Madras High Court
The Revenue Divisionsal vs Muniappan on 2 July, 2026
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.No.783 of 2009 & Cross Obj.Nos.101 & 93 of 2009
and CMP.No.2407 & 2395 of 2022 & MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
A.S.No.783 of 2009
1.Revenue Divisional Officer
Gopichettipalayam
2.The Special Collector
Gopichettipalayam
… Appellants
-Versus-
1.Muniyappan
2.P.Rangaswamy (Died)
3.B.R.K.Alamelu
4.B.R.K.Prabhakaran
5.B.R.K.Rajendiran
6.Muniyammal
7.Kalavathy (Died)
8.B.R.V.Vishlakshi
9.Chithra
10.Suguna
11.Shakila
12.Sridevi
13.Sridharkumar
14.Viswanathan
15.Shanmugapriya
1 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
16.Minor Sri Aravindh
Rep by Father and Guardian
17.The Commissioner
Bhavani Corporation
Bhavani
18.R.Sarathamani Devi
19.R.Paramasivam
(R18 & R19 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased R2 vide order
dated 04.06.2024 made in CMP.Nos.9392, 9404 & 9406 of 2022 in
A.S.No.783 of 2009 by RSMJ & RSVJ)
20.Madhavan
21.Mohanraj
22.Kowshik
(R22 declared major vide common order dated 02.07.2026)
(R20 to R22 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased R7 vide order
dated 25.07.2025 made in CMP.Nos.2412 & 2391 of 2022 in
A.S.No.783 of 2009 by JNBJ & MJRJ)
… Respondent(s)
Cross Obj.No.93 of 2009
1.B.R.K.Alamelu
2.B.R.K.Prabhakaran
3.B.R.K.Rajendiran
4.B.R.V.Vishlakshi
5.Chithra
6.Suguna
7.Shakila
8.Sridevi
9.Sridharkumar
2 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
10.Viswanathan
11.Shanmugapriya
12.Minor Sri Aravindh
Rep by Father and Guardian
… Cross Objectors
-Versus-
1.Revenue Divisional Officer
Gopichettipalayam
2.The Special Collector
Gopichettipalayam
3.Muniyappan
4.P.Rangaswamy (Died)
5.Muniyammal
6.Kalavathy
7.The Commissioner
Bhavani Corporation, Bhavani
(Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary parties to the Cross Appeal)
… Respondent(s)
Cross Obj.No.101 of 2009
1.Muniammal
2.Kalavathy (Died)
3.Madhavan
4.Mohanraj
5.Kowsik
(Cross Appellant No.3 declared major vide common order dated
02.07.2026)
(3rd to 5th Cross Objector are brought on record as legal heirs of
deceased 2nd cross objector vide order dated 25.07.2025 made in
CMP.Nos.2412 & 2391 of 2022 in A.S.No.783 of 2009 by JNBJ &
MJRJ)
.. Cross Objectors
3 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
-Versus-
1.Revenue Divisional Officer
Gopichettipalayam
2.The Special Collector
Gopichettipalayam
3.Muniappan
4.P.Rangaswamy (Died)
5.B.R.K.Alamelu
6.B.R.K.Prabhakaran
7.B.R.K.Rajendiran
8.B.R.V.Vishlakshi
9.Chithra
10.Suguna
11.Shakila
12.Sridevi
13.Sridharkumar
14.Viswanathan
15.Shanmugapriya
16.Minor Sri Aravindh
Rep by Father and Guardian
17.The Commissioner
Bhavani Corporation, Bhavani
18.R.Sarathamani Devi
19.R.Paramasivam
(R18 & R19 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased R4 vide order
dated 04.06.2024 made in CMP.Nos.9389, 9401 & 9415 of 2022 in
Cross Obj.No.101 of 2009 in A.S.No.783 of 2009 by RSMJ &
RSVJ)
(Respondents 3 to 17 are not necessary parties to the Cross Appeal)
… Respondent(s)
4 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
Prayer in A.S.No.783 of 2009:Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2003 on the
file of the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court-I), Erode.
Prayer in Cross Obj.No.93 of 2009: Cross Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC,
against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2003 on the file
of the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court-I), Erode.
Prayer in Cross Obj.No.101 of 2009: Cross Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2003 on
the file of the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court-I), Erode.
AS.No.783 of 2009
Appellants : Mr.M.Hemanth Kumar
Government Counsel
Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Zeenath Begum for R3 to 5, 8, 10 to 15
Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran for R6 , 18 & 19
Cross.Obj.No.93 of 2009
Appellants : Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Zeenath Begum
Respondents : Mr.M.Hemanth Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Counsel
Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran for R5
Cross.Obj.No.101 of 2009
Appellants : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
Respondents : Mr.M.Hemanth Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Counsel
Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Zeenath Begum for R5 to R7, 8, 10 to 14
5 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
COMMON JUDGEMENT
CMP.No.2407 & 2395 of 2022 have been filed by one Madhavan/claimant in
Cross Objections to represent the Minor Kowshik as a guardian. It is brought to the
notice of this Court that the said Kowsik has now become major, therefore, there is no
requirement of appointment of a guardian and the said Kowsik is declared major. Hence,
these petitions are closed. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary
amendments in the cause-title.
2. The appellants in A.S.No.783 of 2009 is the State. Cross Objections are
filed by the respondents/individuals/land owners in Cross.Obj.Nos.783 & 101 of 2009.
The 17th respondent in the appeal suit is the requisitioning body. The appeal suit arises
out of the judgement and decree dated 05.10.2005 made in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2003 on
the file of the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court-I), Erode enhancing
the compensation fixed by the LAO from Rs.23,058/- per acre to Rs.4000/- per cent for
the land acquired from the respective land owners and the Cross Objections are filed by
the respondents/land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- in the above-said LAOP.
3. Since the appellants in the Appeal Suit are the respondents in the Cross
Objections and the Cross Objectors in the Cross Objections are the respondents in the
Appeal Suits, to avoid verbosity and for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as appellants and claimants/Cross Objectors/land owners.
6 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
4. The facts of the case would be as follows:
(a) A total extent of 2.96.5 hectares situated in Bhavani Taluk, Erode
District, was acquired by the Government for formation of bus stand in Bhavani Taluk.
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on
30.08.1985. The lands belonging to the land owners were also acquired under the same
proceedings. The appellant thereafter took up enquiry under Section 11 of the Act for
fixing the appropriate compensation to be paid to the land owners for their respective
lands. The appellant gathered several Sale Deeds, pertaining to the lands in
Ooratchikottai Village, where the properties have been sold three years prior to the
notification. Based on the sale deeds, the appellant awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.23,058/- per acre vide award dated 27.07.1987.
(b) The claimants/landowners were not satisfied with the same. Therefore, at
their request, all these matters were referred to the learned Additional District Judge
(Fast Track Court-I), Erode. The said Court took up the matter under L.A.O.P.No.14 of
2003 and passed an order on 05.10.2005, by which, the lower Court fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.4000/- per cent. As against the same, the State has come
up with this appeal suit. The Cross Objections are filed by the respondents/land
owners/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- in the above-said LAOP.
7 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the grounds of
appeals, would submit that the lower Court has fixed the compensation at a fancy rate;
whereas, according to him, the compensation amount fixed by the appellant is very
reasonable, reflecting the actual market price. The learned counsel would further submit
that the lower Court ought not to have taken into account Exs.C1 & C2 in order to
ascertain the market value of the property concerned. Further, the Tribunal has fixed the
compensation by taking into account of Exs.C1 and C2 which are relating to smaller
extent of land and the said lands cannot be taken into account for the larger land. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/land owners submitted that the
contiguous land in S.No.762/5, wherein, 3 cents of land was sold for Rs.15,000/-, i.e.,
Rs.5,000/- per cent vide sale deed dated 26.11.1979 and the said sale deed is the closest
sale deed that should have been considered by the Tribunal while fixing the
compensation to the landowners. Whereas, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation at
Rs.4000/- per cent which according to the learned counsel for the landowners requires to
be enhanced. Hence, seeks for interference in the order of the Trial Court.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
8. It is settled law that the burden of establishing the market value of the lands
is always on the claimants. Equally, the State must have been fair and reasonable in
8 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
compensating the uprooted claimants. The legal principle is that the amount of
compensation will always be determined by the particular facts and circumstances of the
case.
9. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Santuka v. Collector, (1987) 1 SCC 587, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that market value means, the price which a purchaser is
willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller and further held the concessional
rate offered to the industrialist does not indicate the market value and compensation
must accurately reflect the market value and the court must ensure that the landowners
are justly compensated in alignment with prevailing market conditions. The relevant
paragraph of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“4. …………………… It is well settled that the owner of the
acquired land is entitled to compensation on the basis of its market value.
Section 23 of the Act lays down principles for determining compensation
according to which the owner is entitled to receive market value of the
land. Market value means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the
land and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity
and the potentiality of the land. On the evidence on record it is apparent
that the land in dispute is adjacent to the industrial area of Charbatiya
where a large number of factories including Orissa Textile Mills, Kalinga
Tubes Ltd., and a number of other factories are situated. The evidence on
record further indicates that even though the land was being used for
agriculture purposes but it was fit for non-agricultural purposes and it had
potentiality for future use as factory or building site. The learned
Subordinate Judge on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on
record determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs 15,000 per
acre. The High Court held that since the State Government had been
offering land situate in the adjacent Industrial Area to the industrialists at9 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,the rate of Rs 7500 per acre, the appellants were entitled to compensation
at that rate. In our opinion the High Court committed error in taking that
approach, as it had itself observed that the State Government had offered
land to the industrialists to enable them to set up industries and the price of
the land was offered to them at a concessional value with a view to induce
them to set up factory. After making that observation High Court was not
justified in determining the market value of the land at Rs 7500 per acre, as
the offer of land to industrial entrepreneurs at concessional rate could not
reflect the market value of the land.”
10. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another vs. State
of Haryana [(2016) 4 SCC 544], has held that the duty of the Court qua awarding just
and fair compensation has been emphasised in no uncertain terms. The relevant passage
from the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
“ 7 ….. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair
compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other
relevant factors irrespective of the claim made by the owner.”
11. A perusal of the records would show that Exs.C1 and C2 relate to the
property comprised in S.Nos.762/5 and 768/6. These two documents relate to a smaller
extent of land. This Court is of the view that though these sale instances relates to
smaller extent, that itself cannot be a ground to reject such sale instances as the
potentiality of the lands were admitted by the RW1 itself. RW1 in the evidence has
admitted that the property covered under Exs.C1 and C2 are situated very nearer to the
acquired lands and the vast extent of lands were converted into house sites and huge
buildings have come up, the acquired lands are situated in Bhavani Municipality near the
10 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
Bhavani-Mettur State Highway and some of the lands were sold in square foot basis
preceding the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The price of the land has increased
manifold. Thus, the Trial Court had taken note of the potentiality of the land and had
fixed the compensation at Rs.4000/- per cent. That apart, it is also relevant to note that
the RW1 in the evidence has categorically stated that while fixing the market value of
the acquired lands, they have taken into consideration of the sale deeds of a nearby
village namely Ooratchikottai Village and the same is 1 kilometre far than the acquired
land. This strategy adopted by the LAO, in the view of this court, was solely to minimise
compensation to the greatest extent feasible.
12. In paragraphs 13 onwards, the Reference Court has dealt with the most
material piece of evidence placed on record by the claimants viz., the sale instances of
the adjoining land and came to the finding that the sale instances relied upon by the
claimants can be relied on and acted upon and fixed the market value considering the
documents filed by the claimants. It is relevant to note that the State has not let in
rebuttal evidence, therefore, the transaction covered therein can be relied upon and acted
upon to determine the market value of the land. Accordingly, the reference court has
considered the sale instances and had awarded the compensation.
13. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a
citizen, is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. Merely because the LAO
11 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
had fixed a minimum compensation ignoring the sale transactions of the adjoining lands
and considering the lands which are situated 1 kilometre far than the acquired lands
which would be beneficial to the landowners to suit his convenience, it cannot be said
that the compensation awarded by the LAO was just and reasonable. The reference court
took note of and considered the sales transactions under Exs.C1 and C2 and other factors
such as vast extent of conversion of house sites and other emerging developmental
activities had enhanced the compensation. In fact, the Tribunal has found that
Ex.C1/sale instance was sold at Rs.15,000/-, viz., Rs.5000/- per cent. This Court is of the
view that once the Tribunal in a reference has found that Ex.C1 was sold at such rates
and has also considered the potentiality of the land, the Tribunal could have enhanced
the compensation at Rs.4,500/- per cent. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to
increase the compensation at Rs.4,500/- per cent from Rs.4000/- per cent. However, we
make it clear that with regard to the other aspects, the judgment of the Trial Court does
not require interference in the hands of this Court. The learned Government Counsel for
the State is not able to make out a case to show that the amount fixed by the Trial Court
is exorbitant or unreasonable.
14. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the appeal suit filed
by the State is completely devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and the
Cross Objections are partly allowed as indicated above :-
12 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
15. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed. The Cross Objections are partly
allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,500/- per cent. With regard to the other
aspects, the judgment of the Trial Court stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[N.S.K.J] [M.J.R.J]
02.07.2026
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation : yes / no
dhk
13 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.783 of 2009 etc.,
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
dhk
To
1. The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Erode.
The Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-I), Erode.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
COMMON JUDGEMENT
in
Appeal Suit Nos.783 of 2009 etc., cases
02.07.2026
14 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
