CRP/793/2024 of K.V.SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLEC on 25 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.793, 1075, 1076 & 802 of 2024 are at the instance of the land losers/claimants in land acquisition compensation applications.

2. CRP.Nos.4225 & 4228 of 2025 are at the instance of the State, challenging the awards of the Reference Court.

3. Brief facts, which are common thread in all revision petitions, are as follows: The respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The lands of the petitioners/claimants were acquired under Award No.5 of 2013 dated 25.10.2013, for construction of Grade Separators at Periyar EVR Salai near Aminjikarai, Nelson Manickam Road Junction and Anna Nagar III Avenue Junction. At the time of Section 19(5) and Section 19(7) enquiry, the claimants were awarded Rs.3,400/- per sq.ft by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed respective LAOPs before the Reference Court (VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai), contending that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is far below the market value of the lands acquired, especially considering that the acquired lands are situate in a well developed and highly commercial area, enjoying 120 ft frontage on Poonamallee High Road. It was also contended by the petitioners that their lands are situate in very close proximity to Skywalk Mall and there are Government Hospitals and various commercial establishments in the vicinity. It is challenging the order of the Reference Court that the present revisions have been filed by both the claimants as well as the State.

4. Before the Reference Court, evidence was adduced by the claimants as well as by the respondents through the Special Tahsildar. On the side of the claimants, registered sale deeds were relied on to contend that the prevailing market value was more than Rs.12,000/- per sq.ft, even on the relevant date of acquisition.

5. The Reference Court, relying on Ex.C3, sale deed, considering it most appropriate, found that the market value of the property sold under Ex.C3 was Rs.1,84,50,000/- and that the land value apportionment was Rs.84,50,000/- and in view of Ex.C3 being one year prior to the publication of the notification under Section 15(2), the Reference Court also provided 15% enhancement and enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,500/- per sq.ft.

6. Mr.A.Arul, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/claimants in CRP.Nos.793, 1075, 1076 & 802 of 2024 and respondents in 4225 & 4228 of 2025 would state that having decided to rely on Ex.C3, finding it to be the most appropriate, the Reference Court has erroneously misconstrued the extend of land, as 2120 sq.ft instead of 838.3 sq.ft. Taking me through Annexure 1-A to Ex.C3, sale deed, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the building extent was alone 2120 sq.ft and specifically, the extent of the land was mentioned as 838.3 sq.ft. He would therefore state that if the land value of Rs.84,00,000/- is duly apportioned taking 838.3 sq.ft, it would workout to Rs.10,079.92 per sq.ft. He would further state that if 15% enhancement is given on the said amount and taking locational advantages into account, the compensation would have to be worked out on the basis of Rs.12,590/- per sq.ft. The learned counsel for the claimants would further state that in fact, in respect of other land losers in LAOP.No.4 of 2015, the Reference Court, by order dated 28.04.2025, has in fact, awarded Rs.11,600/- per sq.ft and the said order has not been challenged by the State. He would therefore state that the claimants in these revisions are at least entitled to Rs.11,600/-, if not Rs.12,590/- per sq.ft.

7. Per contra, Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the respondents in CRP.Nos.793, 1075, 1076 & 802 of 2024 and petitioners in CRP.Nos.4225 & 4228 of 2025 would contend that the document that has been relied on by the Reference Court, namely Ex.C3 pertains to a flat situate in the 8th floor and in such circumstances, necessary composite value has to be fixed and the value reflected in Ex.C3 cannot be taken on face value, for the purposes of arriving at the market value in the LAOP

proceedings. He would also state that the Land Acquisition Officer has relied on a data sale, which is just three months prior to the Section 15(2) notification and in terms of the said data sale, the market value of land is Rs.3,400/- per sq.ft. He would therefore state that no error was committed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Reference Court, without even giving any reasons for rejecting the said data sale which form the basis for fixing the value at Rs.3,400/- per sq.ft, has erroneously fixed the value at Rs.5,500/- per sq.ft.

8. In fact, it is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate that even if the value in terms of Ex.C3 was taken and 15% enhancement was provided for one year, even then the rate per sq.ft can at best to Rs.4,583/- per sq.ft and arbitrarily, the Reference Court has rounded it of to Rs.5,500/- per sq.ft. In support of his submissions, the learned Government Advocate would place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2009) 15 SCC

769.

9. With regard to reliance placed on the award passed by the Reference Court in connected matters at Rs.11,600/- per sq.ft, the learned Government Advocate contends that the said orders are being challenged and revisions are being shortly filed. He would therefore state that the order of the Reference Court cannot be relied on by this Court to enhance the compensation amount to Rs.11,600/- per sq.ft.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

11. The factum of the ownership and the acquisition proceedings are admitted all round. In fact, there is no dispute with regard to even the location of the property acquired as well. For seeking further enhancement, it is the contention of the claimants that the Reference Court has inadvertently taken the extent of the building for calculating the land value instead of factoring the actual extent of the land that was subject matter of sale under Ex.C3. The second submission is that the Reference Court in different LAOP proceedings has fixed the compensation at Rs.11,600/- per sq.ft and therefore, the claimants should be given the benefit of higher compensation that has been fixed under the very same award.

12. It is contended on behalf of the State that the data sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was most appropriate document reflecting the relevant market value and without even assigning any reasons for rejecting the same, the Reference Court has erroneously placed reliance on Ex.C3. Further, it is the contention of the State that even

Ex.C3 cannot be looked into for the simple reasons that it pertains to sale of a flat in the 8th floor and the said value was a fancy value paid considering premium prices for higher floors. It is the contention of the State that the land value reflected in Ex.C3 does not reflect the correct market value even though the said document can otherwise be looked into for the reasons that it is also proximate to the acquired lands and also registered within one year prior to the date of notification under Section 15(2) of the Act.

13. Insofar as the order of the Reference Court, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Reference Court has certainly committed a mistake in taking 2120 sq.ft as the land extent when admittedly 2120 sq.ft was only the building extent and not the land extent in terms of Ex.C3 and Annexure 1A attached to it. The land extent is only 838.3 sq.ft and the same should have been applied for arriving at the market value per sq.ft. Accordingly, if the land extent is correctly adopted, then the value per sq.ft would be Rs.10,079.92/-. However, at the same time, I find force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the land value set out in Ex.C3 cannot be straight away adopted for the acquired lands since Ex.C3 admittedly pertains to sale of a flat situate in 8th floor. However, even according to the learned Government Advocate, if the composite value is adopted, then the market value would have to be calculated at the rate of approximately Rs.8,000/- per sq.ft. Therefore, I do not see any

merit in the revisions that have been filed by the State viz., CRP.Nos. 4225 & 4228 of 2025, seeking for reduction even from 5,500/- per sq.ft

14. Insofar as the case of the claimants, considering that the Reference Court has certainly committed a glaring mistake in adopting the correct land value and factoring the location of the flat in the 8th floor which is the subject matter of Ex.C3, I deem it fit and proper to fix the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. Though it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the data sale that has been relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is just three months prior to the notification and situate in close proximity before the Reference Court and the same has been exhibited as Ex.R3 before the Reference Court as well, the Courts have consistently held that the highest value alone should be adopted for arriving at compensation in land acquisition matters. The law is well settled in this regard. Therefore, merely because the Reference Court has not assigned any reasons for rejecting Ex.R3 when admittedly Ex.C3 is also in contention and reflects a much higher market value. I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned Government Advocate.

15. Insofar as the reliance that has been placed by the learned Government Advocate on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the percentage of deduction for development to be factored while arriving at market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands with reference to sale price of small developed plots. Further, on facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the acquired lands were situate in a rural area in the outskirts of Delhi and only after the acquisition, within few months after the notification was issued, facilities like roads, water and electricity reached the area in a limited manner and in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appropriate deduction towards development would have to be provided at 40% instead of higher standard percentage of 60% to 70%. In any event, in the present cases, it is not in dispute that the lands are already developed lands situate in a very highly commercial locality and therefore, the question of applying any deduction for development does not arise.

16. For all the above reasons, the revision petitions filed by the State in CRP.Nos.4225 & 4228 of 2025 are dismissed and the revision petitions filed by the claimants in CRP.Nos.793, 1075, 1076 & 802 of 2024 are allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2022 in LAOP.Nos.86 of 2014, 6 of 2016, 86 of 2014 & 33 of 2015 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, are set aside, enhancing the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. However, I do not propose to provide for any further enhancement, which would adequately offset the locational advantage of the 8th floor apartment, which is the subject matter of Ex.C3. Resultantly, the compensation is worked out as Rs.10,000/- x 441.32 sq.ft = Rs.4,413,200/- (CRP.No.786 of 2024),

Rs.10,000/- x 462.84 = 4,628,400/- (CRP.No.1075 of 2024), Rs.10,000/- x 974.24 = Rs.9,742,400/-(CRP.No.1076 of 2024) and Rs.10,000/- x 775.01 = 7,750,100/- (CRP.No.802 of 2024). It is needless to state that the said amounts shall be payable together with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value from the date of Section 4(1) notification, till the date of award passed by the Referring Authority, or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier and the claimants will also be entitled to 9% interest for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% interest for subsequent years, till the date of payment/deposit by the State. While paying/depositing the balance amount, the State is entitled to deduct such amounts that have already been paid/deposited to the respective claimants. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 25.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata

To

1. Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector (L.A)., Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III, Chennai @ Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.

2. Special Deputy Collector (L.A)., Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III, Chennai @ Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.

3. The VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.Nos.793, 1075, 1076 & 802 of 2024 & 4225 & 4228 of 2025 25.09.2026