Skip to content


The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and Another Vs. Murthy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P.(MD)No. 374 of 2006 & C.M.P.No. 3890 of 2006
Judge
AppellantThe Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and Another
RespondentMurthy
Excerpt:
.....in form 3a was dated 09.02.1993. it is the further case of the petitioners that for fixation of land value, the acquisition officer had taken the sample registration done between 31.12.1982 and 30.12.1992 and 171 sales made during the afore-said period were also taken into consideration. finally, sale no.13 was taken as sample of registration and an extent of 0.76 acres was sold in s.no.143/13 firka for rs.7,600/-. this sale is equal to market value and accordingly, the sale of one acre was worked out to rs.10,000/- and the rate per hectare was worked out to rs.24,700/-. as per the above fixation, the land value for 1.37.0 hectare was fixed at rs.33,839/-, in addition to which 30% solatium of rs.10,152/- and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of 4(1) publication to date of.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 in LA.CM.A.No.25/2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 in LA.CM.A.No.25/2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi.

2. The case of the petitioners is that lands in S.No.213/4B1, admeasuring to an extent of 3.38 acres, in Senkottaipatti Village, Peraiyur Group, Kamuthi Taluk was acquired for the purpose of providing housesites to Adi-dravidar families. The date of publication of the substance of the 4(1) Notification was dated 27.01.1993 and the date of service of notice to the land owner in Form 3A was dated 09.02.1993. It is the further case of the petitioners that for fixation of land value, the Acquisition Officer had taken the sample registration done between 31.12.1982 and 30.12.1992 and 171 sales made during the afore-said period were also taken into consideration. Finally, sale No.13 was taken as sample of registration and an extent of 0.76 acres was sold in S.No.143/13 firka for Rs.7,600/-. This sale is equal to market value and accordingly, the sale of one acre was worked out to Rs.10,000/- and the rate per hectare was worked out to Rs.24,700/-. As per the above fixation, the land value for 1.37.0 hectare was fixed at Rs.33,839/-, in addition to which 30% solatium of Rs.10,152/- and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of 4(1) publication to date of Award Enquiry, namely, between 30.12.1992 to 25.03.1994 (451) days Rs.5,017/, totalling a sum of Rs.49,008/- were awarded to the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the land owner preferred an appeal in L.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2000, Sub-Court, Paramakudi and the appellate Court considered the same and allowed the appeal on 23.04.2002 by fixing a sum of Rs.400/- per cent with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court below ought not to have taken into consideration for fixing the market value on the basis of lesser extant of land sold and also ought to have seen the purpose for which the lands were acquired by the Government. Further, the developmental charges of one third ought to have been deducted and without doing so, the Court below fixed the market value on the higher rate and prays for interference.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the threshold would submit that first of all, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as the petitioners should have preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, instead of filing this Civil Revision Petition, which they have failed to do so. Furthermore, the lands acquired by the petitioners are that it is a residential area and it is fit for occupation and that is the reason why, the lands were acquired for such purpose and considering the nature of land, one third developmental charges were not deducted by the Court below. Eventually, he prays for the dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record.

6. The substantial question of law to be decided in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:-

(i) whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable and

(ii) the compensation awarded by Courts below is just and reasonable.

7. As far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it is very useful to extract Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979:-

8.Second Appeal.-Where the amount, as determined by the prescribed authority by order under sub-section (3) of section 7, exceeds rupees fifty thousand, a second appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decision of the Court under the Act.

8. On the face of it, it is crystal clear that Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, as the amount exceeds more than Rs.50,000/- and the petitioners should have preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal as per the provision cited supra, which they have failed to do so. Therefore, without second though, I answer the first point against the petitioners. While doing so, I have not given liberty to the petitioners to convert this Civil Revision Petition into that of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal for the simple reason that at this length point of time, it may not be proper to litigate the matter and keeping the respondent under mental trauma without knowing the fate of the case, since the acquisition proceedings took place wayback in the year 1992.

7. Coming to the second question of law, it is to be seen only on finding that the land in question is fit for residential area, the Government had acquired the land for Harijan Welfare Schemes and on considering the said aspect alone, the appellate Court thought it fit to enhance the award amount without deducting the developmental charges and such course of action, cannot be found fault with therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the award under challenge is quite reasonable and does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. I answer the second question of law also against the petitioners herein.

8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //