CRP/5858/2026 of The Land Acquisition Officer/ Vs Valli on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer, Salem and Divisional Engineer, (Highways), Salem are the revision petitioners challenging the land acquisition proceedings in RT.R.O.P. No.199 of 2021, dated 31.07.2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioners and Mrs.D.Sathya, for Mrs.Zeenath Begam, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners Mr.P.Sunil, would state that the land acquisition officer had fixed the compensation at Rs.26,910/- per sq.mtr. after taking into account relevant data sales, but however, the Trial Court without any basis has enhanced the same to Rs.64,584/- per sq.mtr. and that such enhancement is a clear violation of the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He would further state that the Reference Court has failed to notice that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation considering the contemporaneous sale value and therefore, without assigning any proper reasons, the Reference Court ought not to have arbitrarily enhanced the compensation to Rs.64,584/- per sq.mtr. He would further state that the Reference Court ought not to have relied on Ex.C2, which is admittedly a post acquisition document dated 15.03.2018. That apart, it is also his submission that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the Reference

Court has failed to follow the belt system when vast areas of lands were acquired and subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings.

4. Per contra, Mrs.D.Sathya, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the land acquisition officer had only adopted the guideline value prevailing at the relevant point of time, contrary to the entitlement of the claimants to the market value which is admittedly, a higher than the guideline value prevailing on the relevant date. She would also invite my attention to the admissions of R.W.1, who was examined on the side of the revision petitioners to contend that the evidence adduced by R.W.1 is sufficient to dislodge all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. She would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petitioners.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem.

6. The brief facts for adjudicating this revision are as follows:- The petitioners acquired the lands of the respondents for the purpose of construction of a Road over Bridge, in a portion of Salem bypass road, in lieu of the existing L.C. No.183 at Railway K.M.189/400-500 between Salem Town and Salem East Railway station, invoking the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. A notification was issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 on 07.12.2011 and an award was passed on 30.04.2021 in Award No.5 of 2021. The declared compensation amount by the Land Acquisition Officer was received by the claimant under protest and claims for enhancement was referred to the Civil Court. The claim for enhancement was resisted by the revision petitioners contending that the compensation that has been arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and fair and reliance placed on commercial property were wholly irrelevant for fixing market value for a residential property which alone was acquired from the claimants before the Reference Court.

7. The claimant examined herself as C.W.1, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Salem was examined as C.W.2 and on the side of the claimant Ex.C1 and Ex.C7 and Ex.X1 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the Special Tahsildar Salem was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked on the side of the revision petitioners.

8. The Reference Court found that even three years prior to the notification being issued, the lands in the vicinity had been mortgaged depicting a market value of Rs.5,700/- per sq.ft. The Reference Court found that the said lands were also situate in the very same road viz., Sakaralayam Road, where the property which is subject matter of acquisition is also situate. The Court also took note of the fact that the very same land owners had executed a further deposit of title deeds in favour of IndusInd Bank, on 02.12.2019, where the market value has been reflected as Rs.5,980/- per.sq.ft. The Court considered the fact that after acquisition since the entire frontage access of the claimants have been affected, they have to spend huge sums of monies for demolition and renovation purposes and they were forced to incur rents at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month as well, during the process of demolition and renovation. The Reference Court also found that the acquired lands were situate very near to Salem Town Railway Station, Bus Stand, Commercial establishments, Banks, Hospitals, Temples, Schools and Colleges as well.

9. Meeting the objection of the petitioners, the Reference Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer had violated the methodology prescribed under the Act for fixing the compensation based on the highest value as in the data sale exemplars and contrary to the same, the Land Acquisition Officer has relied on three lowest prices, for arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants. The Reference Court in fact, was conscious of the fact that Ex.C2 was two years after the notification but found that from the evidence of the petitioner's themselves, the land costs in and around the acquired lands was about Rs.6000/- per sq.ft., and therefore proceeded to hold that reliance could be placed on Ex.C2, despite the said document being a post notification sale deed. The Reference Court also took note of vital admissions made by R.W.1, admitting to the value being Rs.6000/- per sq.ft and admitting to the locational advantages of the acquired lands. Therefore, I do not see any error committed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value at compensation at Rs.64,584/- per sq.mtr (Rs.6000/- per sq.ft) for the acquired lands. Even in respect of an additional Rs.1,00,000/- for three years for loss of residence amenities, I find that the Reference Court has given valid reasons for awarding such compensation amount. The same is based on evidence available on record and therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the said portion of the award as well.

10. Though arguments have been strenuously advanced by the learned Government Advocate, Mr.P.Sunil, attacking the findings of the Reference Court, I find that the findings are merely based on the admissions of R.W.1, who was examined on the side of the revision petitioner themselves. Therefore, when admission of an opposite party is the best available evidence, there is no error committed by the Reference Court, in relying on the same.

11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Principal District Judge, Salem.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. No.5858 of 2026 and CMP. No.25315 of 2026 25-09-2026