New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.12.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.A.K.GANGULY, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.A.No.1092 of 2008New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd.,Sacrur (Ariyur) Kandamangalam P.O.,605 102 Pondicherryrep.by its Secretary& Manager (Finance).. Appellant/Petitioner-Vs-1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Backward Classes Welfare Dept., Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare) Villupuram 605 602 ..Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder dated 18.12.2007 made in W.P.No.9385 of 1997 for the issue ofa Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the Sec.4(1) notification issued in G.O.3D No.113BC & MBC Welfare dt.19.12.94 and Sec.6 declaration issued in G.O.3D No.35 BC & MBCdt.17.4.96 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's lands viz.,R.S.No.85/2, Kandamangalam village, Villupuram Ramasami PadayachiDistrict, Villupuram Taluk and quash the same.For Appellant:: Mr.Rahul BalajiFor Respondents:: Mr.Raja Kalifullah Government PleaderJUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)Heard the learned counsel for the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The only point argued in this appeal is that more than oneyear has elapsed between the issuance of the last notification inthe locality under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section6, and in view of the same, the acquisition proceedings should bequashed and the learned Judge of the writ court erred in law by notquashing the same. It is also stated that records were not properlyperused by the learned Judge and an additional argument has beenadvanced that there are manipulations in the records. However, sucha plea was not taken before the learned Judge of the writ court norany such ground has been taken in the memo of appeal. In view ofsuch a stand being taken, this Court on 05.12.2008 passed thefollowing order: -“ Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The point which is raised here is that theDeclaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act was not made within a period ofone year from the last date of publicationunder Section 4(1) notification.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2ndrespondent it appears as follows: -“ The Draft Declaration under Section 6 of theL.A. Act was sent to the Government inVillupurams D.R.O’s J2/19746/93 dated 21.2.1996and 10.04.96. It was approved in G.O.(3D)No.35, dated 17.04.1996 and published at page Iwas notification No.202, Part II Section 2 ofthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated17.04.1996. The said notification was alsopublished at page 11 of Makkal Kural dated20.04.1996 at page 4 and the same was publishedin the locality and in all conspicuous placeson 06.08.1996.”4. The learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that from the aforesaid affidavit itappears that draft declaration under Section 6dated 10.04.1996 was sent for approval and itwas approved on 17.04.1996. On those facts ithas been urged that if it is approved on17.04.1996, then it is not within one year fromthe last date of publication of Section 4(1)notification, which is dated 17.04.1995.Learned Government Pleader wants to produce theoriginal records on Monday. Post on Mondayviz., 08.12.2008 at 2.30 p.m.” 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned GovernmentPleader produced the records. From the records of the case, itappears that the Commissioner for Land Administration sent theproposal for declaration under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct on 12.4.96. The matter was then placed before the Governmentand the Deputy Secretary of the concerned department of theGovernment signed it on 12.4.96 itself and sent it for the approvalof the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister for Backward ClassesWelfare has approved the said proposal and signed it on 13.4.96. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter, the Government Order was issued on the same date and itwas published in the Government Gazette on 17.4.96. These factsrelating to the approval of the proposal and the making of thedeclaration under Section 6 by the Deputy Secretary on 12.4.96 andby the Hon'ble Minister on 13.4.96 were not stated in the counteraffidavit. But these facts clearly appear from the records. 4. This Court has allowed the learned counsel for theappellant to examine the records and the learned counsel, asassisted by two other learned lawyers, looked into the records.There is no complaint about the non-examination of the records.From the records, the facts noted above appear. On those facts,the learned counsel for the appellant argued that under theprovision of Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, thedeclaration has to be made under the signature of the Secretary ofthe Government. In the instant case, the signature of theSecretary is absent. Therefore, the said declaration cannot besaid to have been made.5. From the perusal of the file, it appears that the Secretarywas on leave. The declaration was made and approved by the DeputySecretary on 12.4.96 and signed by the concerned Minister on13.4.96. The Government Order which was published was also signedby the Deputy Secretary. In the facts and circumstances of thecase, it cannot be said that the declaration was not made by13.4.96, since the concerned Minister has signed the same. Oncethe Hon'ble Minister signs, after the proposal has been signed bythe Deputy Secretary and put up before the concerned Minister, inour view, the requirement of making the declaration under Section 6is complete. This publication might have been made on 17.4.96, butthat is not a matter of great relevance for deciding whetherdeclaration under Section 6 was made within one year. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made this position clear inits judgment in the case of S.N.Rangappa v. State of Karnataka andanother reported in (2002) 1 M.L.J.105 (SC). Dealing with thisquestion in paragraph-9 at page 107 of the report, the learnedJudges said with reference to Section 6(1) of the Act, "It is wellknown that after an order or declaration is made there can be atime gap between the making of the order or a declaration and itspublication in the Official Gazette." The learned Judges furtherelaborately said "Whereas the time limit for the making of an orderis provided under Sec.6(1), the legislature advisedly did notprovide for any time limit in respect of the steps required to betaken under Sub-sec.(2) of Section 6." In the instant case, afterthe signature of the Hon'ble Minister on the file on 13.4.96,making of the declaration under Section 6(1) is complete. Almostthe same principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Eugenio Misquitta and others v. State of Goaand others, (1997) 8 SCC 47. The learned Judges of the Hon'bleSupreme Court quoted with approval the Division Bench judgment ofthe High Court from which the appeal came, in paragraph-3, to theeffect "that the Section 4 notification was published in GovernmentGazette on 6th August, 1992. Admittedly, Section 6 declaration is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 3rd August, 1993 and it was published in the GovernmentGazette on 5th August, 1993. It is, therefore, clear that withregard to the making of the declaration under Section 6, which is3rd August, 1993, it falls within the limitation prescribed and,therefore, it cannot be held that the publication of thedeclaration is outside the limitation prescribed under the Act."The learned Judges in that case dismissed the appeal.7. In the instant case, the only point which is argued is thatthe provision of Section 6(1) has been violated, inasmuch as thelast date of Section 4 notification is 17.4.95 and the Section 6declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 17.4.96.Therefore, the publication in the Official Gazette is beyond oneyear.8. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted in view of thedisclosures which have been made in the file and which has beendiscussed above. In the instant case, the declaration underSection 6 was made and it is complete with the signature of theHon'ble Minister of the concerned department on 13.4.96. Apartfrom that, this time gap between 17.4.95 and 17.4.96 is construedas falling within one year in view of the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State ofMaharashtra and others, 2002 (1) CTC 569. In that case, localpublication in the village took place on 30.1.86 and declarationunder Section 6 was published on 30.1.87 and the Hon'ble SupremeCourt held in paragraph-16 at page 575 of the report that "This isalso within one year of last date of notification under Section 4."The learned Judges of the Supreme Court said that "publicationunder Section 6 was ministerial act and procedural in nature." Inthat case also, the Supreme Court made a distinction between themaking of declaration and its publication.9. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the declarationunder Section 6 was made on 13.4.96 and the last date ofpublication under Section 4 is 17.4.95 in the locality. We,therefore, cannot uphold the contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that here the declaration was made beyondthe period provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. This is theonly point urged before us in this appeal and we find that the saidpoint is without substance and hence the writ appeal is dismissed.There will be no order as to costs. The original records whichhave been produced before us are handed over to the learnedGovernment Pleader.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSs/pv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Welfare Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare) Villupuram 605 602 +1cc to Mr.Satish Parasaran, Advocate Sr 69273+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 69319CK (CO)km/23.12. W.A.No.1092 of 2008