Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1639 (MAD)

Special Tahsildar (LA-III), Madras v. Selvi Rekha

2022-06-22

J.NISHA BANU

body2022
JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 18.09.2015 made in E.P.Nos.181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 183, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of 1993 in L.A.O.P.Nos.144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 146, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 1985 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.) Common Order 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 18.09.2015 made in E.P.Nos.181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 183, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of 1993 in L.A.O.P.Nos.144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 146, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 1985 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. 2. Since the issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and a common order is passed. 3. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:- 3.1. The respondents in all the Civil Revision Petitions would aver among other things in the affidavits filed in support of these Civil Revision Petitions that the lands measuring about 27.51 acres in Survey Nos.213/1 and 215/3 in Thiruvanmiyur Village in Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District, were acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the purpose of providing house sites for Thiruvanmiyur Neighbourhood Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, 4(1) Notification was published on 26.03.1975 and during the time of enquiry, the respondents raised objection for the land acquisition proceedings but it was overruled by the Board on 15.11.1977. 3.2. Accordingly, declaration of acquisition was published in Government Gazette on 23.03.1978 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded compensation to the land owners by Award No.2/82 dated 30.11.1982, fixed the market value of Rs.430/- per cent in Survey No.213/1 and Rs.137.84 per cent in Survey No.215/3. 3.3. Not satisfied with the award, the respondents herein had preferred L.A.O.P.Nos.144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 146, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. 3.3. Not satisfied with the award, the respondents herein had preferred L.A.O.P.Nos.144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 146, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. However, the lower Appellate Court had enhanced the compensation amount as Rs.3,000/- per cent. 3.4. Aggrieved over the same, the Government has preferred A.S.Nos.939, 940, 942, 943, 944, 941, 945, 948, 950, 951, 952 and 953 of 1989 and the same were dismissed on 22.12.1997. Subsequently, the Government has preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.12014 to 12093 of 1998, which was also dismissed. 3.5. Thereafter, the claimants had filed E.P.Nos.181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 183, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of 1993, in which, the Executing Court by order dated 18.09.2015 directed the judgment debtor/Government to deposit the award amount with future interest till date, within one month, failing which, attachment will be ordered. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the Government. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, the respondents' property have been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Government has already deposited the entire award and enhanced compensation amount before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. He would further submit that they had also paid excess award amount and so they need not deposit any amount further. Therefore, the attachment order passed by the Executing Court, is illegal. He would also submit that, the lower appellate Court, while enhancing the amount did not consider the documents produced by the Government and interest awarded by the Court below, is also on the higher side. Such enhancement is unreasonable and against the Government norms and therefore, he prays for interference. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- (i) The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer vs. M.Nachimuthu (died) (C.R.P. (NPD)No.450 of 2017, dated 15.02.2022) (ii) The Executive Engineer vs. T.K.Narasiman (C.R.P.(NPD)No.787 of 2022, dated 05.04.2022) 5. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- (i) The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer vs. M.Nachimuthu (died) (C.R.P. (NPD)No.450 of 2017, dated 15.02.2022) (ii) The Executive Engineer vs. T.K.Narasiman (C.R.P.(NPD)No.787 of 2022, dated 05.04.2022) 5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that, the lower Appellate Court after considering each and every point raised by the Government meticulously and eventually, has come to the conclusion that the contention of the land owners, is a bona fide one and ultimately, enhanced the compensation amount, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, he would submit that, no interference is required from any quarters to derail the well-considered judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and all the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MURUGESA NAICKER vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (IV), MARAIMALAI NAGAR SCHEME reported in (1998) 3 CTC 293 . 6. Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.M.R.Sivakumar appearing for the petitioner / Judgment Debtor and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.P.R.Raman appearing for the respondents/Decree Holders and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is seen from the records that, on 30.11.1982, the Special Tahsildar / Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award and that has been challenged by the respondents/claimants herein stating that the compensation amount awarded, is on the lower side. It was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same has been decided on 25.11.1987 and that the compensation amount is enhanced. Aggrieved over the same, the Government has preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.939, 940, 942, 943, 944, 941, 945, 948, 950, 951, 952 and 953 of 1989 before this Court and by judgment dated 22.12.1997, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the Government. Against which SLP Nos.12014 to 12093 of 1998 have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was also dismissed and therefore, the order passed by Sub Court, Poonamalee, in LAOP.Nos.144/85 to 158/85 has become final. Thereafter, claimants had filed Execution Petitions for recovery of amount and attachment. 8. Against which SLP Nos.12014 to 12093 of 1998 have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was also dismissed and therefore, the order passed by Sub Court, Poonamalee, in LAOP.Nos.144/85 to 158/85 has become final. Thereafter, claimants had filed Execution Petitions for recovery of amount and attachment. 8. The Executing Court held that E.P., is pending from 1993 and directed to deposit the amount failing which attachment will be ordered on 04.11.2015. 9. It is not the case of the Government before the Executing Court that they have paid excess amount. Now only they raised the above ground as a new plea, which are not supported by any document. So, it is clear that the petitioner/Government without paying the enhanced award amount to the land owners, have resorted to file the above Civil Revision Petitions only to protract the proceedings. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the EP Court. 10. Resultantly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.