CRP/1520/2021 of THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,(LA) Vs G.VASUDEVAN on 11 September 2026

ORDER

This revision is at the instance of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Radial Road Scheme, Tambaram, challenging the enhancement by the Reference Court at Rs.2,400/- per sq.ft from Rs.159/- per sq.ft.

2. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioner, Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent/claimant.

3. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General would state that the lands that were acquired from the respondent/claimant was an extent of 1191 sq.m. The Referring Officer, after considering more than 2000 documents, had fixed the market value at Rs.159/- per sq.ft. Taking me through the award, learned Additional Advocate General would state that valid reasons have been assigned for relying on one amongst 2658 data sales. He would also state that eight reasons have been assigned by the Land Acquisition Officer, namely the District Collector, Kancheepuram, for discarding 2657 documents and relying upon data sale in Sl.No.1993. He would also bring to my notice that the Land Acquisition Officer has given reasons for rejecting the documents that have been relied on by the claimant, especially Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

4. Thereafter, taking me to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, in LAOP.No.12 of 2012, learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the Reference Court has committed a fundamental error in holding that Ex.C1 was prior to the date of notification, which admittedly is not so. He would therefore state that the entire reliance placed on Ex.C1 has to be necessarily discarded and rejected. As regards Ex.C2, it is the submission of Additional Advocate General in demurrer, that the market value in terms of Ex.C2 was only Rs.800/- per sq.ft and absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the Reference Court to fix three times the value of Ex.C2, especially when Ex.C2 has been relied on by the claimant himself for enhancement of compensation. The learned Additional Advocate General would further state that no reasons have also been assigned by the Reference Court for rejecting the document that has been relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer in arriving at Rs.159/- per sq.ft. The Additional Advocate General would therefore pray for the revision being allowed, and a fair value be fixed towards compensation in respect of lands acquired from the 1st respondent.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant would firstly contend that the Land Acquisition Officer has not discussed the data sales individually and has summarily rejected as many as 2657 documents, by giving general and vague reasons. He would further state that the value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was only the then prevailing guideline value and though the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the value in Document No.6499 of 2005, which is prior to the date of notification, namely 04.02.2006 (within one year preceding the notification), the witness examined on behalf of the revision petitioner before the Reference Court has admitted to the fact that he does not know the lay of the property, which is the subject matter of Doc.No.6499 of 2005 dated 16.11.2005. He would also point out that the said document was not even exhibited by the claimant, though heavy reliance has been placed on the same, while seeking to affirm the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.159/- per sq.ft.

6. Though Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel would concede that Ex.C1 was certainly not prior to the date of notification, but only a post notification sale, it is his contention that in the absence of any other document there was nothing wrong in the Reference Court relying on Ex.C2 to fix the market value for the acquired lands. He would further contend that the acquired lands were situate on the main road (OMR-ECR link road) and though Ex.C2 was no doubt filed by the claimant himself, it related to the property situate far away on 17th Cross Street and therefore, merely because the claimant relied on Ex.C2, it is not necessary for the Reference Court to adopt the same value fixed in Ex.C2. He would also take me through the deposition of the witnesses with regard to the locational advantages as well as the distance factor pertaining to the relevant document.

7. It is further submitted by Mr.K.M.Venugopal that the Reference Court has not blindly adopted the market value reflected in Ex.C1, but has considerably scale down the market value from Rs.6170/- per sq.ft to Rs.2400/- per sq.ft, considering the fact that Ex.C1 was dated 24.12.2007. He would also point out to the observations and findings of the Reference Court as to why Ex.C2 was not taken into account to fix the market value. He would also point out to the award of interest at 15% in the judgment, but however, inadvertently in the decree, the rate of interest is mentioned as 9%. In support of his contentions, Mr.K.M.Venugopal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Chand and others, Vs. Union of India, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 551, decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana Vs. Suresh Kumar, reported in 2008 Supreme (P&H) 2178, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh and others Vs. Union of India, reported in 1998 (1) MLJ 35, Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.Project Vs. Mahaboob and another, reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 137 and Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the impugned award, as well as the order of the Reference Court.

9. The primordial submission of the Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General is that the Reference Court has grossly erred in holding that the Land Acquisition Officer has not assigned any reasons for fixing the market value at Rs.159/- per sq.ft and that even factually, the Reference Court has committed a mistake in referring and relying upon Ex.C1, as if it was prior to the date of notification. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 15(2) is dated 04.02.2006. Admittedly, Ex.C1 is dated 24.12.2007, which is one year and ten months approximately after the notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. It is not in dispute that possession of the lands of the 1st respondent/claimant have been taken over soon after the acquisition proceedings. In fact, during the course of arguments, it has also been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant that till date, the claimant has not been paid any portion of the enhanced compensation, despite having lost his valuable immovable property.

10. Before the Reference Court, the claimant sought for enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,000/- per sq.ft, together with other statutory benefits, including interest, additional market value and solatium. In support of such enhanced claim, the 1st respondent relied on Ex.C1, Sale Deed dated 24.12.2007. The market value, in terms of Ex.C1, Sale Deed is Rs.6,170/- per sq.ft. No doubt, a mistake has been committed at paragraph No.13 of the order of the Reference Court that Ex.C1 was prior to the date of notification. However, it can only be a typographical error since in the very next sentence the Court has mentioned that on perusal of the award, the award is silent on the aspect as to on what basis the quantum of the acquired land has been fixed and the quantum has been fixed on an assumption, without any basis.

11. In fact, at paragraph No.8, the Reference Court has clearly referred to the fact that Ex.C1 is post notification, but however, prior to issuance of notice under Section 19(2) of the Act. The location of the property, which is subject matter of Ex.C1 has also been discussed at paragraph No.9, where also the Court was conscious of the fact that Ex.C1 can be looked into for relevancy of proof of potentiality of the land acquired, even though it is after the date of notification under Section 15(2) of the Act.

12. As regard Ex.C2, the Reference Court found that it is dated 06.07.2005 and it would clearly establish the fact that even lands situate in the interior of the village fetched Rs.800/- per sq.ft, even before Section 15(2) notification. Therefore, the Court found that the 1st respondent’s land had better potential value, as well as market value and that several Multi National Companies and Industries have come up very close to the acquired lands, besides hotels, establishments, as well as Central and State Government offices and Banks were located within 1 km from the acquired property. In such view of the matter, I do not see the observation at paragraph No.13 of the order that Ex.C1 was prior to the date of notification is to be put against the Reference Court, on the ground of non application of mind.

13. The claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and an officer representing the petitioner was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the claimants, four documents were filed, namely Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. However, on the side of the respondents, no documentary evidence was adduced. Though in the impugned order, there is a reference to Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, which are totally unconnected to the present proceedings, there is a clear reference at paragraph No.5 of the impugned order where the Court clearly renders a finding that R.W.1 has been examined and no documentary evidence has been adduced.

14. Addressing the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Reference Court has erroneously held that no reasons have been assigned for fixing the value at Rs.159/- per sq.ft, I do find from the award that the Land Acquisition Officer has certainly given reasons for adopting one amongst 2658 documents, namely Sl.No.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer has found that lands in Survey No.270/2 have

been sold for Rs.22,50,000/- and therefore, proceeded to adopt the said value, since the document is dated 16.11.2005, very proximate to the notification dated 04.02.2006. However, at the same time, unfortunately the Land Acquisition Officer has given eight sweeping reasons for not relying on 2657 data sales. The valuable immovable property of land losers are subject matter of acquisition proceedings. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the claimants are entitled to fair and just compensation. Therefore, the approach of the Land Acquisition Officer in discarding 2657 data sales with general observations and findings itself was improper.

15. Further, though the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the data sale in Sl.No.1993 is near the alignment of the acquired lands, the petitioner’s witness himself has spoken to the contrary in the witness box. He has stated that he does not even know where the lands covered by the said sale deed dated 16.11.2005 is situate. He has also admitted to the fact that even a copy of the said sale deed has not been produced before the Reference Court. Further, I find that R.W.1 has admitted that the link road connects ECR-OMR. In fact, he has not even denied the suggestion put to him that the acquired land is situate just 300 ft away from Sholinganallur junction. On the contrary, he admits to the fact that several IT establishments and Colleges have come up in the vicinity and only after the development of the entire locality, the lands were acquired for the purposes of linking OMR-ECR for facilitating better access to such IT Companies and Colleges.

16. He further stated that Ex.C2 cannot be looked into, as it is situate far away from the acquired lands. Therefore, I do not see any error committed by the Reference Court in not adopting the value reflected in Ex.C2, especially when R.W.1 himself admitted that the lands, which is subject matter of Ex.C2, were situate far away and it is also the submission of the claimant that Ex.C2 pertains to a document relating to a property in 17th Cross Street, whereas the acquired lands are situate bang on the ECR- OMR link road.

17. Coming to Ex.C1, the Reference Court has found that the property, which is the subject matter of Ex.C1, is situate very near the acquired lands and therefore, has taken into consideration Ex.C1 and the consideration reflected therein. Admittedly, under Ex.C1, which is only a year and ten months after the date of notification, reflected a sale consideration of Rs.6,170/- per sq.ft. When C.W.1 was cross examined, excepting for a suggestion that the value in Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 are very high and therefore, it should not be looked into, there is not even a suggestion that the transactions in Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were not bonafide transactions and that they were brought about only for the purposes of seeking enhancement of compensation. That being the position, when the witness examined on the side of the petitioner himself admitted that the property, which is subject matter of Ex.C2, was situate far away, the only other document before the Reference Court was Ex.C1. As already pointed out, even the document data sale deed in Sl.No.1993 was not even exhibited by the petitioner before the Reference Court.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there are no other relevant documents, then post notification sale deeds can also be looked into. In Prem Chand’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a post notification document is relied upon for fixing the market value, it would not be improper to do so, but however, adequate deduction should be given by scaling down the market value.

19. The Punjab and Haryana High Court also held in the case of State of Haryana, that even though a sale transaction is post notification i.e after eight months, it could be taken into consideration for determining the market value, by giving appropriate deduction, especially when the property, which subject matter of the post notification sale deed, is situate nearer to the acquired land.

20. In Karan Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that post notification sale transactions can also be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land.

21. In Special Land Acquisition Officer’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that land losers invariably have to wait for decades to get fair and just compensation, since the State Government invariably prefers first appeal and second appeal, then approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and excepting for paltry amount received when the Land Acquisition Officer made the award, the actual compensation is never paid for years together, by which time the land loser will not be in a position to even acquire some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood.

22. In fact, I had an occasion to decide a similar issue in CRP.No.982 of 2023 dated 07.11.2025 in the matter of The Special Tahsildar, Radial Road Scheme, Tambaram Vs. RAS Adyar Hotel Private Limited, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, and after discussing the case law on the subject, I held that there is no bar for the Court to rely post notification sale deeds, especially when the Court is able to find that the subject matter such post notification sale deeds are situate in close proximity to the lands acquired and also enjoyed similar locational advantages.

23. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Reference Court has rejected Ex.C2, even though relied upon by the claimant, since it is situate in the interior of Sholinganallur, whereas the lands acquired from the 1st respondent is having frontage on the main ECR-OMR link road. Ex.C1 therefore, even though after one year and ten months, was the only appropriate document available before the Reference Court. The petitioner ought to have at least filed the data sale deed, on which, reliance has been placed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even the said document has not been placed before the Reference Court for consideration.

24. Further, even though the value per sq.ft in Ex.C1 was Rs.6,170/-, the Reference Court has been conscious of the fact it is a post sale notification and has significantly scaled down the value to Rs.2,400/- per sq.ft alone. Therefore, I do not see any perversity or illegality in the approach of the Reference Court, warranting interference in revision.

25. As regards the rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by Mr.K.M.Venugopal, in the judgment, the Reference Court has clearly held that petitioner is entitled to interest at 15% per annum. However, by inadvertence, in the decree, the rate of interest is mentioned only as 9%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tarsem’s case, held that the Government itself was of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015 and proceeded to declare the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-A) and

(2) and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso to apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. In fact, Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 as amended by National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, was struck down as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above and especially in the light of the judgment clearly entitling the claimants to interest at 9% per annum for the period from the date of taking possession up to 13.08.2008 and thereafter, at 15% per annum, but however, the decree not correctly incorporating the findings, Clause – 6 of the decree is also suitably modified, entitling the claimants to 9% interest on Rs.4,09,34,135.77/- for one year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% for subsequent years, till the date of deposit.

26. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to settle the entire award amount to the 1st respondent, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 11.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The Sub Court, Tambaram.

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.1520 of 2021 11.09.2026