CRP/3633/2026 of The Special District Revenue Officer LA Vs R.M.R.Janakiraman on 14 August 2026

ORDER

The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition and the Divisional Engineer (C & M), Highways Department are the revision petitioners. The petitioners challenged the enhanced compensation awarded to the respective respondents in the revision petitions.

2. CRP No.3633 of 2026 arises out of LAOP. No.287 of 2022 where the claimant is one R.M.R Janakiraman, the other revision in CRP. No.3636 of 2026, arises out of LAOP. No.413 of 2026 where the claimant is one Ananthasayanan @ RMR.Ramesh.

3. I have heard Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government Counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions and Mr.G.Thyagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, in both the revisions.

4. The main ground of attack that has been putforth by Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government Counsel is that though the properties which have been acquired are situate in different Survey Numbers, the Court has uniformly enhanced the compensation in respect of the land situated in both Survey Numbers, without noticing that the guideline value for in respect of

Survey No.7/2 was only 4.13.90 per sq.mtr as against Rs.1445 in respect of S.No.5/2. It is the further contention of the learned Government Counsel that the documents that were relied on for the purposes of establishing the market value viz., Ex.P1 to P4, were not even situate in the same village where the lands of the respondents have been acquired and further the Court below has erroneously enhanced the compensation based on the same documents, even in respect of S.No.7/2, which admittedly, reflected a guideline value three times lesser than the guideline value of S.No.5/2. She would also contend that in respect of S.No.7/2, admittedly, no comparable sale transactions were produced. Therefore, it is her submission that the enhancement of compensation awarding Rs.4371/- in respect of both Survey Numbers is wholly unsubstantiated and liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr.G.Thyagarajan, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that even though Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 did not pertain to the same hamlet, the lands in respect of which Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were executed are situated within a proximate distance and there was no error committed by the Court below in relying upon the value reflected in Ex.P1 to P4. He would further state that the respondent in both the petitions are only brothers who have partitioned the joint family properties and each of them have been given an equal shares and in such circumstances, it cannot be contended by the Government Counsel that some of the lands are of have much higher value, compared to lands in Survey No.7/2. He would further state that the Court has not committed any error and had rightly enhanced the compensation based on the prevailing market value. He would pray for dismissal of the revision petitions.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the common order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in LAOP No.287 of 2022 & LAOP. No.413 of 2021 dated 10.07.2025.

7. Though it was contended by the learned Government Counsel Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, that the petitioner had relied on a document that pertain to same village and it does not even taken note of by the Court, I find that no documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioners. Excepting for examining three witnesses, the petitioners have not chosen to mark any documents on their side. Hence, straight-away it can be found that in order establish the prevailing market value on the relevant date, the petitioners have not brought on record any documentary evidence.

8. As contended by Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government Counsel, no doubt, the lands covered by Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are situated in two different villages and not the subject village where the lands of the respondents have been acquired viz., Vannipakkam Village. However, the learned District Judge has referred to the admissions of the respondents witnesses that lands covered by Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are situate within 1.6 kms from the acquired lands. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the District Court relying upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 sale transactions, to arrive at the market value. In fact, the District Court has not plainly accepted the claim of the respondents that the prevailing market value is Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. metre. R.W.1 himself admitted that the lands in Anuppampattu and Nalur Villages are within 1.6 kms vicinity and were situate in the adjoining villages. Documents were also found to be executed and registered, prior to the date of notification, within a period of three years.

9. Even though it has been vehemently contended by the learned Government Counsel that when the guideline value for lands in S.No.7/2 was for below the prevailing guideline value for lands in S.No.5/2 at the same point of time, the market value for both the Survey Number cannot be the same, however, there is nothing brought on record during the trial, by the petitioners, to establish that the lands in S.Nos.7/2 were not potentially marketable on the same lines of lands in S.No.5/2. In fact, R.W.1 during his cross examination candidly admitted to the fact that the acquired lands are situate within 1.6 kms of lands covered by Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. In such circumstances, I do not see any error committed by the Court below in taking the average market price based on sale consideration reflected in Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 and applying the same to the subject lands in question.

10. Coming to the argument of the learned Government Counsel Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, that when there was huge difference in the guideline value of S.Nos.5/2 and 7/2 and that the award could not have been passed and compensation enhanced at the same rates for both lands situated in both these Survey Numbers, firstly, it should be remembered that what is relevant for purposes of determination of compensation is the market value and not the guideline value. There is no evidence on the side of the petitioners to even justify as to why there was such a difference in the guideline values of S.No.5/2 and 7/2. The District Court has also rightly held that the guideline value, cannot be equated as market value, especially for the purposes of computing compensation in land acquisition matters. Also, as rightly contended by Mr.G.Thyagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, the claimants are bothers and there has been an equal partition between themselves and in such circumstances, there is no merit in contending that there is a huge difference in the guideline values of both the Survey Numbers.

11. Further the Court has also relied on the village sketch to justify applying the value in Anuppampattu Village to the acquired lands in Vannipakkam Village. During the relevant period of time, in fact, the Court has only arrived at the average sale price taking into account Ex.P1 and Ex.P4, both pertaining to lands situated in Anuppampattu Village and arrived at Rs.4,371/- per sq.mtr. Thus, I am unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the District Court enhancing the market value to Rs.4,371/- per sq.ft from Rs.2159.99 per sq.mtr.

12. For all the above reasons, I am unable to see any merits in the revision petitions warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

14-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes RKP To The Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. Nos.3633 & 3636 of 2026 and CMP. Nos.15777 & 15784 of 2026 14-08-2026