M/s.Gem Granites (Karnataka) v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 19-08-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANWRIT PETITION Nos.9687 & 9688 OF 2009M/s.Gem Granites (Karnataka),rep.by its Partner S.R.Kumar,No.79, Cathedral Road,Chennai-600 086....Petitioner in W.P.No.9687/2009M/s.Imperial Granites Pvt.Ltd.,rep.by its Vice-Chairman,No.59, Cathedral Road,Chennai-600 086....Petitioner in W.P.No.9688/2009-vs-1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.46, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.3.Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Madras Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Taluk Office Complex, Sriperumbudur....Respondents in both W.Ps.Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.For petitioners : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.P.R.Raman.For respondent 1 : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu,Addl.Govt.Pleader.For respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.V.Manokaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThese Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of a writof certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondentbearing Lr.No.41993/MW2/2007-1, dated 20.06.2008 andLr.No.40273/MW2/2007-1, dated 20.06.2008, quash the same andconsequently direct the first respondent to consider and pass aspeaking order on the petitioners' applications dated 10.07.2008, forre-conveyance of the lands.2. The facts and contentions of these cases have alreadybeen dealt with by this Court earlier in W.P.Nos.11426 and 11427 of2007, which were filed for the very same relief as in these WritPetitions. In spite of that, since both the Writ Petitions involve acommon issue, let us have a recap of the case of the petitioner inW.P.No.9687 of 2009 as under :"His land to an extent of 5 acres and 14 cents inS.No.135/2B2; 38 cents in S.No.135/2A2 and 2 acres in S.No.135/2C2,Sembarampakkam Village, totalling to 7.52 acres in Poonamallee Taluk,Tiruvallur District, was acquired by the respondents forimplementation of Krishna Water Project. The said land was notutilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence, anapplication, dated 02.11.2001, was filed under Section 48 (B) of theLand Acquisition Act, in short, "the Act", before the firstrespondent for re-conveyance of the said land, which was rejected bythe first respondent by an order dated 28.09.2006. Hence,W.P.No.11427 of 2007 was filed for quashing the said order and thesaid writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.04.2007.Aggrieved over the said order, W.A.No.733 of 2007 was filed and thesame came to be disposed of by an order dated 06.11.2007, permittingthe petitioner to make a fresh representation and directing therespondent to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly,the petitioner made another application dated 26/29.11.2007, but therespondent, without application of mind, by the impugned order dated20.06.2008, once again reproduced the earlier order of rejection,dated 28.09.2006. Hence, he filed this Writ Petition."3. This Court, on 03.04.2007, after discussing the matterat length, dismissed the said Writ Petitions, holding that the ordersimpugned, rejecting the appeals of the petitioners for exemption ofland from acquisition for the purpose of Krishna Water Project, wereperfectly valid. Subsequently, the said orders of dismissal weretaken on appeal before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.732and 733 of 2007, whereupon this Court held in paras 4 and 5 asfollows :"4.The learned counsel appearing for theState brought to our notice the decision of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supreme Court reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 (TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD VS. KEERAVANI AMMAL AND ORS.).In view of the above said decision, there cannotbe any doubt that the person, whose land has beenacquired, cannot claim to enforce the right underSection 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amatter of right. However, it cannot be said thatthere is any embargo on such person to make anyrepresentation for consideration by the StateGovernment and it is for the State Government toconsider such a representation.""5. In such view of the matter, even thoughwe are not interfering with the order passed bythe learned single Judge, it would be always opento the appellant in each appeal to file any freshrepresentation, bringing to the notice of theState Government any new fact and it would bealways open to the State Government to considersuch a representation in accordance with law. Itis made clear that such an observation made by uswould not be construed as conferring any right onthe appellant in each appeal nor as decidinganything on merits. If and when such arepresentation is made, it has to be considered bythe State Government in accordance with law,without being influenced by any of theobservations made in these appeals...."4. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioners filed freshrepresentations, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, bringing to thenotice of the State Government, namely, the first respondent, a newfact as under :"About 30 acres of lands which werenotified for acquisition for the same projectsin Chembarambakkam and Karambakkam Villages havebeen released from the purview of LandAcquisition Act, whereas our representation onthe same pattern was not considered and postAward action proceeded."5. On receipt of the said representations, the firstrespondent, without even making a mention about the new fact broughtforth by the petitioners, passed similar orders of rejection verbatimas that of the ones passed on 28.09.2006, which were impugned in theearlier Writ Petitions, and without making a reference to theobservation made by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.732 and 733 of2007, giving no reasons. Let us have a look at the operative portions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the orders dated 28.09.2006 and 20.06.2008 one after the other asunder :Impugned order in earlier W.P.No.11427 of 2007,dated 28.09.2006:"I am directed to state that, theGovernment have examined your request to excludethe lands in an extent of 7.52 acres inS.No.135/2B2, 135/2A2 and 135/2C1 ofChembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,presently Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur Districtfrom acquisition by Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Board for Krishna WaterProject contained in the petition cited and toinform that those lands are still required forthe purpose for which it was acquired. Yourrequest in the petition referred to above istherefore not feasible of compliance andaccordingly it is rejected."Impugned order in this W.P.No.9687 of 2009,dated 20.06.2008 :"I am directed to state that, theGovernment have examined your request to excludethe lands in an extent of 7.52 acres inS.No.135/2B2, 135/2A2 and 135/2C1 ofChembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,presently Poonamallee Taluk from acquisition byChennai Metropolitan Water Supply and SewerageBoard for Krishna Water Project contained in thepetition cited and to inform that your aboverequest is not feasible of compliance, sincethose lands are still required for the purposefor which they were acquired."6. A careful reading of the above impugned orders in theearlier Writ Petition as well as in this Writ Petition coupled withthe observations of the Division Bench would reveal that though theDivision Bench was not inclined to interfere with the order passed bythe learned single Judge, it was made clear that if any freshrepresentation with new facts was submitted, the respondents were toconsider such a representation without being influenced by any of theobservations made in the writ appeals. 7. That being so, when the petitioners submitted theirrepresentations, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, bringing forthcertain new facts for consideration before the first respondent, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was the bounden duty of the first respondent to consider the saidrepresentations in accordance with law. But, the first respondent,not even referring to the observations of the Court and withoutlooking into any of the new facts, simply rejected the saidrepresentations, with non-application of mind and without assigningreasons, reproducing the earlier order verbatim.8. The Supreme Court, in Gram Panchayat, Villalge Kum Kalanv. State of Punjab and Others, 2008 (4) Supreme Court Cases 253, heldas follows :"12.... This Court in a series of decisionsheld that reasons introduce clarity in an orderand failure to consider the relief/challenge inthe writ petition and the absence of reasonsrender the High Court judgment unsustainable. Inview of the fact that the High Court has notconsidered the challenge as to the validity orotherwise of the Amendment Act and thenotification thereon, we have no other optionexcept to set aside the impugned order and remitthe same to the High Court for fresh disposal."9. The Supreme Court has also, in a catena of decisions,held that reasoning is the heartbeat of every conclusion and withoutthe reasoning, the conclusion becomes defunct. The rationale behindit is that the affected party can know why the decision has goneagainst him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice isspelling out reasons for the order made.10. Keeping the above principle in mind, if we look at theorders impugned in these Writ Petitions, it would be evident that thesaid orders were passed without considering the new fact put forth bythe petitioners in their representations dated 26.11.2007 and29.11.2007. Therefore, the prayer sought for in these Writ Petitions,which is for quashing the impugned orders, as they are non-speakingand passed with non-application of mind, and for a consequentialdirection to the first respondent to consider and pass speakingorders on the representations of the petitioners, dated 26.11.2007and 29.11.2007, which were filed pursuant to the direction of theDivision Bench that if and when such representations are made, theyare to be considered by the State Government in accordance with lawwithout being influenced by any of the observations made in theappeals, in my considered opinion, is quite reasonable.11. Accordingly, the orders impugned in these WritPetitions are set aside and the matters are remanded to the firstrespondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, but not the ones dated 10.07.2008 as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prayed for in these Writ Petitions, afresh and pass reasoned orderson merit and in accordance with law within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicatedabove. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrardixit To1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.46, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.3.Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Madras Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Taluk Office Complex, Sriperumbudur.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.357252 cc To Mr.P.R.Raman, Advocate, SR.39654W.P.Nos.9687 & 9688/2009ka(co)pmk.20.8.2009