Madras High Court
Rathinavelu .V vs Union Of India Rep on 22 July, 2014
Author: S. Vaidyanathan
Bench: S. Vaidyanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN W.P. Nos. 4805 & 4806 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2010 Rathinavelu .V. ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 4805 of 2010 Mythili .R. ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 4806 of 2010 Vs. 1. Union of India rep. By Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry. 2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Sub Collector, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry. 4. The Tahsildar, Department of Survey and Land Records, Land Acquisition Wing, Puducherry. ..Respondents in all the writ petitions Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent relating to the impugned award bearing Ref. Award No.1 of 2009 dated 21.01.2009 and the order dated 11.08.2009 bearing reference No. 2035/SCR(N)/LA/C3/2009 and quash the same in as much as they deny compensation to the lands of the respective petitioners in S.Nos. 43/4A, 43/4B and 43/4 and S.No. 43/4A and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the lands of the respective petitioners being an extent of 49,700 sq.ft in S.No. 43/4A, 43/4B and 43/4 and 5000 sq.ft in S.No. 43/4A, respectively in Karuvadikuppam Village, Puducherry. For Petitioners :: Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthi for M/s. Sai, Bharath and Elan For Respondents :: Mr.A. Tamilvanan, Govt. Advocate (Puducherry) O R D E R
The petitioners have come forward with the following prayer:
"To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent relating to the impugned award bearing Ref. Award No.1 of 2009 dated 21.01.2009 and the order dated 11.08.2009 bearing reference No. 2035/SCR(N)/LA/C3/2009 and quash the same in as much as they deny compensation to the lands of the respective petitioners in S.Nos. 43/4A, 43/4B and 43/4 and S.No. 43/4A and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the lands of the respective petitioners, being an extent of 49,700 sq.ft in S.No. 43/4A, 43/4B and 43/4 and 5000 sq.ft in S.No. 43/4A, respectively, in Karuvadikuppam Village, Puducherry."
2. The petitioners in the above two writ petitions are husband and wife. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4805 of 2010 is the absolute owner of lands admeasuring to an extent of 49,700 sq.ft situate at Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village in R.S. No. 43/4A, 43/4B and 43/4 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 4806 of 2010 is the absolute owner of lands admeasuring 5000 sq.ft in S.No. 43/4A, Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Puducherry, by virtue of various sale deeds. The petitioners formed housing plots of the above said extents of land and sold them to purchasers, who are third parties. According to the petitioners, while forming housing plots, they had earmarked certain portions as plots, certain portions as common areas and pathways, for exclusive use of their vendors and for developing the same into a gated private community. But, the 3rd respondent, vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing reference No. G.O.Ms. No. 38 Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry, dated 22.05.2006, had acquired the above lands, including the plots, common areas, pathways, in total, for the purpose of extension of Puducherry Airport. On 21.01.2009, an award was passed in respect of the acquired lands. But, for an extent of 0-72-11 hectares in R.S. No. 43/4A and 0-72-42 hectares in R.S. No. 43/4B, no compensation was given to the petitioners, as compensation was fixed only for the plot areas leaving out the common areas such as pathways and roads. The petitioners made detailed representations to the 4th respondent for grant of compensation for the entire extent of land acquired. However, the 3rd respondent, by the impugned order, has stated that the alleged road portions were treated as Government interests and therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation in respect of the same. Questioning the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. A detailed counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that while promoting the layout of their lands into many number of residential plots, the petitioners had demarcated road portions separately. Having demarcated the lands as road portions and having sold many plots by showing them as road portions, the claim of the petitioners for compensation in respect of those road portions, is absurd and bad in law. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the petitioners, while promoting the residential plots and fixing the price for those developed plots, would have charged for the road portions also, from the purchasers itself and handed over the same to the Municipalities for laying metal roads and therefore, they are not entitled to claim compensation in respect of the road portions. The 3rd respondent would state that if the lands had been acquired before the petitioners developed them into plots, their claim could have been considered. According to the 3rd respondent, once a piece of land is developed into residential plots with road portions, it is deemed that those road portions are vested with the Government and the land owner cannot claim any right over the road portions. Therefore, the claim for compensation in respect of the road portions by the petitioners is not maintainable and the writ petitions have got to be dismissed in limine.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the lands in question are not approved layouts. As long as they are not approved layouts, the petitioners are the owners of the entire land, except the lands that are sold to third parties. It may be true that the petitioners might have collected money from the purchasers in respect of the road portions stating that they are demarcated for the purpose of laying metal roads by the Municipalities. But, there are no documents to show that the petitioners had collected money from the purchasers. Since the lands in question are not approved layouts, the Government will have to pay compensation even for those areas that are demarcated for the purpose of laying metal roads. At the time of approving the layout, there is every chance of the Municipality or other authorities changing the road structure. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners have demarcated the road portions. The land acquisition proceedings is in respect of the entire extent of land and the Government cannot isolate those areas that are sold as residential plots or identified as residential plots and pay compensation for the same and deny compensation for other portions. Taking note of the arguments advanced by both parties, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for the entire extent of land less the lands that are identified as housing plots. To make it clear, compensation has to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners for the areas that are earmarked as public places/roads, as the petitioners are entitled to the same. The compensation shall be paid on par with the compensation paid in respect of other portions of the land and the amount shall be disbursed either to the petitioners or to the purchasers, who have purchased the lands from the petitioners. The petitioners will have to establish that they were having valid title on the date of 4(1) notification and on the date of the award. The respondents are directed to work out the compensation and pay the same to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed with the above direction. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed.
22.07.2014 nv To
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-
Sub Collector, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry.
4. The Tahsildar, Department of Survey and Land Records, Land Acquisition Wing, Puducherry.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
nv W.P. Nos. 4805 & 4806 of 2010 22.07.2014