Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Collector on 25 March, 2022
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.3.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.182 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1275 of 2022
1.V.Jayamani
2.R.Somasundaram
R.Selvam (deceased)
3.R.Jayalakshmi
4.G.Vijaya
5.R.Murugan
6.Santhi
7.Jayanthi
8.Vasanthi
(Respondents 6 to 8 impleaded as
legal representatives of deceased
R.Selvam vide Court order in CMP
No.513 of 2022 made in WA.SR.No
100747 of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ) .. Appellants
vs
1.The Collector,
Cuddalore District – 607 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore.
____________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai – 600 035.
4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative
Officer, Villupuram Housing Board H1
Division, Maharajapuram East Pandi
Salai, Villupuram – 605 602. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 24.08.2021 in W.P.No.19840 of 2021.
For Appellants : Mr.Narayan Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.KMD Muhilan
Government Advocate
-for R1 and R2
Dr.R.Gowri
Standing Counsel
-for R3 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed this Writ Appeal challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by them for re-computation of compensation on ____________ Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq.ft was not accepted.
2.1. The brief facts relevant for consideration are as follows:
The lands belonging to one Rajangam Padayatchi along with other lands were processed for acquisition. On completion of the process, an Award was passed on 03.08.1988 in Award No.7 of 1988. The lands to the extent of 65,889 sq. ft. belonging to the Rajangam Padayatchi were acquired by calculating the compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. ft. The determination of the amount was protested by the other land owners by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of 1894") in L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. By the judgment dated 25.9.1991, the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. in all petitions, except in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1990 where compensation of Rs.11/- per sq. ft. was fixed.
2.2. Since the reference of Rajangam Padayatchi had been ____________ Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 omitted, on 10.12.1991, he submitted a petition before the Sub-
Collector, Cuddalore, by citing the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990 and prayed for compensation on par with the quantum of compensation fixed in the said cases. Since no action was taken on the said petition, he again submitted a petition under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 to the Collector of South Arcot on 14.12.1991 requesting to re-determine the compensation payable to him for the lands on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded in L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990, dated 25.09.1991.
2.3. Since no action was taken, on 4.5.1992, Rajangam Padayatchi submitted another petition under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 seeking to hold an enquiry with regard to the compensation payable to him. Thereafter, Rajangam Padayatchi filed two writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.3980 of 1993 and 6398 of 1993, to quash the order dated 28.6.1992 and to direct the District Collector to re- determine the compensation payable to him in respect of the lands acquired, inasmuch as by the said order dated 28.6.1992, he was ____________ Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 informed that due to pendency of proceedings before this court, the claim cannot be considered.
2.4. By the order dated 2.2.2000, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions by directing the first respondent therein to take up the applications dated 14.12.1991 and 4.5.1992 alleged to have been filed by Rajangam Padayatchi and dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks with a further direction that in case, there are proceedings pending in the High Court in respect of the said LAOP, it is open to Rajangam Padayatchi to implead himself as a party to make the applications under Section 28(A) of the Act for determination of enhanced compensation.
2.5. While so, Rajangam Padayatchi died on 10.6.2002, leaving behind his wife Sakunthala and the appellants as his legal heirs and Sakunthala died on 11.12.2009.
2.6. On 30.04.2003, the Appeal Suits, being A.S.Nos.98, 311 of 1994, 564 of 1997 and 390 of 2000, preferred by the Revenue ____________ Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 Divisional Officer, Cuddalore against the order dated 25.9.1991 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.24, 26, 29 and 32 of 1990 were partly allowed thereby modifying the order of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in L.A.O.P.Nos.24, 26, 29 and 32 of 1990 that the land owners will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft. as on date of Section 4(1) notification with solatium at 30%, interest on solatium and an additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
2.7. Thereafter, based on the judgment passed in A.S.No.311 of 1994, dated 30.04.2003 as well as the report of the Sub- Collector, Cuddalore, the District Collector, Cuddalore issued an order dated 30.04.2013 computing the compensation payable to the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased Rajanga Padayatchi at Rs.25,52,709/-, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,00,875/- paid to Rajangam Padayatchi pursuant to the Award dated 3.8.1988.
2.8. On 15.5.2013, the appellants submitted a representation ____________ Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 to the District Collector, Cuddalore, requesting to enhance the rate from Rs.6/- to Rs.15/- per sq. ft. for the lands acquired.
2.9. On 18.11.2013, the Executive Engineer-cum- Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram Housing Board Division sent a cheque for Rs.15,12,971/-, after deducting the TDS of Rs.1,73,731/-, to the Sub-Collector, Cuddalore for onward payment to the legal heirs of the land owner Rajanga Padayatchi. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 18.11.2013, the appellants have submitted a representation dated 12.2.2014 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore to re- determine the rate at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. by invoking Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. On 11.5.2015, the appellants have also submitted representation to the District Collector, Cuddalore stating that they have received the amount of Rs.15,12,971/- under protest and accordingly sought the enhanced compensation of Rs.65,77,736/- as on 31.03.2015. Again on 20.8.2015, the appellants have submitted another representation to the District Collector, Cuddalore and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore to re- ____________ Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 compute and disburse the compensation amount as prayed for in the representation dated 11.05.2015 under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894.
2.10. Challenging the communication dated 18.11.2013, the appellants have filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-compute the compensation payable to them in respect of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft.; re-fix the solatium and additional market value and interest on the compensation or in the alternative re-compute and disburse compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Resisting the writ petition, the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of the Villupuram Housing Board Division filed counter, inter alia, stating that on the basis of the judgment passed in A.S.No.311 of 1994, the appellants have made a representation to the District Collector under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 and ____________ Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 the District Collector, by fixing the rate at Rs.6/- per sq. ft., passed an Award computing the compensation at Rs.25,52,709/- in respect of the lands in S.No.2220/1 etc. It is stated that since the lands in T.S.Nos.2220/1, 2330 (part) and 2334/1A are pits due to removal of earth for brick kilns, the Public Works Department has estimated a sum of Rs.1,74,420/- for filling up the pits in the above said lands. A sum of Rs.92,130/- was deducted towards reclamation charges in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. The said aspect was not considered by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the amount of Rs.25,52,709/- was calculated and forwarded to the fourth respondent for disbursement of the amount. According to the fourth respondent, the appellants are not entitled to any further claim and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the remedy available under Section 28A(3) of the Act of 1894.
5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the above, while allowing interest at the rate of 15% on the sum of Rs.8,66,007/- from 18.11.2013 to 06.06.2018 and directing the ____________ Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 respondents to pay the said sum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order, negatived the prayer of the appellants/writ petitioners to re-fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the said order, this present appeal is filed, claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.15 per sq.ft.
6. The claim of the appellants is not tenable. Once the reference has been made at the instance of the other land owners on the similar acquisition and on the said reference the question of enhancement has been gone into by the Reference Court and thereafter by this Court on an appeal and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.3 per sq.ft, to Rs.6 per sq.ft, then the appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased original owner, are not entitled to claim a further enhancement as per Section 28A of the Act of 1894, as the benefit under Section 28A of the said Act is not available to them. This will be clear on a plain reading of Section 28A of the Act of 1894, which is extracted hereunder :-
“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- ____________ Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 (1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub- section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”
7. Therefore, once the appellants have claimed parity and availed the benefit under Section 28-A, there is no question of again claiming the benefit for the second time, that too in the year 2013, after a lapse of several years.
____________ Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022
8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Rather, we find additional reasons, as stated above, for the dismissal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1275 of 2022 is also dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
25.3.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
____________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
To:
1.The Collector,
Cuddalore District – 607 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai – 600 035.
4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Villupuram Housing Board H1 Division, Maharajapuram East Pandi Salai, Villupuram – 605 602.
____________ Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 182 of 2022 M.N.BHANDARI, CJ AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J KST W.A.No.182 of 2022 25.03.2022 ____________ Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis