High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 23-08-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANWRIT APPEAL Nos. 711 of 2001 and 2137 of 2002W.A.No.711 of 20011. Alifullah2. A.J.P.Ibrahim ... Appellants /Petitioner-vs-1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Ramnad. ... RespondentsW.A.No.2137 of 20021. Alifullah2. A.J.P.Ibrahim ... Appellants -vs-1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Ramnad. 3. R.Sekar4. M.Sonai5. M.Bose https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. K.Packiyam7. K.Ramu8. Latha9. S.Murugeswari10. Thiruchelvam11. S.Parvathi12. Kannan ... RespondentsW.A.No.711 of 2001Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the ordersdated 30.10.2000 made in W.P.No.3499 of 2000 Petition filed under Article226 of Constitution of India to (i) issue a writ of certiorari to call tothe records relating to the Awar No.7/93-04 dated 28.3.94 passed by thesecond respondent (WP 3499 of 2000).W.A.No.2137 of 2002Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the ordersdated 03.06.2002 made in W.P.No.6530 of 1994. (ii) issue a writ certiorarior any other appropriate wirt to call for the records relating the G.O.(3d) No.75, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 1.2.1994 issued undersection 6 of the act that the lands i n the survey No.121/5 measuring1.78.0 hectare of Sakkarakottai Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, District,issued by the 1st respondent herein for public purpose is illegal(WP6530of 1994).For appellants : Mr.V.Raghavachari in both the writ appealsFor respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, AGP for R1&R2 No appearance for R3 to R12 in WA 2137 of 02J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.TAMILVANAN,J)W.A.No.711 of 2001 has been preferred by the appellants / petitionersagainst the order, dated 30.10.2000, made in W.P.No.3499 of 2000.W.A.No.2137 of 2002 has been preferred by the same appellants /petitioners, against the order, dated 03.06.2002, made in W.P.No.6530 of1994. In both the writ appeals, the appellants and respondents 1 and 2 areone and the same, though respondents 3 to 12 in W.A.No.2137 of 2002 areindividuals, claiming rights as allottees of house sites by the state.2. In W.P.No.3499 of 2000, the appellants / petitioners havechallenged the Award No.7/93-94, dated 28.03.1994, passed by therespondents 1 and 2, on the ground that no notice was served on them andno prior approval from the District Collector was obtained from the Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acquisition Officer before passing the award. It is seen from the recordsthat the award was passed as early as 28.03.1994 and the same was alsoknown to the appellants herein, as per the counter filed in the earlierwrit petition and that there is no dispute with regard to the said facts.As per the finding of the learned single Judge, it is an admitted factthat the petitioners have filed the said writ petition in 2000, 5 yearsafter the order was passed and there was no explanation for the delay offive years, though the petitioners have stated that they came to knowabout the land acquisition proceedings and award only on a later date. Thelearned single Judge, in the impugned order in W.P.No.3499 of 2000 hasobserved as follows in paragraph number 3 of the order now under challenge: " Learned counsel has submitted that the award waspassed without any notice, but on the basis of therecords. Learned Government Advocate has submittedthat though notices were served, the petitioners havenot appeared for the enquiry. Though the petitionerscontention that no prior approval was obtained fromthe concerned authority is sustainable, I am notinclined to interfere with the award, as thepetitioners have come forward with the above writpetition after five years without any properexplanation."3. According to the appellants / petitioners, they had purchased theland on 12.01.1989 in Survey No.121/5 with an extent of 4 acres and 40cents at Sakkarai Kottai Village and spent a huge amount for putting upbarbed fence and for making irrigation facilities and they also dug a welland also planted coconut sapplings. They have further contended that theland was acquired, despite the fact that the land purchased by them atBharathi Nagar was already acquired by the first respondent for thepurpose of allotment of house sites, though alternative sites wereavailable and that the appellants had no other land, except the land thatwas sought to be acquired. It is seen from the finding of the learnedsingle Judge that the respondents 1 and 2 have denied the averments of theappellants with reference to raising of coconut plantations, spending hugeamount for other developments of the land as untrue. In the writ appeal,the appellants have stated that the award, dated 28.03.1994 was not servedon the appellants and therefore, there is no latches on the part of theappellants in challenging the award passed by the second respondentherein. They also contended that the second respondent has not obtainedprior approval from the competent authorities and that the procedures ascontemplated under the Central Act was not followed in passing the award. 4. While the case was taken for hearing, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued on the followingthree points :1. The award of the second respondent, dated 28.03.1994 was notserved on the appellants and therefore, there is no latches on the part ofthe appellants, as found by the learned single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The award is bad in law, because the respondent has not obtainedprior approval.3. Though, as per Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,notification should be effected by publishing the same in the officialgazette and in two daily newspapers, in circulation of the locality ofwhich, one should be in the regional language. 5. According to the learned counsel, the publication for the landacquisition proceedings was made on 11.02.1994 in Kumari Murasu, TamilDaily, though the said Tamil Daily was not in circulation in the locality,where the acquired lands situate.6. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of hiscontention cited the following decisions :1.Bailamma vs. Poornaprajna House Building Coop. Society, 2006 (2) SCC 4162. State of U.P. vs. Rajiv Gupta , 1994 (5) SCC 686. 7. As per the decision Bailamma vs. Poornaprajna House Building Coop.Society, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 416, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruledthat as per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, limitationperiod of two years has been stipulated for making the award mandatory.8. According to the respondents 1 and 2, as per their counter, allthe legal formalities under the Land Acquisition Act have been compliedwith. It is not in dispute that Section 4 (1) Notification was issued on07.01.1993 and enquiry was conducted on 08.04.1993, as per LandAcquisition Act. As per the finding of the learned single Judge, though,notice was served to the appellants / petitioners, they did not appear forthe enquiry. It has been held that the objection raised that the lands hadbeen purchased for raising coconut plantations and spent huge amount fordevelopment of the land as untrue by the Special Tahsildar, afterconsidering the objections raised by the appellants. It is seen thatdeclaration under Section 6 was issued on 01.02.1994 and the same wasapproved by the Government, under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act on09.03.1994, after observing all legal formalities. As the appellants didnot appear for the enquiry and also to receive compensation, the amountwas kept in revenue deposit in their favour in the Sub Treasury,Ramanathapuram and possession of land was taken over on 29.03.1994.According to the respondents 1 and 2, lay out plans were approved andhouse sites pattas were issued to Adi Dravidars of Anna Nagar of SakkaraiKottai Village on 31.03.1994. 9. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned singleJudge has held that coconut seedlings were planted only subsequent to theNotification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act andthat it was only an attempt to avoid the land acquisition proceedings. AnAdvocate Commissioner was also appointed to find out whether thepossession was taken over by the authorities, pursuant to the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquisition proceedings. The learned single Judge, considering theevidence available on record, has held that the above said argumentsadvanced on behalf of the appellants / petitioners were extraneous for thepurpose of disposal of the writ petition and accordingly, both the writpetitions were dismissed on Merits.10. In the writ appeals, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearingfor the appellants would contend that under Section 6, Declaration as perLand Acquisition Act, it was published in Madurai Murasu, Tamil Daily,dated 28.01.1993. According to the learned counsel, the said Tamil Dailyis not in circulation at the area, where the acquired lands situated. Itis quite clear that in the writ appeal, this Court cannot go into thequestion of fact that was decided, based on evidence and as such, we areof the considered view that the question whether the newspaper has widecirculation or limited circulation cannot be disputed in the writ appeal.It is seen that after the land acquisition proceedings, layout wasprepared by the authorities and approved for house site and subsequently,the sites were allotted to various persons, as per the scheme of the StateGovernment.11. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellantscontended that the award, dated 28.03.1994, passed by the secondrespondent was not served on the appellants and therefore, there is nolatches in challenging the said award. He has further contended that theaward is bad in law, because the second respondent has not obtained priorapproval. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited thedecision State of U.P. vs. Rajiv Gupta, reported in 1994 (5) SCC 686,wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :" 5. Its bare reading indicates and emphasises thelimitation within which the award should be made andhas been statutorily determined, namely, the Collectorshall make an award within a period of two years fromthe date of the publication of the declaration. It iscommon knowledge that after declaration was published,years used to roll by to make the award and the ownersof the lands were put to great hardship. Parliamentintended to relieve the owners of the lands from thishardship and pegging of the price prevailing as ondate of publication of Section 4 (1) notification. Itis, therefore, a mandatory duty cast on the LandAcquisition Collector to make the award strictly inaccordance with the limitation under Section 11-A. Ifno award is made within that period, the entireproceedings for the acquisition of the land shalllapse. In other words, on expiry of two years from thedate of the publication of the declaration unless theproviso is attracted, if no award is made in themeantime, in the eye of law the proceedings initiatedunder Section 4 (1) of the Act culminated in thedeclaration made under Section 6 shall stand lapsed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and no proceedings, in the eye of law thereafter doexist, to take further action."12. In the instant case, it cannot be construed that the LandAcquisition Proceeding was affected in view of Section 11-A of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 on the facts discussed earlier. The appellants havechallenged the award, dated 28.03.1994, on the ground that no notice wasserved on the appellants, as contemplated under Section 9 (3) and 12 (2)of the Act. But the learned single Judge has given a clear finding withregard to the same and that the award was passed as early as 28.03.1994.In this regard, the learned single Judge has observed as follows in theimpugned order, dated 31.10.2000, passed in W.P.No.3499 of 2000 :" The petitioner filed the above writ petition,challenging the Award No.7/93-94, dated 28.03.1994 onthe basis that no notice was served and no priorapproval from the Collector was obtained by the LandAcquisition Officer before passing the award. It isnot in dispute that the award was passed as early as28.03.1994. This fact was known by the petitioner fromthe counter filed in the earlier writ petition. Thereis no dispute about the fact. Earlier counter wasfiled even according to the learned counsel in 1995,but the petitioner has filed the above writ petitionin 2000, after five years. There is no averment inthis writ petition as to why the petitioners have comeforward with the writ petition after five years,though the petitioners came to know about the factthat the award was passed."13. Considering the arguments advanced both the learned counsel andon a careful perusal of the material papers available on record, we are ofthe considered view that the aforesaid finding of the learned single Judgeis no way perverse or against law, so as to interfere with the same in thewrit appeals.14. In the result, both the writ appeals in W.A.No.711 of 2001 and2137 of 2002 fail and accordingly, they were dismissed. However, there isno order as to costs. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrartsvn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Ramnad. + 1 cc to Govt.pleader SR.NO.53034MJ(CO)RD4.9.07 W.A.Nos.711 of 2001 and 2137 of 2002