CRP/3915/2026 of The Special Tahsildar (L and Aacquisition) Vs Hindustan Engineering Training Centre on 11 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions are at the instance of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), I.T Expressway Scheme, Tambaram.

2. I have heard Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government Counsel for the petitioner in all the revision petitions and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in all the revision petitions.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an interim award on 10-02-2017, fixing the compensation for wetlands at Rs.459/- per sq.ft, after assessing as many as 416 data sale deeds, the Reference Court has erroneously considered Exs.C-18 and C-19, which are post notification transactions and has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft.

4. Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government Counsel for the petitioner would state that the notification being dated 09-02-2009, Exs.C-18 and C-19, both being admittedly after the date of notification, ought not to have been taken into consideration in the first place. She would also contend that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered relevant data sales, during the period 10-02-

2008 to 09-02-2009 in arriving at Rs.459/- per sq.ft. She would therefore pray for the revision petitions being allowed, setting aside the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimant would firstly attack the very maintainability of the revision petitions, contending that after introduction of the new Land Acquisition Act, namely Act 42 of 2013, the provisions of the old Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied and regular first appeals ought to have been preferred. Though he would fairly concede to the position that prior to the enactment of 2013 Act, the earlier view was that a challenge could be laid only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, with the promulgation of Act 30 of 2013, a revision petition cannot be filed.

6. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel would in any event contend that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when it is shown by the contesting respondents that the revision petitions are belated and have not been filed in time, diligently, then this Court can still refuse to exercise the extraordinary remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.Ramachandran vs. Special District Revenue Officer, Land

Acquisition, reported in 2025 SCC Online Mad 18390, as well as the order passed in W.P.Nos.17914 & 21706 of 2010 dated 06-06-2018, which in fact pertains to the claimants in the present case.

7. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the joint memo of compromise that was reached between the claimants and the State, in and by which, the petitioners willingly came forward to give up their valuable lands for enabling the laudable project to go on. He would therefore state that having promised to compensate the respondent-landowner and having taken over possession of the lands even in 2018, at this belated juncture, the petitioner cannot seek interference from this Court, that too challenging the judgment and decree passed in August 2021. The learned Senior Counsel therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petitions.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in all the revision petitions.

9. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the petitioner was facilitated with ease, on account of a compromise entered into with the respondent claimant. The compensation amount as determined in the interim award dated 10-02-2017 was also permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent, without prejudice to their right to seek for enhanced compensation.

10. Though Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel has attacked the very maintainability of the civil revision petitions on two grounds, namely an appeal remedy being available, after the Act 30 of 2013 being brought into force and secondly, the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being hit by delay and latches, I do not see any real purpose in driving the parties to another fresh round of litigation, by dismissing the revision petitions as not maintainable and directing the petitioner to prefer appeals instead. Hence, the core issue with regard to the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court to Rs.1,500/- from Rs.459/- is being addressed in this revision itself.

11. The only objection of Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi is that Exs.C-18 and C-19 ought not to have been relied upon, for the purposes of arriving at the relevant market value for determining the compensation payable to the respondent, since both these exhibits were post notification dated 09-02-2009. Insofar as the several data sale deeds, that have been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, though they may be during the relevant period of time, the Land Acquisition Officer has only applied the guideline value prevailing at that time, which by no stretch of imagination, substitutes the market value, which is payable to the land losers. Hence, I do not see any error committed by the Reference court in rejecting the valuation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in the interim Award No.3/2017.

12. Now coming to the correctness of the enhancement awarded by the Reference Court, I find that for adopting the value reflected in Exs.C-18 and C-19, the Reference Court has given valid reasons, finding that the document was relating to third parties and the value reflected in the said documents was not challenged even in cross examination by the petitioner. The Reference Court also categorically rendered a finding that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the sale deed was executed only for the purposes of claiming higher compensation for the acquired lands or to defeat the compensation determined in interim Award No.3/2017.

13. Further, I find that the documents were executed only a few months after the notification and in a similar batch of land acquisition matters, the District Collector, Kanchipuram in Award No.12/2013, had enhanced the compensation to Rs.31,271/- per square metre. These facts were not disputed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the said award has become final and the said factum has also not been disputed by the petitioner.

14. Further, admittedly the lands acquired belong to an educational institution, which came forward to give up their lands for meeting public purpose and there is absolutely no infirmity or error committed by the Reference Court in arriving at the compensation of Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft. Hence, I

do not see any infirmity in the order of the Reference Court, warranting interference in revision, especially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that too, when the revision petitions have been filed belatedly. For the foregoing reasons, there is no scope for interference and all these revision petitions fail.

15. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 11.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP Nos.3915, 3920, 3922, 3928, 3930, 3932, 3933 & 3938 of 2026 & CMP.Nos.17120, 17136, 17138, 17159, 17165, 17169, 17172 & 17236 of

11.08.2026