{"id":60039,"date":"2003-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003"},"modified":"2015-12-30T10:40:10","modified_gmt":"2015-12-30T05:10:10","slug":"revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM\n\nA.S.No. 474 of 1993 and A.S. NO.512 of 1997\n\nCross Objection No.87 of 1994\nand\nall connected pending C.M.Ps.\n\n\nA.S.No.474 of 1993:\n\nRevenue Divisional Officer,\nMettur.                                 ....  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nN. Swaminathan                                 ....  Respondent\n\n\nA.S.No.512 of 1997:\n\n1.  The Land Acquisition Officer,\n    Salem\n\n2.  The Assistant Director of Agriculture,\n    State Seed Form, Omalur,\n    Salem District.                             ....  Appellants\n\n                        Vs.\n\n1.  K. Angudurai\n2.  Alameluammal\n3.  K.P. Mohanasundaram\n4.  N. Swminathan\n5.  Ramasamy\n6.  Rajammal\n7.  Varathappan\n8.  Manickam                                    ....  Respondents\n\n\nCross Objection No.87 of 1994 in A.S.No.474 of 1993\n\nN. Swaminathan                                  ....  Cross Objector\n\n                Vs.\n\nRevenue Divisional Officer,\nMettur                                          ....  Respondent\n\n\n\nA.S.No.474 of 1993:\n\n                Appeal filed against Judgment and  decree  dated  10th  August\n1992  made in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge,\nSankari.\n\n\nA.S.No.512 of 1997:\n\n\n                Appeal against judgment and decree dated 17th April 1996  made\nin L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Salem.\n\nCross Objection No.87 of 1994 in A.S.No.474 of 1993:\n                Cross  Objection  filed  against the judgment and decree dated\n10th August 1992 made in  L.A.O.P.No.116  of  1991  on  the  file  of  learned\nSubordinate Judge, Sankari.\n\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.  Ashokan, Addl.  G.P.\n                in both appeals assisted by V.  Karthikeyan\n                and respondent in Government Advocate,\n                cross objection (Housing Board)\n\n^For Respondents\nin A.S.No.474\/93 :  Mr.  B.T.  Seshadri\n                and cross objector\n                Mr.  S.  Subbiah  R2&3 in\n                A.S.No.512 of 1997\n                Mr.  ARL.  Sundaresan  R4 in\n                A.S.No.512 of 1997\n                Mr.  G.  Jeremiah  R7 & 8 in\n                A.s.No.512 of 1997\n                Mr.  P.  Jagadeesan  R5 & 6 in\n                A.S.No.512 of 1997\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
E.  PADMANABHAN,J<\/p>\n
                A.S.No.474 of 1993 has been preferred by the Land  Acquisition
\nOfficer      Revenue   Divisional  Officer,  Mettur  challenging  the  entire
\nenhancement of compensation  awarded  by  the  learned  Subordinate  Judge  of
\nSankari by judgment and award dated 10t 92 made in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Mr.   N.    Swaminathan,  sole respondent in A.S.No.474 of
\n1993 has filed cross objection No.87  of  1994,  in  so  far  as  the  learned
\nSubordinate  Judge  of  Sankari  in  L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 has disallowed the
\nportion of the claim for enhanced comp aimed by the cross objector in the said
\nL.A.O.P.  Since A.S.No.474 of 1993 and Cross Objection arise out of  the  same
\ncommon judgment and award, they are taken up together for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   A.S.No.512  of  1997  has  been  preferred  by  the  Land
\nAcquisition Officer, Salem and the Assistant Director  of  Agriculture,  State
\nSeed  Farm  of  Salem  as against the judgment and award dated 17th April 1996
\nmade in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the Subordinate Judge  of  Salem.    No  cross
\nobjection  has  been  preferred  by  any  one of the eight respondents in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The subject matter of  acquisition  in  both  the  appeals
\narise  out  of  one and the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
\nLand Acquisition Act and in respect of contiguous lands.   Therefore,  at  the
\ninstance  of learned Additional Pleader and the counsel for the respondents in
\nboth the  appeals,  the  above  two  appeals  and  one  Cross  Objection  were
\nconsolidated and taken up together for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Heard Mr.  Ashokan Additional Government Pleader and Mr.V.
\nKarthikeyan,  Government  Advocate  appearing  for  the appellants in both the
\nappeals as well as respondent in Cross Objection No.87  of  1994,  Mr.    B.T.\n<\/p>\n
Seshadri,  learned  counsel  appear respondent in A.S.No.474 of 1993 and Cross
\nObjector in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994 , M\/s.  Subbiah; ARL.    Sundaresan;
\nP.  Jagadeesan; G.  Jermiah for respondents in A.S.No.512 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   For the formation of Government Coconut Farm in Danishpet
\nVillage, at the instance of the Assistant Director, Agriculture  (Oil  Seeds),
\nSalem, lands were acquired.  Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
\nLand  Acquisition  Act  in  139  Agriculture  (Oil  Seeds)  Department,  dated
\n19.02.1990, published in Government Gazette dated 19.02.1990.  The lands  were
\nalready  under  the  occupation  of  the  beneficiary  even before issuance of
\nNotification under Section 4(1) of the Act  pursuant  to  the  proceedings  of
\nrequisition   ordered   under  Tamilnadu  Requisitioning  and  Acquisition  of
\nImmovable Property Act 1956.  There  were  certain  proceedings  by  the  land
\nowners  and  as  a  result  of directions issued by the Division Bench of this
\ncourt, the acquisitio n of lands were undertaken under  The  Land  Acquisition
\nAct 1894.    Notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act was published on
\n19.02.1990; Section 6 Declaration was published  on  19.09.1990.    Award  was
\npassed in Award No.2 of 1991 in respect of the followin g lands:\n<\/p>\n
        _____________________________________________
\n                Survey No.              Extent in Hectares
\n                242\/2B                          1.12.0
\n                243\/1                           2.55.0
\n                243\/2                           1.12.5
\n                244                                     2.62.0
\n                297\/1                           2.25.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        ——-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Total                           9.66.5\n                                                        -------\n<\/pre>\n
        ______________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                7.   In  respect  of  the  above  9.66.5  hectares,  the  Land
\nAcquisition Officer awarded  a  total  compensation  of  Rs.17,19,670\/-  while
\nfixing  the  market  value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.44,958\/- per
\nacre, which works out to Rs.449.58 per\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                8.  The land owner N.Swaminathan claimed the market  value  at
\nthe rate  of  Rs.2,50,000\/-  per  acre.    At  the  instance  of land owner, a
\nreference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect  of
\nthe  above  9.66.5  hectares,  being  t  matter  of  award  No.2 of 1991 dated
\n23.03.1991 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of  the  learned  Subordinate
\nJudge, Sankari.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                9.   The  learned  Subordinate Judge, Sankari fixed the market
\nvalue of the acquired land at Rs.85,000\/- per acre by judgment and award dated
\n10.08.1992.  Challenging the enhancement, the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  has
\npreferred  A.S.No.474  of 199 and owner has preferred Cross Objection in Cross
\nObjection No.87 of 1994.  In the Cross Objection, the land  owner  prayed  for
\nthat the market value of the acquired land be fixed at Rs.1,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In  respect  of  the  remaining land covered by the same
\nSection 4(1) Notification dated 19.02.1990, separate award was passed  by  the
\nLand Acquisition  Officer  in  Award  No.3  of 1991 on 24.03.1991.  This award
\ncovered in all measuring 25.16.5 f land owned by eight different  individuals.
\nThe  Land  Acquisition  Officer  fixed the market value of wet lands measuring
\n7.61.0 hectares at Rs.60,000\/- per acre, for  irrigated  dry  lands  measuring
\n16.0.00  hectares,  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer fixed the m arket value at
\nRs.44,958\/- per acre and in respect of Manavari  dry  lands  measuring  1.55.5
\nhectares,  the  market  value  was  fixed  at  34,951\/- per acre besides usual
\nsolatium and  interest.    The  Land  Acquisition  Officer  awarded  a   total
\ncompensation of Rs.49,52 ,888\/-, which includes 12% additional amount as well.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   The  following  lands  which  are  the subject matter of
\nL.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and in all it measures 25.16.5 hectares.\n<\/p>\n
        _________________________________________________
\n                Survey No.              Extent in Hectares
\n                299\/1                   0.71.5 Wet
\n                299\/2                   1.41.5 Wet
\n                308\/1                   0.56.0 Wet
\n                308\/2                   0.06.0 Wet
\n                308\/3           1.16.0 Wet
\n                310\/1                   0.52.0 Wet
\n                310\/2                   0.03.0 Wet
\n                310\/3                   0.23.5 Wet
\n                310\/4                   0.06.5 Wet
\n                310\/5                   0.24.5 Wet
\n                310\/6           0.48.5 Wet
\n                313\/1                   0.11.0 Wet
\n                313\/2                   2.01.0 Wet
\n                302\/2                   0.09.0 irrigated dry
\n                302\/3                   0.06.5 ”\n<\/p>\n
                304                             3.36.0 \"\n                305\/1A                  0.22.0 \"\n                305\/1B                  2.46.0  \"\n                305\/2                   1.04.0  \"\n                309\/1B                  0.28.0  \"\n                309\/1C                  0.12.0  \"\n                309\/1D                  0.15.0  \"\n                309\/3                   0.46.5  \"\n                325                             3.74.5  \"\n                330                             4.00.0  \"\n                305\/2A                  0.02.0 Manavari dry\n                309\/1A                  0.01.0  \"\n                309\/1E                  1.37.5  \"\n                309\/1F                  0.09.5  \"\n                309\/1G                  0.05.5  \"\n                                        --------\n                Total           25.16.5\n                                        --------\n<\/pre>\n
        ____________________________________________________<\/p>\n
                12.  At the instance of the eight land owners, a reference was
\nmade in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate  Judge  of
\nSalem under Section 18 of The Land Acquisition Act 1894.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   The  learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value at
\nthe rate of Rs.95,000\/- per acre for  wet  lands;  Rs.85,000\/-  per  acre  for
\nirrigated dry lands and Rs.75,000\/- per acre for manavari dry lands with usual
\nsolatium, interest and compe<\/p>\n
                14.   Challenging  the  said enhancement, the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer has preferred the appeal.  The land  owners  have  not  preferred  any
\ncross  objection  nor  they  have  preferred  any separate appeals seeking for
\nenhancement of compensation over a  e  compensation  awarded  by  the  learned
\nSubordinate Judge of Salem.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   In  both  the  appeals,  the crucial date for fixing the
\nmarket value of the land is one and the same, namely, 19.02.1990, which is the
\ndate of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.   For  convenience,
\nseparate  award came to be p herefore, there has been separate reference under
\nSection 18 of the Act and hence separate appeals.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In A.S.No.474 of 1993,  separate  compensation  has  been
\nawarded for the wells as well as towards certain developments and trees.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   In  L.A.O.P.No.1  of  1995,  the claimants (which is the
\nsubject matter in A.S.No.512 of 1997) marked  Exs.A1  to  A17,  the  Referring
\nOfficer  marked  Exs.B1  to  B17  besides  Exs.C1  to  C5, which are the Court
\nexhibits.  The claimants examined them .W.1 to  P.W.8,  while  the  respondent
\nexamined R.W.1 to R.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   In  L.A.O.P.No.116  of 1991, against which A.S.No.474 of
\n1993 has been preferred, the claimants marked Exs.A1 to A12 besides  examining
\nfour  witnesses, while the Land Acquisition Officer (Referring Officer) marked
\nExs.B1 to B5 and examined ses.  That apart one Court exhibit has  been  marked
\nas Ex.C.1.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   Ex.A1  in  L.A.O.P.No.1  of  1995  is  the  judgment  in
\nL.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,  Sankari  against
\nwhich the  appeal  in  A.S.No.474  of  1993  has  been preferred.  Ex.A2 dated
\n23.10.1989, Ex.A3 dated 30.10.1989 and d 30.10.1989 are the sale deeds  relied
\nupon  in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, while the very same sale deeds have been marked
\nas exhibits A2, A3 and A1 in the other L.A.O.P.  In other words  same  set  of
\ndocuments  are  being relied upon to substantiate the claim of market value by
\nthe claimants in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  Exs.A2 and A3, sale deeds respectively  dated  23.10.1989
\nand 30.10.1989   relates  to  Survey  Nos.    223\/3  and  38\/3  and  the  sale
\nconsideration paid under the said two documents respectively being Rs.85,000\/-
\nand Rs.90,000\/- per acre.  The Land Officer has rejected  Exs.    A2  and  A3,
\nsince  the  sale transactions were between close relatives and it is sold at a
\nhigher rate.  Even though  the  sale  transactions  were  one  year  prior  to
\nNotification under  Section 4(1) of the Act, Exs.  A2 and A3 have been held to
\nbe genuine sale transaction according to the learned Subordinate Judge.    The
\nsale  consideration  recited  in  Exs.A2  and  A3  as  deposed  by R.W.1 is in
\nconformity with the guideline values fixed by the Registration Department.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  Apart from the  said  three  documents,  Exs.A15  to  A17
\nrespectively  dated 07.11.1988, 24.01.1990 and 19.02.1990 were relied upon and
\nmarked in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, which sale transaction were two years prior to
\nNotification under Section Act.  As far as  Ex.A.16  is  concerned,  the  Land
\nAcquisition  Officer,  who was examined as R.W.1 has deposed that the value of
\nthe wet lands would be Rs.10,000\/- higher than the value of the irrigated  dry
\nlands  and  the value of manavari dry lands would be Rs.10,000\/- less than the
\nvalue of  irrigated  dry  lands.    But  there  is  documentary  evidence   to
\nsubstantiate such a reference.\n<\/p>\n
                22.   The  learned  subordinate  judge in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995
\nfixed  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  based  upon  Ex.A.2,  sale
\ntransaction,  by  adding  Rs.10,000\/-  per  acre  in  respect of wet lands and
\ndeducting Rs.10,000\/- in respect of dry la ourt below had declined  the  award
\nof separate compensation for the wells but awarded compensation towards cement
\nconcrete channels  and pipe lines.  The learned Subordinate Judge also awarded
\ninterest from 18.03.1960, the date of  taking  possession  less  th  e  amount
\nalready  received as lease\/compensation, even though Section 4(1) Notification
\nin respect of the lands came to be issued only on 19.02.1990.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  The learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No.116  of  1991
\nfixed   the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  at  Rs.84,000\/-,  awarded
\nRs.2,00,000\/- towards pipe line and Rs.8,700\/- towards two wells and  interest
\nfrom 18.03.1960,  the date on which sion was taken by the State farm.  In fact
\n9% interest was awarded for the period from 18.03.1960 to 17.03.1961  and  for
\nthe period subsequent to 18.03.1961, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded 15%
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
                24.   Challenging  both  the  awards, the present appeals have
\nbeen preferred.\n<\/p>\n
                25.   In  these  appeals,  the  following  points  arise   for
\nconsideration was\n<\/p>\n
                i)  Whether the classification of land into dry, irrigated dry
\nand wet land is sustainable?\n<\/p>\n
                ii) What is the prevailing market value of the  acquired  land
\nas  on  19.02.1990  the  date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in<\/p>\n
respect of the three categories of lands?\n<\/p>\n
                iii)  Whether  the  claimants  are  entitled  to  compensation
\ntowards Well?\n<\/p>\n
                iv)  Whether  the  claimants  are  entitled  for  compensation
\ntowards improvements like underground pipe lines, Channels etc.?\n<\/p>\n
                v) From which date the claimants are entitled  to  payment  of
\ninterest under Section 34 of The Land Acquisition Act?\n<\/p>\n
                vi)  Whether  the claimants are entitled for a direction under
\nSection 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act?\n<\/p>\n
                Vii) Whether the claimants are entitled to solatium?   If  so,
\nat what rate?\n<\/p>\n
                Viii)  Whether  the  claimants  are  entitled  to  payment  of
\ninterest on solatium?\n<\/p>\n
                ix) To what result, if any in the appeals?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                x) To what result, if any in the Cross Objection?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                26.  As regards the first point for  consideration,  the  Land
\nAcquisition  Officer  himself  in  his  award  No.3  of  1991 dated 07.02.1990
\ncategorised the land, which are the subject matter  of  the  said  award  into
\nthree categories,  viz.,  wet, irrigat manavari dry.  The lands have also been
\nassessed as wet, irrigated dry and manavari dry.   Therefore,  in  respect  of
\nlands,  which are the subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and A.S.No.512 of
\n1997, the classification, as recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer has also
\nbeen affirmed by the Court below.    In  fact  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer
\nhimself  has  fixed  the  market  value  of  the  acquired land at the rate of
\nRs.60,000\/- per acre for wet land; Rs.44,958\/-  per  acre  for  irrigated  dry
\nlands and  Rs.34,951\/  – per acre towards manavari dry lands.  Both the sides,
\nhave not advanced contentions challenging the said classification.   So  also,
\nin respect of the land, which is the subject matter of award No.2 of 1991, the
\nrevenue  classification  is only dry lands th ough admittedly there are wells.
\nHence on the first point, the classification as adopted  by  Land  Acquisition
\nOfficer   and   affirmed   by  learned  Subordinate  Judge  in  the  both  the
\nL.A.O.Ps.deserves to be confirmed in these appeals.   The  point  is  answered
\nacco rdingly.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   As  regards  the  second  point  what was the prevailing
\nmarket value of the acquired land on the date of  Notification  under  Section
\n4(1) of  the Act, which date is common in both the appeals.  The oral evidence
\nlet in by either side is not  o  stance  nor  the  tall  claims  made  by  the
\nwitnesses could  be accepted at all.  The witnesses have made tall claims, but
\nwithout any basis.  The only basis on which the market value could be  arrived
\nat being Exs.A2 and A3 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and correspo nding document has
\nalso been  marked  in  the  other L.A.O.P.  Apart from Exs.A1 and A2, Ex.A.15,
\nA.16 and A.17 are also pressed into service.  Under Ex.A.2  dated  23.10.1989,
\nSurvey  No.223\/3 of the same Danishpet Village measuring 60 cents was conveyed
\nfor a consideration of Rs.51,000\/- and this being  relied  upon  by  the  land
\nowners to contend that the market value works out to Rs.85,000\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  The Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the said Ex.A.1
\nas it  is  between  close  relatives.  Ex.A.15 dated 07.11.1988 is a sale deed
\nexecuted by A.  Kallannan in favour of  Venkatachalam  in  respect  of  Survey
\nNo.242\/2B.   Ex.A.16  dated  24.0  sale  deed  executed by Govinda gounder and
\nanother in favour of Marimuthu measuring 1.01 acres in Survey No.242\/B  for  a
\nsale consideration of Rs.44,958\/-.  Apart from the said exhibits, Exs.  A3 and
\nA4 both dated 30.10.1989 executed by one C.  Velayudham in favour of Thenmozhi
\nmarked in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 are being relied upon.  Ex.A.15 in L.A.O.P.No.1
\nof  1995,  which  is  equivalent to Ex.A.1 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 is a sale
\ndeed dated 7th November 1988 conveying R.S.No.242\/1B and 242\/2 at measuring  1
\nacre  and  19  cents  for  a  consideration of Rs.53,550\/-, which works out to
\nRs.44,958\/- per acre.   The  survey  numbers,  namely,  242\/1B  and  242\/2  of
\nDanishpet  village, as seen from Ex.B.2, Sketch\/Plan and sub-division there of
\nare far North of the acquired lands further just one acre  19  cents  was  the
\nsubject  of  matter  of  conveyance,  which  extent when compared to the large
\nextent of acquired land is a small piece of land.  When small extent of  lands
\nare  being  sold,  there  will be number of purchasers when co mpared to large
\nextent of lands for which, there will be  only  few  purchasers.    Ex.B.2  in
\nL.A.O.P.No.116  of  1991 is equivalent to Ex.A.16 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 is a
\nsale deed dated 24th of January 1990 for a  consideration  of  Rs.50,000\/-  in
\nrespect of  R  .S.No.245\/1A  measuring 1.43 acres out of 2.93 acres.  The said
\nSurvey number 245\/1 is located further North of R.S.No.244 and on  cart  track
\nand south of a Pond (kuttai).\n<\/p>\n
                29.   Ex.A2  in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 dated 30th October 1989
\n(equivalent to Ex.A3 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995) is a deed of conveyance  by  one
\nVelayudham  in  favour  of  Thenmozhi  for  a  consideration of Rs.46,800\/- in
\nrespect of lands comprised in R B measuring 52 cents.   R.S.No.387\/2B  is  far
\noff from the acquired land and North of the Railway Line and Road, which is in
\na different locality.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   Ex.A2,  Sale  deed  dated  23rd  October  1989  sold  by
\nR.Manickam in favour of M.  Balasubramanian for a consideration of Rs.51,000\/-
\nin respect of R.S.No.223\/3 measuring 60 cents.  R.S.No.223\/3 is North-east  of
\nthe acquired  land  and  far off a by very many survey fields.  Apart from the
\nabove sale transactions Ex.A.1 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 form the basis of the
\nacquired land, not only it could be taken into  consideration  to  assess  the
\nmarket value  in the locality.  The Survey number 242 and sub-division is next
\nto two of the survey fields acquired and it works out to Rs.44,958\/- per acre.
\nBut it is anterior while it is next to the acquired land.  All the above  sale
\ndeeds  are taken into consideration and the documents referred to are severa l
\nmonths earlier in point of time to Section 4(1) Notification and some of  them
\nis more than 18 months prior to Section 4(1) Notification and there is nothing
\nto show that there has been an appreciable increase in the market value of the
\nlands in the loc ality.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  The learned Government Advocate and the counsel appearing
\nfor  the  respondents  took  us through the Judgment in both the L.A.O.Ps, the
\ncommon documents relied upon by either side in both the O.Ps as  well  as  the
\nplan   and  the  oral  evidence  the  benefit  of  considering  all  the  sale
\ntransactions relied upon by either side.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  We  have  considered  the  entire  documentary  and  oral
\nevidence,  the passage of time and the small extent of the land, which are the
\nsubject matter of various  sale  transactions,  their  location  and  relative
\ndistance  to  the  acquired  land  div lway line, while arriving at the market
\nvalue we have taken into consideration of Exs.A2, A3, A4, A15, A16 and A17  as
\nmarked  in  L.A.O.P.No.1  of 1995 and in particular Exs.B1 and B2 respectively
\ndated 07.11.1988 and 24.01.1990 marked in L.A.O.P.No.116  of  1991  and  Ex.A2
\ndated  30.10.1989 the contiguous extent of large extent of land as well as all
\nrelevant circumstances we fix  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  at
\nRs.51,000\/-  per acre for dry manavari; Rs.57,000\/- per acre for irrigated dry
\nland and Rs.  63,000\/- per acre  for  wet  lands.    As  seen  from  the  said
\ndocuments  as  well  as  the  oral  evidence let in by either side, we fix the
\nmarket value at Rs.51,000\/- per acre for dry lands; for irrigated dry lands at
\nRs.57,000\/- per acre and for wet lands at Rs.6 3,000\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
                33.  As regards the claim of compensation  towards  well,  the
\nlearned  Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, while rightly relying upon
\nthe pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A.I.R.  1995  S.C  186  has  rightly
\ndisallowed the  claim  separate  Well.    Well  is the source to cultivate the
\nlands.\n<\/p>\n
        In O.  Janardhan Reddy v.  Special Deputy Collector<\/a> reported in A.I.R.
\n1995 S.C.  186, the Supreme Court has held thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “8.Since  estimated  construction  costs  of   irrigation   wells   of
\nagricultural  lands  cannot  form the basis for awarding compensation for such
\nirrigation  wells  independently  of  the  compensation  awardable   for   the
\nagricultural  lands  for the benefit of which h wells existed, the contentions
\nraised by the learned counsel in support of the appellants claim for grant  of<\/p>\n
enhanced  compensation  for  the  irrigation wells with reference to estimated
\ncosts of construction of such wells prepared by engineers,  do  not  co  mmend
\nacceptance.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Irrigation wells for which enhanced compensation is sought in the
\npresent appeal are admittedly those which existed in the acquired agricultural
\nlands for which enhanced compensation is awarded by the Civil Court,  and  the
\nHigh Court.   Question o anting further enhanced compensation for the acquired
\nagricultural lands by this court in this appeal  does  not  arise  since  this
\nCourt  has  ordered  that  consideration of this appeal shall be restricted to
\nclaim of the  appellants  for  grant  of  enhanced  compe  nsation  for  their
\nirrigation wells.\n<\/p>\n
                34.    However,   in   L.A.O.P.No.116  of  1991,  the  learned
\nSubordinate Judge of Sankari has awarded  Rs.1,08,700\/-  towards  well,  which
\naward  is  contrary to law laid down by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court
\nand therefore, the  award  of  compensa  e  well  has  to  be  disallowed  and
\naccordingly it is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                35.   As regards the improvement, namely laying of cement pipe
\nline and channel in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge  has
\nawarded  Rs.2,00,000\/-  and assessed the market value of the land as dry land,
\nthere is no reason at al ere with the compensation awarded in this respect and
\nin fact no arguments  were  advanced  by  the  learned  Additional  Government
\nPleader in  this  respect.    As  there  is  no  challenge  to  the  award  of
\ncompensation towards pipe line, building underground channel etc.   and  other
\nstructures, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation by
\nthe learned Subordinate Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                36.  Taking up  the  next point, Mr.  B.T.  Seshadri appearing
\nfor the respondent\/cross objector  pointed  out  that  the  lands  were  taken
\npossession  by the respondent\/beneficiary even during 1959\/1960 and therefore,
\ninterest should be awarded from te.  In  L.A.O.P.No.1  of  1995,  the  learned
\nSubordinate   Judge  has  awarded  interest  under  Section  34  of  the  Land
\nAcquisition Act from 15.10.1959 onwards at the rate of 9%,  further  directing
\nthat  payments made towards lease amount shall be adjusted and the b alance be
\npaid, besides directing payment of 12% as additional amount and  also  awarded
\n15% interest  after  one  year  from  the date of taking possession.  While in
\nL.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge directed  payment  under
\nSection  23(1-A)  from  18.03.1960 and also directed payment of interest at 9%
\nfrom 01.06.1958 till 31.05.1969 and thereafter granted interest  at  15%  from
\n18.03.1960  onwards,  while  directing  adjustment of payments already made to
\nlease.  It is rightly pointed  out  by  the  lea  rned  Additional  Government
\nPleader  that  payment towards lease to the land owners by the Government Seed
\nFarm is in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Requisition  and
\nAcquisition of Immovable Property Act 1956.  It is contended that compensation
\npa  yable  under  the  Said  State  enactment and of the land owners, who have
\ngrievance with respect to non-payment of  compensation  for  theperiod  ending
\nwith  Section 4(1) Notification, they have to work out their remedy before the
\ncompetent forum only and not by way of interest under Section 34 of  The  Land
\nAcquisition Act 1894.\n<\/p>\n
                37.   According  to the learned Government Advocate, liability
\nto interest,  if  any,  in  the  present  case  commences  from  the  date  of
\nNotification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  alone and not for any period
\nearlier thereto.  As earlier possession rable to present acquisition,  but  it
\nis under  a  different provision.  If the land owners are having any grievance
\nin respect of non-payment of lease or compensation for  deprivation  of  their
\npossession  earlier  to  Notification  under  Section  4(1) of the Act , it is
\nrightly contended that the owners have to work out  their  remedies,  if  any,
\nunder  the  Tamil  Nadu Requisition and Acquisition Act under which possession
\nwas taken.\n<\/p>\n
                38.  Though Mr.  B.T.  Seshadri sought  to  sustain  the  view
\ntaken by the learned Subordinate Judge in the respective awards, ultimately in
\nview  of  the  later  pronouncement  of the Supreme Court in Union of India V.
\nBudh Singh and others<\/a> necessari dmit  that  the  view  taken  by  the  learned
\nSubordinate Judges in the respective awards cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
                39.  In  Union of India Vs.  Budh Singh and others reported in
\n1995(6) SCC 233, the Supreme Court laid down that Court has no power to impose
\nany condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and manner  prescribed  by
\nthe  statute  as  well  as  f  anterior  to  the  publication  of Section 4(1)
\nnotification under the Act.  In that respect the Supreme Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “3.  The only  question  that  arises  for  decision  is  whether  the
\nrespondents-owners of the lands are entitled to interest at 18% per annum from
\n15.3.1963,  the date on which possession was initially taken, till 15.11.1984,
\npreceding the date on which th tification under Section  4(1)  was  published.
\nIt  is  a  jurisdictional  issue  and  the  finding in this behalf touches and
\ntrenches into the jurisdictional power of the  court,  acting  under  the  Act
\nregarding award  of  interest.    The  payment  of  interest under th e Act is
\nsquarely covered by  the  provisions  of  the  Act.    The  Government,  while
\nexercising  its power of eminent domain, are entitled to have the notification
\nunder Section 4(1) published in the State Gazette.  They are also entitled, in
\ncase of urgency, to exercise the power under Section  17(4)  of  the  Act  and
\nthereon  declaration  under  Section 6 published and would issue notice to the
\nowner of the land under Section  9.    On  expiry  of  15  days  thereof,  the
\nGovernment is entitled to take possession from the ow ner.  The award would be
\nmade under  Section 11 thereafter.  In case urgency clause under Section 17(4)
\nwas not invoked, the procedure of inquiry under  Section  5-A  shall  be  gone
\nthrough and  thereafter  declaration under Section 6 be made.  The declaration
\ngives conclusiveness to the public purpose.  After conducting  an  inquiry  in
\nChapter  III  of  the  Act, the Land Acquisition Officer makes the award under
\nSection 11 and gives notice to the owner of the land under Section 16  and  on
\ndeposit  of  the  compensati  on makes payment thereof under Section 31 of the
\nAct.  In case, after taking  possession,  if  the  amount  is  not  paid,  the
\nprovision  is  made  for payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act which
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “34.  Payment of interest  When the amount of  such  compensation  is
\nnot  paid  or  deposited  on  or  before  taking  possession  of the land, the
\nCollector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at  the  rate  of
\nnine  per  centum  per annum from the t of so taking possession until it shall
\nhave been so paid or deposited”\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Under the proviso after the Amendment Act, if the  amount  is  not
\npaid  before  one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at
\nthe rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable  from  the  date  of
\nexpiry  of  the  said  period  of  year  on the amount of compensation or part
\nthereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The other provision relevant for this purpose is Section 28 of the
\nAct, which empowers the  reference  court  or  the  High  Court  for  awarding
\ninterest  on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till
\ndate of payment as referred t rein before.  Thus, it could be  seen  that  the
\nstatute  covers the entire field of operation of the liability of the State to
\nmake payment of interest and entitlement thereof by the owner  when  land  has
\nbeen  taken  over  and  possession  in consequence thereof, the land owner was
\ndeprived of the enjoyment thereof.  Thus, it could be seen that the court  has
\nno  power  to  impose  any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and
\nmanner prescribed by the statute as well as  for  a  period  anterior  to  the
\npublicat ion  of  Section  4(1) notification under the Act.  The parameter for
\ninitiation of the proceedings is the publication  of  the  notification  under
\nSection  4(1)  of  the  Act  in the State Gazette or in an appropriate case in
\nDistrict Gazette as per the local amen dments.  But the condition precedent in
\npublication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the appropriate gazette.
\nThat would give legitimacy to the State to take  possession  of  the  land  in
\naccordance with  the  provisions  of the Act.  Any possession o therwise would
\nnot be considered to be possession taken under the Act.  In fact, a  situation
\nhas  been  envisaged  under  Section  48(2)  of  the  Act,  namely,  that when
\nproceedings under the Act were initiated and in the midstream the  proceedings
\nwere  dropped,  the  owner  who  has  been  deprived  of  the enjoyment of the
\nproperty, the statute prescribes the remedy of determination of the amount  of
\ncompensation  due  to  the  owner  for  the  damages  suffered by the owner in
\nconsequence of the notice of the proceedings unde r the Act.  The statute also
\nimposes liability on the State to reimburse the costs incurred by the owner to
\ndefend the proceedings under the Act.  The Act is a self-conscience cannot  be
\nextended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the sta tute.”\n<\/p>\n
                40.   While  applying  the  above  pronouncement, we hold that
\ninterest, if any, could be ordered to be paid only from the  date  of  Section
\n4(1) Notification  under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.  The award of
\nthe learned Subordinate Judge .P.s are modified and accordingly the  point  is
\nanswered  against  the  land  owners  and  in  favour  of The Land Acquisition
\nOfficer.\n<\/p>\n
                41.  As regards the  next  point,  namely,  direction  to  pay
\nadditional  amount  in terms of Section 23(1-A), the said provision came to be
\nintroduced by Central Act 16 of  1984.    In  this  case,  Notification  under
\nSection 4(1), which is the relevant ich the market value has to be arrived at,
\nhas been issued on 19.02.1990.\n<\/p>\n
                42.  In  Siddappa  Vasappa  Kuri  v.  Special Land Acquisition
\nOfficer<\/a> reported in (2002) 1 SCC 142 = to A.I.R 1 SCC 2951, the Supreme  Court
\nlaid  down  that for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded under
\nSection 23(1-A) the date of of the Section 4 (1) is the starting point and the
\nterminal point being the date of the award or the date  of  taking  possession
\nwhich ever is earlier.  But in the present case, the date of taking possession
\nwas anterior  to  Section 4(1) Notification.  The refore, that terminal is not
\navailable.  But in this case, award came to be passed on 07.02.1992  and  from
\nthe  date  of  passing  of award, we hold that the land owners are entitled to
\nadditional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period,  namely,  fro  m
\n19.02.1990 to 07.02.1992.\n<\/p>\n
                43.  In  A.I.R.    2001  SC  2951,  (Siddappa  Vasappa Kuri v.
\nSpecial Land Acquisition Officer) the Supreme Court<\/a> has held thus:\n<\/p>\n
        ” 6.  It is, as we  see  it,  clear  from  Section  23(1-A)  that  the
\nstarting  point  for  the  purposes  of  calculating  the amount to be awarded
\nthereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the
\ndateof publication of the Section 4 fication.   The  terminal  point  for  the
\npurpose  is  either  the  date  of the award or the date of taking possession,
\nwhichever is earlier.  In the present case, possession of the land having been
\ntaken prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification, t  hat  terminal
\nis not available.   The only available terminal is the date of the award.  The
\nHigh Court, therefore was in no error in  holding  that  the  appellants  were
\nentitled  to  the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period
\n8.3.1991 to 6 .2.1993.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Section 23(1-A)  admits  of  no  meaning  other  than  the
\nmeaning that  we  have  placed  upon  it.    There  is  no  room  here for any
\nconstruction other than that given above.  It is only  where  a  provision  is
\nambiguous  that  a construction that leads t that is more just can be adopted.
\nHaving regard to its clear  terms,  Section  23(1-A)  must  receive  the  only
\nconstruction it  can  bear.    We are of the view, therefore, that the law has
\nbeen correrctly laid down in the decision in Special Tahsildar (LA),  P.W  .D.
\nSchemes V.   M.A.    Jabbar  and<\/a>  that  it has not been correctly laid down in
\nAsstt.  Commr.  Gadag Sub-Division V.  Mathapathi Basavannewwa and<\/a>,  for  that
\nmatter in State of H.P.  V.  Dharam Das.<\/a>”\n<\/p>\n
        The award of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is answered thus.\n<\/p>\n
                44.    Being  a  compulsory  acquisition,  the  claimants  are
\nentitled to solatium.  Section 23(2) came to be amended even during  the  year
\n1984.   Notification  was  issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the present<\/p>\n
case on 19.02.1990.  Therefore, t ers are entitled to solatium at the rate  of
\n30%  on  the  market  value  in  consideration  of  the  compulsory  nature of
\nacquisition.\n<\/p>\n
                45.  On the point as to whether the claimants are entitled  to
\ninterest  on solatium, the recent pronouncement of the larger Bench of Supreme
\nCourt in Sundar V.  Union of India reported in  2001(7)  SCC  211  is  on  the
\npoint.   Hence  solatium  also,  ts\/land  owners  are  entitled  to  interest.
\nTherefore, following the Supreme Court, we held the land owners  are  entitled
\nto payment of interest on solatium as well.\n<\/p>\n
                46.  In the result,<\/p>\n
                a) We fix the market value of the acquired land as here under:\n<\/p>\n
                i) in respect of Dry lands at Rs.51,000\/- per acre;\n<\/p>\n
                ii) in respect of irrigated dry lands at Rs.57,000\/- per acre;\n<\/p>\n
                iii) in respect of wet lands at 63,000\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
                b)   We  affirm  the  award  of  compensation  in  respect  of
\nimprovements like underground pipe line, other structures or buildings awarded
\nby the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
                c) We set aside the award of compensation in respect of wells;\n<\/p>\n
                d) We direct payment of solatium at 30% with interest from the
\ndate of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
                e) We direct payment of additional amount  at  12%  per  annum
\nunder  Section  23(1-A) of the Act for the period from 19.02.1990, the date of
\nSection 4(1) Notification till 07.02.1992, the date of passing of award on the
\ntotal value.\n<\/p>\n
                f) We direct payment of interest from 19.02.1990, at  9%  p.a.
\nfor a period of one year from the date of Section 4(1) Notification and at the
\nrate of  15%  p.a.   after the expiry of one year till payment of compensation
\nwhile giving credit to s already made from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
                47.  With the above directions, both the appeals  are  allowed
\nin  part,  cross  objection is dismissed and all connected pending C.M.P.s are
\nalso dismissed.  The parties  shall  bear  their  respective  costs  in  these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
sl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari (with records)\n<\/p>\n
2.  The learned Subordinate Judge, Salem (with records)\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Record Keeper, V.R.  Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM A.S.No. 474 of 1993 and A.S. NO.512 of 1997 Cross Objection No.87 of 1994 and all connected pending […]<\/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-60039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRevenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - 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\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-30T05:10:10+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T05:10:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":5502,\"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\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T05:10:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - 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\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-30T05:10:10+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T05:10:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003"},"wordCount":5502,"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\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003","name":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T05:10:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-swaminathan-on-23-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Revenue Divisional Officer vs N. Swaminathan on 23 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/60039","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=60039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}