High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 02 MAD CK 0099

The Special Tahsildar (L.A) Salem - Karur Broad Guage Railway Scheme Salem vs Manickam, Varadaraj and The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Southern Railway, Salem - 5. Salem - Karur Broad Guage, Railway Scheme

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Rajasuria, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.S. No. 544 of 2011 and M.P. No''s. 1 and 2 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 402 words

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge and (Fast Track

Court No.I) of Salem, dated 19.05.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.286 of 2002, the Government has filed this appeal. Heard both sides.

2.

The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The Government vide Notification dated 23.02.1999 made u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent

of 2.01.0 hectare in Survey Nos.19/3A1A etc., in Amanikondlampatti Village, Salem Taluk, for the purpose of laying railway track from Salem to

Karur.

3.

Previously there were batch of appeals which were disposed of by the common judgment of this Court dated 16.07.2009 in A.S.Nos.430 to

454 of 2007 etc. Even though the respondents 1 and 2/claimants/land losers happened to be the parties in the common judgment by the lower

Court, the Government has not preferred appeal along with the batch of appeals. Hence, this has come up separately before me. The learned

Special Government Pleader (A.S.) and the learned counsel for the respondents in unison would submit that the decision rendered by the Division

Bench in the batch of appeals could be followed in this case also. As such, I am of the view that for this appeal alone no exception could be carved

out and accordingly, the following is extracted from the previous judgment:

The Reference Court has not taken into consideration the largeness of the area which has been acquired, while arriving at the value with reference

to small piece of land in Sl.No.476. The extent of lands sold by document dated 15.04.1998 in S.No.476 is 398 sq.m., (4187 sq.ft), whereas the

land acquired is an extent of 2.01.0 hectares. Hence, definitely certain percentage in the value has to be deducted towards the largeness of the area

acquired.

In all reasonableness, a deduction of Rs.25/- per sq.ft., in our view, would meet the ends of justice. If such a deduction is given, the value of the

land would be Rs.100/- per sq.ft. Thus, the value of the land is determined at Rs.100/- per sq.ft.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In respect of other aspects, the order of the Reference Court would remain in tact. The

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed in view of the order in the appeal suit.