The Special District Revenue Officer La v. G Subbaiya Dass

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 24.07.2026 Order pronounced on : 31.07.2026 CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.Nos.3937, 3896, 3453, 3882, 3880 & 3878 of 2026 & CMP.Nos.17234, 17070, 14989, 17020, 17012 & 17009 of 2026

1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Administrative Office Block (Ground Floor), SIDCO Branch Office Complex, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058.

2.The Divisional Engineer (C&M), Highways Department, Tiruvallur. .. Petitioner in all CRPs Vs. G.Subbaiya Dass .. Respondent in CRP.No.3937 of 2026 R.Venkatesan .. Respondent in CRP.No.3896 of 2026 G.D.Sripathy .. Respondent in CRP.No.3453 of 2026 M.S.Rajeswari Ammal .. Respondent in CRP.No.3882 of 2026 S.Jagajeevan .. Respondent in CRP.No.3880 of 2026 R.Suseela @ Elda Suseela Mary .. Respondent in CRP.No.3878 of 2026 Common prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2025 in LAOP.Nos.407 of 2022, 404 of 2022, 113 of 2023, 406 of 2022, 383 of 2022 and 115 of 2023, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur. For Petitioners : Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi Government Counsel in all CRPs For Respondent : Mr.V.Perumal in all CRPs COMMON ORDER The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai, and the Divisional Engineer (C & M), Highways Department, Tiruvallur, are the revision petitioners herein, challenging the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants in all these revision petitions, namely the respondents.

2.I have heard Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government counsel for the revision petitioners in all the above revisions and Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel for the respondent in all the revisions.

3.Admittedly, the lands of the claimants/respondents are situate in close proximity and the LAOPs were decided in and by a common judgment on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. In view of the above, all the revisions have been heard together.

4.Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly fixed the compensation amount at Rs.182.60/- per sq.m for Survey Nos.37/3A2, 97/6B and 97/7B and Rs.198.70/- per sq.m for Survey Nos.97/5B. She would further contend that the said value were arrived from and out of data sales between the period 18.06.2017 and

17.06.2020. She would further state that the Land Acquisition Officer had applied the correct market value, considering data sales nearer to the acquired lands alone. She would therefore state that the Trial Court has clearly erred in enhancing the compensation in respect of all survey numbers to Rs.4,842/- per sq.m. She would also state that the Trial Court has not assigned any valid reasons for such huge enhancement being granted to the land owners.

5.Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Government counsel would also take me through the classification of the respective survey numbers in the revenue records and contend that lands were mostly dry Manavari lands which were classified as residential in nature. She would further contend that the Trial Court has not deducted 1/3rd towards development charges and has also failed to consider the fertility, location and other relevant conditions on the date of publication of Section 15(2) notification, which would be the crucial date. She would therefore pray for the revision petitions being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.V.Perumal, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in all the revision petitions would state that the Trial Court has rightly discounted the reliance placed on by the Land Acquisition on the then prevailing guideline value, which admittedly, cannot be equated with the market value. He would further state that the compensation has to be arrived at only based on the market value prevailing on the relevant date and therefore, the entire argument of the learned Government counsel revolving such submissions around guideline value, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, is of no effect or value. He would further state that the Trial Court has rightly considered relevant documentary evidence in fixing the compensation and there being no illegality or perversity, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petitions.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the common order of the Trial Court, enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,842/- per sq.m.

8.The lands situate in Melanur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, belonging to the respondents/claimants, were admittedly notified for the purposes of acquisition under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for the purposes of formation of Highway connecting Ennore Port and Mahabalipuram.

9.It is not in dispute that the compensation will have to be arrived at, based upon the relevant criteria set out under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. According to the learned Government counsel; since the said Act was brought into force, after the lands were notified for acquisition, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.298 and 300, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 20.09.2017 and had directed additional compensation amount to be arrived at and paid to the claimants. Before the District Court, all the LAOPs were tried together, by way of joint trial, after obtaining consent from the Government Pleader, as well as the claimants. Evidence has also been recorded in common in one of the LAOP.No.113 of 2023.

10.It is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would apply for the purposes of arriving at the compensation to be paid to the land owners. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer has considered as many as 336 documents, which had all taken place, prior to one year of the date of notification and based upon the guideline value then prevailing, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation amount as already set out herein above. In matters like these where land acquisition compensation is sought for, the applicable yardstick would only be the market value and not the guideline value. On behalf of the claimants, three sale deeds, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were relied upon.

11.Analyzing Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, the Trial Court has proceeded to fix the compensation at Rs.4,842/- per sq.m. The Trial Court has relied upon Ex.P.2, finding it to be most appropriate for arriving at compensation for the lands of the claimants. The Trial Court has also rightly found that the guideline value was of no consequence and the compensation can be fixed only based on the market value alone. These findings of the Trial Court are perfectly in order and do not deserve to be tinkered with.

12.Coming to the actual quantum, namely Rs.4,842/- per sq.m, the Trial Court has rightly considered Ex.P.2, which is situate just beyond 1.6 kms from the acquired lands. The Trial Court also found Ex.P.2 to be situate in the same village and also two years prior to the date of notification as well. The Trial Court has rightly considered relevant material documentary evidence, before fixing the market value of the acquired lands and the arguments on behalf of the learned Government counsel that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly determined the compensation amount cannot be countenanced. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, warranting interference in revision.

13.For all the above reasons, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

31.07.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To

1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Administrative Office Block (Ground Floor), SIDCO Branch Office Complex, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058.

2.The Divisional Engineer (C&M), Highways Department, Tiruvallur.

3.The Principal District Court, Tiruvallur. oP.B.BALAJIo.oJo, ata Pre-deliveryoorderomadeoin CRP.Nos.3937,o3896,o3453,o3882, o3880o&o3878oofo2026 &oCMP.Nos.17234,o17070,o14989,o17020, o17012o&o17009oofo2026

31.07.2026