Madras High Court
N.Murugan vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.08.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.A.No.678 of 2012 N.Murugan ... Appellant / Petitioner -vs- 1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition for SIPCOT) Sriperumbudur Taluk Office, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. 3. The Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the order dated 14.02.2012 made in W.P.No.20021 of 2011. For Appellant : Mr.K.Magesh For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.N.Rajagopal Spl. Govt. Pleader For R3 : Mr.Sudharsana Sundar ***** J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.Dhanapalan,J.,) Heard Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / petitioner, Mr.Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 and Mr.Sudharsana Sundar, learned counsel for R3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2012 made in W.P.No.20021 of 2011, wherein the relief sought for was to quash the records comprised in impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.29/2011 A, dated 29.07.2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent with the consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to grant the compensation as claimed by the petitioner or refer the case to the 1st respondent for determination of compensation as per Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997.
3. Learned Single Judge had dismissed the said writ petition by holding as under:
14. Further, in his affidavit the petitioner has nowhere stated about the compensation amount received by him. In this case, the acquisition has been made by the exercise of power under the Act and not by any consent letter given by the petitioner. In the absence of the petitioner having availed the remedy of reference, he cannot send a representation. Further he sought the representation to be disposed of by exparte direction given to the respondents and thereafter when a reply was sent, he filed the second round of litigation. Hence there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
4. The appellant / petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the land in Survey Nos.35/1 in No.158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, had filed the writ petition, challenging the order of acquisition of the 2nd respondent and his land was to be acquired for public purpose under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (in short Act). The order of the 2nd respondent was based on the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition in W.P.No.28406 of 2010 dated 22.12.2010, wherein the very same petitioner sought for a direction to dispose of his representation dated 23.08.2010. The gist of the said representation was that when the acquisition of the land of petitioner was made, he had agreed to part with his land after receiving the compensation of Rs.150/- per square feet. As per his consent, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.74,32,500/-. But he had received only Rs.24,64,000/-. As per the gazette notification for acquiring land dated 12.3.2008, the extent of land was mentioned only in square meters. Therefore, the compensation should be awarded in terms of the square meters. It was also stated that even as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.141, Industries SIPCOT-LA Department, dated 14.7.2008, he was entitled to get Rs.100/- per sq.ft as his property was situated with approach roads on three sides. Therefore, he claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,91,000/- or in alternative, he sought for referring his case to the District Collector in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of the compensation.
5. Before the Writ Court, the 2nd respondent had informed that vide impugned reply it was communicated to the petitioner that fixed value for the property in S.No.35/1 to an extent of 1.12 acres as per the Government estimation was only Rs.22 lakhs and that already a sum of Rs.24,64,000/- has been paid to the petitioner as on 1.7.2010. As per the registered sale deed, by which the petitioner came to possess the land, the extent of land was shown as 1.12 acres. It was only on that basis, the compensation was arrived at. Therefore, there was no possibility for the grant of higher compensation to the petitioner. However, the appellant / writ petitioner had not chosen to challenge the same and the Writ Court in turn decided the case against him. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
6. Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no agreement entered into between the 2nd respondent and the appellant as per Section 7(2) of the Act and thus, the other option is reference in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act, besides raising other ground to the effect that the 2nd respondent had failed to consider that since the property of the appellant is situated by approaching road on three roads, he is entitled to get Rs.100/- per sq.ft. as per G.O.Ms.No.141, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 14.07.2008.
7. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R1 & R2, has vehemently contended that there is no violation of natural justice or infringement of fundamental rights as alleged by the appellant in respect of the impugned communication. He has further contended that the appellant's land measuring 1.12 acres was acquired and the compensation of Rs.24,64,000/- had been duly paid to the appellant on 01.07.2010, which was also received by him without any protest. Learned Single Judge, on considering every material had rightly held that acquisition has been made in exercise of the power under the Act and not by any consent letter and thus, there is no infirmity with the findings rendered by the Writ Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused all the material documents available on record.
9. It is seen from the records that pursuant to an administrative sanction given by the State Government vide G.O.No.138, Industries Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire 349.51.0 hectares of patta lands, the petitioner's land in S.No.35/1 in Pillaipakkam village registered vide sale deed dated 04.02.2002 along with others' land were sought to be acquired for expansion of Irungattukkotai Industrial Complex by the SIPCOT in Pillaipakkam, Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk. The land of the appellant has been situated in the midst of the scheme area on Block No.2 of Unit-I, which was kept vacant at the time when the acquisition process had taken place. Consequent thereto, Form-A notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was approved by the District Collector by proceedings dated 03.10.2007 and notices were also sent to the land owners and the interested persons by a registered post on 03.10.2007. Issuance of notice under Form 'B' publication was effected so as to call for objections within 30 days from the date of publication. The local publication by way of "tom tom" in the village was also made on 16.10.2007, besides publishing in the local offices as well as in two dailies, one in Tamil and one in English on 17.10.2007.
10. On receipt of 26 objection petitions, out of 346 persons covered by the notification, the same were sent to the requisitioning body, i.e., third respondent and their remarks were called for. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted on 21.11.2007 by the District Collector, wherein the 26 land owners / interested persons have appeared for the enquiry. Though the land was converted into house sites, the lands were kept vacant and that no building and no superstructures were raised in the land. Owing to acquiring of lands for public purpose, the first respondent District Collector had ordered that the acquisition may be proceeded with publication of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act and the said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.75, dated 12.03.2008. By virtue of the notification issued under Section 3(1) and in terms of Section 4(1), the lands to which the said notice was issued, from the date of such publication, will vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. The Collector is thereafter is entitled to take possession of the land. Therefore, the notices were issued under Section 4(2) on 24.03.2008 asking the land owners to surrender their possession of land. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 03.04.2008 and the petitioner had received the compensation without any protest.
11. Insofar as the claim for higher compensation is concerned, there are certain provisions set out in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, which borrows the provisions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), contemplating that, a person whose land was acquired, if he does not accept the award, will have to make a written application to the District Collector and request the matter to be referred. A limitation of six weeks from the date of the Collector's Award if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector when the Award is made or six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's Award is provided. For better appreciation, Section 18 of the said Act is extracted hereunder:
18 Reference to Court:
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,?
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
12. In the case on hand, the appellant had already received the compensation without any protest on 01.07.2010. Though learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said Section is not applicable in the absence of any agreement entered into between them, but on verification of records, it is obvious to mention that there is an agreement between the parties in compliance of Section 7(2)(3) of the Act, which stipulates as under:
7(2) Where the amount has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, it shallbe paid in accordance with such agreement.
7(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such amount shall be paid. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner had not at any point of time questioned the low rate of compensation and the only request put forth by him was that of fixation of Rs.150/- in sq. meters that was dealt with by the respondents and subsequently, finding no infirmity crept in the proceedings, the request was rejected.
13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Ramakrishnan vs. The Government of Tamilnadu in W.P.Nos.40850 of 2006 Batch, decided on 02.03.2007, has refused to quash the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, by holding as under:
26. In pith and substance, the State Government for speedy industrial growth in the State felt the lands for industrial purpose have to be acquired speedily and enacted the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act with a conceptualized vision that more industries would be started in Tamil Nadu and the acquisition of lands for setting up such industries would be expedited to achieve the laudable object of big industrialization in the State of Tamil Nadu. Such power of the State to enact T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act or such powers conferred under the authorities under the Act for speedy acquisition of lands for industrial purpose cannot be strangled on the ground of legislative competency, as such power of acquisition and requisitioning of property conferred under Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List) is independent by itself, but not ancillary or incidental to the power to regulate mines and minerals under Entry 54 of List I (Union List). It is thus clear that neither the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act suffers from any legislative competency nor the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated under the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act suffer for want of jurisdiction. 27.1. Next, we proceed to examine the attack on the impugned acquisition proceedings made by the land owners/interested persons, for non compliance of Rule 6 of the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules due to the failure to furnish the remarks of the requisitioning body/NLC. 27.2. Of course, our attention was invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court inRamanujam N.D v. Collector of Madras & 2 Others, 1994 WLR 326. The said case arose under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the lands were acquired by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board/requisitioning body to provide water supply to the residents of a locality. During the acquisition proceedings even though objections were filed by land owners/ interested persons, there was no record to show that the reply of the requisitioning body was communicated to the petitioner therein to make the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effective and purposeful. Therefore, it was held that the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules that are applicable for 5A enquiry in the matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed in the matter of hearing the objections of the land owners/ interested persons to the acquisition and holding an enquiry in that regard. Rule 4 of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules reads as follows:
"Rule (4) (a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form 'B' to the objector as well as to the department or company acquiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. (c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector, or a person authorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land." 27.3. No doubt, the said Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed under Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is akin to Rule 6 of T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules made under Section 25 of T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act. But, in view of Section 21 of the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are excluded save as otherwise provided in the Act, and therefore, neither the provision relating to the 5A enquiry nor the rules related to enquiry under Section 5A, nor the ratio laid with respect to the enquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall have any relevancy to the acquisition proceedings of the present Act. That apart, such a situation is not contemplated expressly either in Section 3 of the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act or under Rule 6 of T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules. What all Section 3 contemplates is only to publish notice under Section 3(2) by the Government calling upon the land owners/ interested persons to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired and also cause a public notice in that regard, and thereafter to receive objection, forward the copy to requisitioning body and after getting statement by way of answer from the requisitioning body, to hold an enquiry and take a decision and thereafter pass an order under Section 3(1) as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act that the land is required for industrial purpose and in furtherance of the object of the Act. 27.4. In our considered opinion, in view of Section 21 of the Act, the provisions of the Act and Rules should be interpreted strictly applying the golden rule of interpretation that the literal interpretation should be adhered to in the absence of any anomaly or absurdity in reading the words of the statute as it stands, and a statute cannot be looked at with a coloured glass.
28. Lastly, we are unable to comprehend such grievance of the land owners/ interested persons that the Government failed to provide sufficient rehabilitation measures/safeguards to the land owners/interested persons, as contemplated under the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families-2003, in view of the undertaking given by the respondents in the counter affidavit that rehabilitation package has been provided in order to give relief and rehabilitation measure to genuinely displaced land oustees, which, we record, would take care of the interest of the petitioners seeking sufficient rehabilitation measures/ safeguards under the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families-2003.
29. In fine, all the attempts to strangulate the impugned acquisition proceedings under the provisions of T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act fail as devoid of merits and for want of legal contentions.
30. Resultantly,
(i)the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and the Rules framed thereunder does not suffer from lack of legislative competency of the State Government and therefore, the same are held constitutionally valid;(ii)the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated under the T.N.Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act does not suffer any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety; and
(iii)the writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.
14. It is also opt to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman reported in (2005) 8 SCC 709 in respect of the provision to invoke limitation in the matter of reference under Section 18 of the Central Act, wherein it has been held as under:
"15.This Court has also held that in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act before the authorities under that Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application. [See Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal (1996) 9 SCC 414]. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to while making an application under Section 18(1) of the Act and the application has to be made within the period fixed by Section 18(2) of the Act.
26.Then the question is, whether in the context of Section 18 of the Karnataka amendment, the decision of this Court in Thakoredas and our discussion as above, Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked or would apply to an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. This Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Collector or Deputy Commissioner here, while entertaining an application for reference. We see no reason not to accept that position. Then arises the question whether Section 5 could be invoked before the Land Acquisition Court while making an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. We have held in agreement with the earlier Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, that the right to have a reference enforced through court or through the Deputy Commissioner becomes extinguished on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference made in time. Consistent with this position it has necessarily to be held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be available since the consequence of not enforcing the right to have a reference made on the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, as obtaining in Karnataka, is to put an end to the right to have a reference at all. Since in that sense it is an extinguishment of the right, the right cannot be revived by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We may incidentally notice that in Thakoredas this Court rejected the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act which was beyond time, though, of course, there was no specific discussion on this aspect.
15. A perusal of the records ensures existence of valid agreement between the parties and determination of compensation has also been arrived at in terms thereof. Moreover, in the absence of challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the appellant, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. The appellant cannot expect the matter for reference to get higher compensation after determination of compensation and acceptance thereof, which will certainly amount to double payment for the same land, which was acquired purely for the public cause. The curtailment will cause the exchequer to spend huge amount for the particular project than allotted, due to increase in raw materials etc and obstruct revenue sources and investment by other countries in our soil. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is well founded and does not call for any interference by this Court.
V.Dhanapalan,J.
and G.Chockalingam,J.
ar
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
[V.D.P.J.] [G.C,J.,] 27.08.2014 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar
W.A.No.678 of 2012