Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1448 (MAD)

Special Tahsildar v. S. Ramanathan

2012-03-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment Common Judgment 1. Animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur in various L.A.O.Ps., the Government has filed these appeals. 2. Heard Mr.S.Pasupatheeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) for the appellant, Mr.A.S.Vijayanand, learned counsel for the claimants/land owners and Mrs.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for SIPCOT, the requisitioning authority. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring various lands in Sirumangadu village in Sriperumbudur Taluk, for setting up Industrial Complex, viz., SIPCOT. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.227/- per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,900/- per cent. 5. At the hearing, it transpired that the lands involved in these cases were acquired along with other lands belonging to various other persons and common Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appeals filed by the other persons as against the judgment of the lower Court were disposed of by my learned Predecessor, vide the common judgment dated 22.07.2010 in A.S.Nos.742 to 758 of 2009, modifying the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,900/-per cent awarded by the lower Court to Rs.3,750/- per cent together with other statutory dues viz., solatium, additional compensation interest as per the statutory requirements. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Sub Court has to be reduced in commensurate with the common judgment dated 22.07.2010 in A.S.Nos.742 to 758 of 2009? 7. These appeals are as against the judgments of the lower Court assessing the compensation in a same sum of Rs.3,900/-per cent. As of now, what I could understand is that, finality has been achieved in respect of the assessing of the compensation in respect of one cent in a sum of Rs.3,750/-by my learned Predecessor and there is nothing to indicate that the order passed by this Court earlier by my learned Predecessor was challenged in an appeal. As of now, what I could understand is that, finality has been achieved in respect of the assessing of the compensation in respect of one cent in a sum of Rs.3,750/-by my learned Predecessor and there is nothing to indicate that the order passed by this Court earlier by my learned Predecessor was challenged in an appeal. Both sides in unison stated that the said previous judgment of my learned Predecessor remains in tact. 8. As such, I could see no reason to distinguish and differentiate the case of the claimants/land losers in these matters. Accordingly, the compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the common judgment upheld by this Court in A.S.Nos.742 to 758 of 2009 at the rate of Rs.3,750 per cent. The Appeal Suits are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.