{"id":263060,"date":"2008-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008"},"modified":"2014-09-03T12:28:39","modified_gmt":"2014-09-03T06:58:39","slug":"the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nA.S.No.75 of 2008\nA.S.Nos.76 to 86 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2 of 2008 in A.S.Nos.75 to 86 of 2008\n\nA.S.No.75 of 2008\n\nThe Special Tahsildhar,\nLand Acquisition,\nAir Force Station,\nThanjavur.\t\t\t  ... Appellant\/Referring Officer\n\nVs\n\n1.Pavunammal\t\t\t  ... Respondent No.1\/ \t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\tClaimants\n<\/p>\n
2.The Defence Estate Officer,
\n  Madras Circle,
\n  306, Anna Salai,
\n  Teynampet,
\n  Chennai – 600 018\t\t  … Respondent No.2\/
\n\t\t\t\t\tBeneficiary<\/p>\n
Prayer in A.S.No.75 of 2008<\/p>\n
Appeal filed under Section 54<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment
\nand decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.229 of 1997 dated 22.11.2006 by the learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t\t\t… Mr.So.Paramasivam,
\n\t\t\t\t    Additional Govt. Pleader
\n^For Respondent No.1\t\t… Mr.G.Karnan
\nFor Respondent No.2\t\t… Mr.M.K.Ramakrishnan<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tA.S.No.75 of 2008 has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree
\npassed in L.A.O.P.No.229 of 1997 dated 22.11.2006 by the learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur and accordingly, other appeals
\nhave also been filed with the prayers respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe publication of the notifications under Section 4(1)<\/a> of the Land
\nAcquisition Act were made as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.\n<\/p>\n
R.C.No.\n<\/p>\n
Date of 4(1) Notification
\nAward No.& Dated
\nLand Value Fixed by the FTC-1, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
(Per Cent)\n<\/p>\n
1.
\n75 to 78\/08
\n65\/91<\/span>
\n12.08.1992
\n5\/91 – 05.10.1994
\nRs.1,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n79 & 80\/08
\n37\/91<\/span>
\n08.07.1992
\n5\/2004 – 15.07.1994
\nRs.1,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
3.
\n81 to 86\/07
\n72\/91<\/span>
\n09.09.1992-\n<\/p>\n
11\/1994 – 21.10.1994
\nRs.1,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
for acquiring a vast tract of a land for setting up Air Force Station at
\nThanjavur.  Consequently, necessary steps were taken as per law for acquiring
\nthe lands and ultimately, the relevant awards emerged.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such passing of awards,
\nquantifying the compensation various references under Section 18<\/a> of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, have been made to the learned Additional District Judge, Fast
\nTrack Court No.I, Thanjavur.  Consequently, the learned Additional District
\nJudge assessed the value of the land and ultimately,  enhanced the compensation
\nto the tune of Rs.1,000\/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per cent in L.A.O.P.No.229
\nto 231, 244, 336, 344, 363 to 365, 367, 368 and 376 of 1997 from the one
\nassessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred several appeals
\nbefore this Court and this Court vide judgments dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519
\nand 520 of 1999 and in A.S.Nos.416 to 418 of 1999, confirmed the judgment of the
\nlearned Sub Judge in assessing the value of the land at Rs.1,176\/- per cent
\nultimately.  The Government preferred Special Leave Petitions vide Nos.24578-
\n24579 of 2004 before the Honourable Apex Court and in that the Honourable Apex
\nCourt passed order as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t” … Mr.N.N.Goswamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge
\nthe statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make
\nit apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by
\nconsent, there are large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum
\nawarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court.  Those
\nmatters are still pending before the High court and if the same principle of
\nvaluation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice.  His
\ncontention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before
\nthe High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which sale deed
\nhad been produced as Annexure A-9, as an exemplar as well as the lands subject
\nmatter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the Court
\nmust value the land acquired having regard to its value applying the statutory
\nguidelines.  Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed
\nis produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value.  The value of such
\nlands may be more or less depending  upon their potentiality and location and
\nhaving regard to other relevant considerations which the court has to keep in
\nmind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>.
\n\tWe appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and,
\ntherefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court,
\nit will be open to the petitioner to challenge the Award of the Reference Court
\nof such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned
\njudgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent.”\n<\/p>\n
\t5. These appeals pending before this Court were not the subject matter of
\nthe Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Apex Court.  The Government by
\nway of precaution made representation before the Honourable Apex Court and got
\ndirection as aforesaid that what the High Court decided on the earlier cited
\njudgments need not be followed as precedents for deciding the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The learned Counsel for the respondents\/land owners would submit that
\nthe present appeals cannot be treated as a separate group from that of the
\nappeals decided as per the aforesaid cited judgments of the High Court and that
\nthere should not be any  discrimination among the equals.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The perusal of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would
\ndemonstrate that it is not a mere decision of the Honourable Apex Court on facts
\nconcerning a different type of case, but specifically in relation to existing
\nappeals now under consideration before this Court, such directions were issued
\nto the effect that these appeals shall be dealt with independently de hors the
\njudgments passed by this Court earlier as cited supra.  Hence, in such a case,
\nthis Court has to make an independent approach in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Accordingly, heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals on the following main
\ngrounds:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe lower Court committed an error in fixing the market value on Sq. ft
\nbasis, even though, the lands acquired are situated at Panchayat limit.  The
\nland value should not be assessed on cent basis also.  The lower Court relied on
\nsample sale deeds relating to smaller extent of lands sold for exorbitant price.
\nThere is nothing to show that the house plots sold under the sale deeds were
\nrelied on by the claimants.  Those sale deeds were not proved by examining the
\nvendor and the vendee concerning those sale deeds.  The Reference Court has not
\nproperly made deductions towards development charges.  The charge has not
\nfollowed the belt system also.  A mere reading of grounds of appeal would
\nclearly demonstrate that the Land Acquisition Officer never adverted to the fact
\nthat the property is situated in a developing area.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. At this juncture, I would like to highlight that the grounds of appeal
\nare one sided as they are oblivious to the existing facts and situations which
\nprevailed at the time of the Land Acquisition in this case and the fact that the
\nlarge mass of land was acquired en block for setting up Air Force Station.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The gist and kernel of the earlier approach by this Court was to the
\neffect that the Court took into account Ex.C.14, the sale deed dated 01.03.1991
\nexecuted by one Balusamy in favour of Dhanalakshmi, in R.S.No.168\/8 tranferring
\nan extent of 2,400 sq.ft as a plot for a sum of Rs.10,800\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
\nand Eight Hundred only). In other words as  per Ex.C.14, the land to an extent
\nof one cent was valued at Rs.1,960\/- and out of that 40% was deducted towards
\ndevelopment charges and the land value was arrived at Rs.1,176\/- per cent and
\nconsequently, the awards were passed with usual statutory entitlements.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The topo sketch relating to the entire land concerned marked in
\ndifferent colours, was relied on by both sides to highlight the location and
\nother features. In fact, Ex.C.14, which was taken as a basic document for
\nassessing the value and passing the award, is situated in S.No.168 just some
\nwhat nearer to the Thanjavur – Pudukkottai State Public Highway.  The said
\nEx.C.14, is obviously dated 01.03.1991 whereas in the same year, Section 4(1)<\/a>
\nnotifications were made as aforesaid.  As such, there is some force in the
\ncontention of the learned Government Pleader that Ex.C.14 might have been
\nemerged for such smaller extent purely for the purpose of getting higher
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Furthermore, I am of the view that Ex.C.14 is referred to a smaller
\nextent referring as plot, but the area intended to be acquired is a vast piece
\nof agricultural land for Air Force Station at Thanjavur.  Hence, in such a case,
\nthe normal rule is that when a sale deed referring to a similar extent of plot
\nis taken as sample one with regard to the vast agricultural land, some reduction
\nshould be made from that sample value.  Since there is weighty objections put
\nforth on the Government side as against Ex.C.14, I am of the considered opinion
\nthat Ex.C.13, the sale deed dated 13.03.1989 which emerged almost two years
\nanterior to such Section 4(1)<\/a> notifications, could be relied on. Keeping these
\nfactors in mind, on scrutiny of records, it is found that among the documents
\nalready marked, Ex.C.13 dated 13.03.1989 appears to be a document which would be
\nbeyond controversy for the reason that it emerged almost two years anterior to
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> notifications.  Hence, on the side of the Government, there cannot
\nbe any objection to it as though it is a cooked up document for getting higher
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Ex.C.13, relates to the sale of a plot of 2,400 sq.feet for a sum of
\nRs.9,600\/- so to say, at the rate of Rs.4\/- per sq.ft in the S.No.168\/1 which
\nforms part of the vast land acquired and accordingly, if worked out as per
\nEx.C.13, the value per cent of land would come to Rs.1,744\/- (Rupees One
\nThousand Seven Hundred and Forty Four only). As such two years had elapsed after
\nthe emergence of Ex.C.13 and then only, Section 4(1)<\/a> notifications emerged.  It
\nis therefore clear that during the year 1991, the value of the land in all
\nprobabilities might have got escalated.  A mere perusal of the sketch and the
\nrelevant available records speaks that it is a fast developing area.
\nConsidering the purpose of acquisition for setting up the Air Force Station,
\nhaving the entire land as the one block, there need not be any discrimination
\nrelating to the various portions of the same one block of land.  It is also
\nevident and obvious that the land acquired had the potentiality of becoming
\nplots as the sample sale deeds filed on the side of the claimants itself would
\ndemonstrate the same.  The fact also remains that Tamil University is already
\nexisting in the vicinity and the National Highway namely Thanjavur – Pudukkottai
\nroad is cutting across the huge mass of land acquired by the Government under
\nthese land acquisition proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Sub Court in its common judgment relied on the earlier judgment of
\nthis Court dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519 and 520 of 1999, in fixing the value
\nat Rs.1,17,000\/- per acre in connection with the appeals filed by some land
\nowners relating to the same area which happened to be the subject matter of one
\nand the same set of notification.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The Sub Court relied on Ex.C.3, the copy of the judgment of this Court
\ndated 23.03.2001.  De hors that, independently the Sub Court also gave its
\nfinding that the land acquired is in a developing area as the State Highway is
\nrunning across the said land; Tamil University is situated very near to it and
\nthe Tamil Nadu Paddy Research Institute are all situated.  This Court in the
\njudment dated 23.03.2001, in A.S.Nos.519 and 520 of 1999, at paragraph No.7 held
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. It is evident from a perusal of the records that Tamil University,
\nPaddy Processing Research Centre, Thanjavur Textiles, Tantex, Kamala Subramaniam
\nMatriculation School and the present Air Force Station, apart from other
\nresidential areas are very nearer to the acquired lands which situate in the
\nmain road referred to above.  The said facts would lead to conclude that there
\nis potentiality for the acquired lands from the claimants, by the Government of
\nTamil Nadu.  The market value has to be arrived at not only taking into
\nconsideration of the potentiality of the land but also the purpose for which the
\nsaid lands were acquired.  As already pointed out, the piece of land sold under
\nEx.A.9 dated 01.03.1991 had fetched Rs.4.50 per square foot.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The Land Acquisition Officer also in the counter filed before the Sub
\nCourt would state that the aforesaid Institutions along with Matriculation
\nSchools and Industrial Workers Quarters are all situated about 2 – 3 Kms away
\nfrom the land acquired and that the land acquired is situated 5 Kms from the
\nThanjavur Municipal area.  Even assuming for argument sake, what the Land
\nAcquisition Officer has stated is true, a distinction is sought to be made by
\nthe Land Acquisition Officer relating to the land acquired from the developed
\narea cannot be treated as adverse factors.  The land acquired is a vast tract of
\nland and in such a case, the developed areas  which are allegedly 2 – 3 Kms away
\nfrom the land acquired, cannot be taken as adverse factors.  Thanjavur
\nMunicipality is situated with 5 Kms and that should be taken as a plus point in
\nfavour of the appellant and not an adverse one.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The Sub Court as well as the High Court clearly and categorically
\npointed out that the sample deeds relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for
\nassessing the market value are having no proximity to the land acquired and that
\nthe fixation of Rs.220\/- per cent was totally without any basis.  The alleged
\nthirty sample sale deeds which emerged within three years anterior to Section
\n4(1)<\/a> notifications, as per the findings of the Sub Court as well as the High
\nCourt were not reflecting the true market value.   Those thirty sale deeds as
\nper the earlier findings were ignored.  Even during arguments before me, on the
\nGovernment side, it has not been shown as to how the value arrived at by the
\nLand Acquisition Officer was in order and that too ignoring the sale deeds
\nrelied on by the claimants.  As such, the increase in the value of land would
\nhave been more during the year 1991 from that of the year 1989 to which Ex.C.13
\nrelates.  Robust common sense warrants to take the value for smaller extent in
\nthe year 1989, as to yardstick for assessing larger extent in the year 1991 in
\nthe same vicinity.  If in the year 1989, the yardstick must be lesser than what
\nis contemplated in Ex.C.13 for assessing larger extent, but for choosing the
\nyardstick in the year 1991, for larger extent, no lesser amount need be taken in
\nview of increase in value of smaller extent. As such, accordingly if worked out,
\nper cent it comes to the same value of Rs.1,744\/- for assessing the larger
\nextent in the year 1991 during which Section 4(1)<\/a> notifications were published.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Both sides are not in a position to point out that there are other
\nsale deeds in the same vicinity which would reflect the true market value of the
\nland before the publication of Section 4(1)<\/a> notifications.  Even though there is
\nlarger extent of land situated to the east of the said Public Highway, clinching
\ndocuments are not available and documents relating to S.No.168 situated to the
\nwest side of the road alone are available and among those documents, Ex.C.13 is
\nchosen, whereas earlier Ex.C.14, was chosen by this Court while delivering
\njugments as aforesaid and that turned out to be no more precedent in view of the
\ndirection of the Honourable Apex Court as set out supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. This Court is fully aware of the fact that normally sample sale deed
\nshould relate to a land in the same vicinity and near the place where the lands
\nare acquired.  Here, all the aforesaid notifications were published relating to
\none block of land for setting up Air Force Station and in such a case, taking
\ninto account the purposes of acquisition, i.e., only one purpose, one of the
\nsame type of valuation can be taken up and there need not be any discrimination.
\nIn fact, the land in S.No.168 forms part of the aforesaid Section 4(1)<\/a>
\nnotifications.  Hence, in such a big mass of land, when the area covered under
\nthe sample sale deed Ex.C.13 has also been acquired as part of the larger area,
\nthen there cannot be any plausible objection.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the claimants would cite
\nthe decision of the Honourable Apex Court in K.Periasami v. Sub Tehsildar (Land
\nAcquisition<\/a>) reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 180 and develop his
\nargument to the effect that there should not be any discrimination in awarding
\nthe compensation between two Benches of the same High Court.  Such an argument
\ncannot be countenanced in view of the order of the Honourable Apex Court in
\nSpecial Leave Petition Nos.24578-24579 of 2004, referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The learned Counsel for the claimants could cite the decision of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in Smt.Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR v. The State of West
\nBengal<\/a> reported in Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition (1994-2004)
\nVolume II page No.2053.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“5. We are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for application of
\nthe belting method.  The acquisition was of land on which a film studio stood.
\nThe acquisition was for the purposes of the film studio.  It was a compact block
\nof land which was acquired for a specific purposes.  The land was not acquired
\nfor development into small plots where the value of plots near the road would
\nhave a higher value whilst those further away from may have a compact blocks is
\nacquired the belting method would not be the correct method.”
\nAs such, it is clear that the aforesaid observations made by the Honourable Apex
\nCourt is squarely applicable to this case also.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The catena of decisions relating to the compensation in land
\nacquisition cases would mandate that the sales relating to small pieces of
\nlands, if they are genuine and reliable and comparable to the land acquired, the
\nsame could be relied on.  In this regard, the decision of the Honourable Apex
\nCourt in Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer<\/a> reported in (1996) 9 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 640, could rightly be relied on as cited by the learned Counsel for
\nthe claimants.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“3.Having given our consideration, the question that arises for
\nconsideration is whether the High Court has committed any error of law in fixing
\nthe compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000\/- per acre?  On the principle of
\ndeductions in the determination of the compensation, this Court in K.Vasundara
\nDevi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO<\/a> [(1995) 5 SCC 426] has considered the
\nentire case law and has held that the Court, in the first instance, has to
\nconsider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of lands are genuine and
\nreliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands.  In the event the
\nCourt finds that such sales are genuine and reliable and the lands have
\ncomparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just
\nand fair market value of large tracts of land.  The time-lag for real
\ndevelopment and the waiting period for development are also relevant
\nconsideration for determination of just and adequate compensation.  Each case
\ndepends upon its own facts.  For deduction of development charges, the nature of
\nthe development, conditions and nature of land, the land required to be set
\napart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water
\netc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered.  In
\nthis case, the facts recorded by the High Court are that Ex.P.10 sale deed is
\ndependable sale but it is in respect of a small plot of land situated at a
\ndistance of more than 1 Km.  It is also found that the land in the area is not
\ndeveloped and there is no development in those lands though the lands are
\ncapable of being used for non-agricultural purpose.  On those findings the High
\nCourt held that the market value under Ex.P.10 cannot form the sole basis but
\nkeeping in view the developments the lands are capable of fetching compensation
\nat the rate of Rs.56,000 after deducting 65%.  For developmental charges, that
\ndeduction between 33-1\/3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court in several
\njudgments.  In Vasundara Devi case 63% deduction was upheld.  In view of the
\nfact that development of land would have taken years, the High Court has
\ndeducted another 12%.  Obviously, the High Court kept in view the fact that the
\nlands under Ex.P.10 were situated at far-flung places from the lands under
\nacquisition and since the land takes long time for development it has given
\nadditional deduction of 12%, i.e.53 + 12% = 65% in determination of the
\ncompensation.  On the basis of the rationale referred to above, the principle
\nadopted by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal.  Thus considered, we
\nhold that there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded by
\nthe High Court or to further increase the compensation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Relating to the deduction is concerned, previously 40% was deducted
\ntowards the developmental charges.  While the Court exercising the power to
\neffect deduction towards development expenditure, it should take into account
\nthe purpose for which the land is being acquired and it has become a trite
\nproposition of law over which there is no controversy.  For setting up the Air
\nForce Station, the ground should be levelled and the major part of the area
\nshould be cemented and various other amenities should be installed before
\nputting that land into use as Air Force Station.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Hence, in this view of the matter, adhering to the decision of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer<\/a> reported in
\n(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 640, I am of the considered opinion that 53% should
\nbe deducted from the value of the land arrived at Rs.1,744\/- per cent.  As such,
\nthe following formula emerges:<\/p>\n
\n\tThe value of the\n\tland acquired \t\t\t- Rs.1,744.00  per cent\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t (-)\n\t53% deduction towards\n\tdevelopment charges\t     - Rs.  924.32  per cent\n\t\t\t\t\t     ---------------\n\tThe net value of the land\n\tfor awarding compensation- Rs.  819.68  per cent\n\t\t\t\t\t\t---------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t26. Accordingly, the net value of the land for awarding compensation after
\ndeducting 53% towards developmental charges, is arrived at Rs.819.68\/- per cent
\nwhich could be rounded to Rs.820\/- per cent (Rupees Eighty Hundred and Twenty
\nonly).  Accordingly, if worked out, the net value of the land per acre would
\ncome to Rs.82,000\/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The claimants are also entitled to statutory entitlements over which
\nthere is no dispute.  For the enhanced amount in the award, the claimants are
\nentitled to get solatium as well as interest on the additional amount.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The learned Counsel for the claimants cited the decision of the
\nDivision Bench of this Court in Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram v. R.S.Raveendran<\/a>
\nreported in 2006-2-L.W.102 and an excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“10.It is also relevant to note that Section 53<\/a> of the Land Acquisition
\nAct, 1894 makes it clear that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
\nare  applicable to all proceedings initiated under the said Act (Land
\nAcquisition Act<\/a>).  In view of the same, it is not in dispute that Order 41, Rule
\n33 C.P.C. is applicable to the land acquisition proceedings.  Inasmuch as the
\nappeal is also continuation of the original proceedings, the said provisions are
\napplicable to the appeals also and in view of the law laid down by the Apex
\nCourt as well as this Court in Sunder v. Union of India<\/a>, interest is payable for
\nthe solatium amount, and in order to render substantial justice, we accept the
\nrequest of the counsel for respondents\/claimants and hold that the solatium
\namount also carries interest at the same rate as applicable to the enhanced
\ncompensation and additional amount.”\n<\/p>\n
\t29. As such, adhering to the aforesaid decision, the claimants are
\nentitled to appropriate interest on the solatium as well as the additional
\namount awarded. Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed of by this common
\njudgment. The Government shall deposit the amount in the interest of bothy sides
\nwithin a period of six months from this date. No costs.  Consequently, connected
\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The  Additional District Judge,
\nFast Track Court No.I,
\nThanjavur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.75 of 2008 A.S.Nos.76 to 86 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2 of 2008 in A.S.Nos.75 to 86 of 2008 A.S.No.75 of 2008 The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition, Air […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4013,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\",\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008"},"wordCount":4013,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008","name":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-03T06:58:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildhar-vs-pavunammal-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Tahsildhar vs Pavunammal on 7 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}