, this court passed an interim order on 24.04.2025 directing the appellant/LAO to take out paper publication as regards the pendency of the appeal suit(s) and also to enable the interested person, any legal heir of the deceased claimants who are having interest in the compensation to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings. On 29.04.2025, when the appeals suits came up for hearing, no person came forward with a claim. Mrs R. Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, filed the paper publication taken out by the appellant/LAO as directed by this court on 24.04.2025. This court had directed the 66 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025names of those private respondents to be printed on the cause list and posted the matters on 30.04.2025. 66. It is pertinent to note that acquisition in this case was initiated in a phased manner, and notification(s) under 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 were issued between 07.12.1998 and 05.10.2000 which were followed by Section 6 declarations; after award enquiries in each of the acquisition proceedings, separate awards were passed between 15.03.2000 and 17.11.2022; not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, the land owners made a claim for enhancement of compensation individually and the same were referred by the LAO to the tribunal. The tribunal took on file those reference in 2008 and disposed of the same by a common judgement dated 30.11.2021 made in L.A.O.P.No.460 of 2008 and a batch of references. Thereafter these appeals came to be filed in 2023 and the appellant/LAO was able to get the appeal suits numbered only in February/March, 2025. Almost 24 years have elapsed after the acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The landowners could have been moved out of the addresses originally furnished in the reference(s). The appellant/LAO was unable to complete the service of notice. 67. It is evident that the interests of the absent parties, falling under three distinct categories, are adequately represented by the other landowners, who are large in number. It is pertinent to note that learned counsel who appeared on behalf of all the claimants before the tribunal had entered appearance before this court on behalf of the claimant(s) only in respect of 134 appeal suits. The claim for 67 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025enhancement advanced by a larger number of landowners encompasses and reflects the interests of the non-appearing parties.68. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to their rights by their absence. In order to sub-serve the cause of substantial justice, and bearing in mind the broader principles of fairness and equity, this Court is of the considered view that the matter may be proceeded with, treating the interests of the non-appearing parties as effectively safeguarded.69. In the case of Abdul Marim v. State of M.P. [AIR 1964 MP 171 (MP)], a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not suit proceedings and Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be read as creating a fiction for deeming “proceedings before the court under the Act” as proceedings in any suit. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement reads as follows:“It is obvious enough that reference proceedings under section 18 are not suit proceedings. An application for reference under section 18 is not made by the person interested to the Court but to the Collector asking him to make a reference to the Court. The reference is made not by the party but by the Collector albeit at the instance of the party. If the reference proceedings had been suit proceedings, then there would have been no necessity of inserting in the Act section 53 laying down that “Save insofar as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the 68 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025Court under this Act”. So also there would have been no need to create the fiction embodied in section 26(2) that an award made under section 18 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the proceedings under section 18 of the Act had been proceedings in a suit, then the Code of Civil Procedure would have applied automatically and the award under that provision would have been even without the aid of fiction a decree within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is noteworthy that section 53 of the Act has not the effect of making “all proceedings before the Court under the Act suit proceedings”. All that it does is to apply to the proceedings before the Court under the Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure unless any of the provisions is “inconsistent with anything contained in the Act”. It is one thing to say that the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the proceedings under the Act and very much another to say that they are suit proceedings and consequently the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to them. Section 53 cannot be read as creating a fiction for deeming “proceedings before the Court under the Act” as proceedings in any suit. It is thus plain that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to proceedings under section 18 of the Act taking those proceedings as suit proceedings in reality or fictionally under the Code of Civil Procedure. Its applicability to proceedings under section 18 of the Act can only be by virtue of section 53 and subject to the limitation contained in that section. The limitation is that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure intended to be applied must not be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. For the purpose of inconsistency it is not 69 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025necessary that there should be an express provision to the contrary in the Act itself. It would be enough if the applicability of a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure to any proceedings before the Court under the Act would be incompatible with the nature of the proceedings.” 70. The above said view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemareddi (D) Through LRs. v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani [2019 SAR (Civil) 690], where the Apex Court considered a similar issue involving abatement of proceedings due to the non-impleadment of legal representatives. In that case, though the High Court had held that the appeal abated in its entirety due to failure to bring the legal heirs of one of the appellants on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:“...if the so-called procedural requirement is drawn from a wholesome principle of substantive law to advance the cause of justice, the same may not be overlooked.”71. In the instant cases, the claimant(s) in some of the cases appear to have died between the date of award passed by the tribunal and before filing of the appeal suits by the LAO. The LAO was able to get the appeal suits numbered only in 2025 though they were filed in 2023 itself due to certain technicalities. 72. The death of the claimant(s) in some of the cases occurred after the decree but before the appeal against the award of the tribunal are preferred and before the service of notice in the appeal suits it is the duty of the LAO/appellant herein to furnish details of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant. 70 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025However, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that there are difficulties in getting the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased claimants as the last whereabouts of such deceased claimants are not known and it was reported that they moved out of their addresses furnished in the reference long back. 73. The principle laid down in the said decisions squarely applies to the case at hand which reinforces the view that procedural lapses should not defeat the ends of justice, particularly when the substantive rights of absent parties are adequately protected through effective representation by a larger number of landowners. 74. This court is also of the view there could be no dismissal of the appeal as abated as it would only cause hardship to the family of the landowners who lost their lands due to acquisition for the purpose of industrial development. Therefore, this court does not want to dismiss the appeal suit as abated insofar as the cases where the claimant(s) were reportedly died. 75. Considering the fact that rights and interests of the claimants, who have refrained from entering appearance either in person or through a counsel, despite service of notice for the reasons known to them or could not enter appearance for want of knowledge about the pendency of the appeal suits because of non-service of notice as the case may be, and in some cases where the sole claimant died, are adequately and effectively protected by other landowners involved in the case, this 71 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025court had proceeded to pass orders on the appeal suits without waiting for them to come or waiting for the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s) to be impleaded in the appeal suits. 76. The absent claimants are entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate application(s) for withdrawal of the compensation amount as per law. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased sole claimant in the respective appeal suits are also entitled to move the tribunal with appropriate application(s) for withdrawal of the compensation amount and the tribunal on proper enquiry on the legal heirship of the deceased claimant(s) and proper identification by their counsel, pass appropriate order for the release of the compensation in their favour as per rules. 77. The Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to identify the whereabouts of the absent claimant(s) and notify them that the appeal suit(s) preferred against them by the LAO has/have been disposed of and that they are entitled to the compensation once it is deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.78. The Government of Tamil Nadu is also directed to identify the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s) and their whereabouts and notify them that the appeal suit(s) preferred by the LAO against the person(s) whose name(s) were registered in the record as landowner(s) has/have been disposed of and that they, being the legal heirs of the deceased claimant(s), are entitled to the compensation once it is deposited by the LAO before the tribunal.79. The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate responsible officers/staff 72 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025members, as may be necessary and required, to undertake the above exercise and complete the same as expeditiously as possible.In the result, the appeal suits are partly allowed and the common order/award passed by the tribunal is modified to the following effect:i)The market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,976/- per cent as determined by the tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.4,754/- per cent insofar as the references under appeal are concerned. ii)The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the reduced market rate together with, additional market value, solatium and all other statutory benefits provided under LA Act, 1894iii)The appellant in these appeal suits or the authority concerned is directed to deposit the compensation as directed above, if not already deposited pursuant to the orders of the reference court under appeal.iv)The appellant/State is entitled to get the excess amount, if any, deposited, returned subject to the satisfaction of the decree amount(s).v)The law officer(s) who represented the appellant in the 73 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025respective appeal suits, as well as the learned senior counsel represented on behalf of the SIPCOT and the learned counsel on record for the SIPCOT, who assisted the senior counsel, shall be entitled to separate fees for each appeal.vi)It is made clear that the claimants are at liberty to approach the reference court for withdrawal of the compensation as directed above in accordance with law. vii)There shall be no order as to costs. viii)The Government of Tamil Nadu will nominate responsible officers/staff members, as may be necessary and required, to enforce the directions issued in the preceding paragraphs of this judgement.The impugned common order and individual decree(s) are modified to the extent indicated above and in other respects the same shall stand confirmed. Consequently, connected CMPs are closed. Index : yes / no30..04..2025Neutral citation : yes / nokmkNote: The Registry is directed to type out cause title for rest of the appeal suits and 74 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025issue certified copies to the parties.75 of 76 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.257 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,kmk A.S.No.257 of 2025and a batch of cases30..04..202576 of 76