Madras High Court
Malaini Krishnamoorthy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 December, 2015
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Rev.Aplc.No.250 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.11175 of 2014 Malaini Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner / Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Highways Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Collector of Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Chengelpet Division Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District 4.The Tahsildhar Tiruporur Taluk Tiruporur Kancheepuram District 5.The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chengelpet Division Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District 6.The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C & M) Highways Department Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District 7.Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC) rep.by its Managing Director No.171, II Floor, Tamilnadu Maritime Board Building South Kesava Perumalpuram Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai-600 028 ... Respondents / Respondents PRAYER : Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order, dated 02.09.2015, passed in W.P.No.11175 of 2014, on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Prem Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Karthikeyan Government Advocate for R1 to R6 Mr.M.Sivavarthanan for R7 O R D E R
Reserved on : 30.10.2015 Pronounced on : 15.12.2015 The petitioner has filed this review application to review the Order, dated 02.09.2015, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.11175 of 2014.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.11175 of 2014, seeking a writ of declaration to declare that the land acquisition proceedings, initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of her land situated at Plot No.6A, measuring 3600 sq.ft., comprised in Survey No.73 Part of Thiruvidanthai Village (formerly Semmancherry Village), Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, by Order dated 02.09.2015, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the purpose for which the subject matter of land had been acquired, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is of paramount importance to the welfare of the general public.
3. The petitioner has submitted that after dismissal of the writ petition, she had collected more particulars, with regard to payment of compensation, from the third respondent, under Right to Information Act. As per the report submitted by the third respondent, compensation amount has not been paid to the land owners. As per the settlement register and adangal extract, as on date, she is in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter of land and the said land has not been vested with the Government and from 1987 till date, the possession of the subject matter of lands have not at all been interfered or disturbed. Furthermore, there is no proper entry in the revenue records stating that the subject matter of land had been acquired by the Government. As per Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer or compensation has not been paid, the proceedings under which the subject matter of land was acquired, shall be deemed to have lapsed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this review application to review the earlier Order, dated 02.09.2015, passed by this Court.
4. The seventh respondent, namely, Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC) has filed an affidavit stating that the Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to widen the East Coast Road and accordingly acquired lands. The said acquisition proceedings were completed during 1995. During 2000, the Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to improve the facilities in the stretch of East Coast Road from Km 22/300 to Km 135/500, measuring about 113.2 Km so as to provide world class amenities to the road users and passed G.O.Ms.No.26, Highways (HV2) Department, dated 11.02.2000, handing over the stretch of road to them and appointed them as Concessionaire for thirty years.
5. Further, the seventh respondent has submitted that the Union of India, by orders dated 22.03.2000 and 06.06.2000, had permitted the Government of Tamil Nadu to widen the East Coast Road by laying bituminous hard shoulders of 1.75 meter on each side of the road upto Mahabalipuram and brick/paver block/gravel shoulder for the remaining reach and allowed for acquisition of land upto an extent of 20 meters width for realignment of critical curves. In view of the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.215, Highways (HV2) Department, dated 13.12.2000, had approved the concession agreement to be entered with them to improve, operate and maintain the above said stretch of East Coast Road for thirty years and they were also authorised to demand, collect, retain and appropriate tolls from users of the project road and apply the same to recover the costs and returns thereof. Accordingly, they have entered into a concessionaire agreement, on 22.12.2000, with the Government and since then the aforesaid stretch of land is under their control and maintenance.
6. The seventh respondent has further submitted that, pursuant to the agreement dated 13.12.2000, they have developed the then existing East Coast Road into a scenic, world class road with various amenities such as blacktopping on the existing road with paved shoulder, strengthening the earthen shoulder, improving the acute curves in Km 91/000 to 109/000, improving of embankments with turfing, improving roads from ECR to Ayapakkam, closing drainage with foot path, improving minor and major bridges, highway patrolling, planting of trees and shrubs with scenic appearance, cautionary and information boards, marking of central line of road and erecting toll plaza for collection of tolls from the road users and put the developed road for public use from February, 2002.
7. Further, the seventh respondent has submitted that after the development of East Coast Road, as stated above, number of road users and traffic movement have been increased along E.C.R, and as a result of the same numerous accidents happened in the past ten years. There are certain curves along the E.C.R., which are prone to road accidents. Hence, considering the future traffic projections at different locations and numerous accidents happened in the past, they have proposed remedial measures to reduce the accidents, such as divided carriage way, geometrical improvements, centre median, proper super elevation, extra widening at 13 sharp curved portion, controlled pedestrian crossing, adequate foot paths, intersection improvements and provision for service road. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.113, Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department, dated 15.07.2013 accorded administrative sanction to them for widening the East Coast Road as four lane road from Km 22/300 to Km 55/800, including improvements at 13 curved stretches and seven junctions along the stretch between Km 55/800 and Km 135/500 and permitted them to continue as the concessionaire.
8. The seventh respondent has further submitted that the Chennai City has been expanded upto Kanathur and hence the suburbs upto Mahabalipuram has a vast development, which has raised the necessity to widen the two lane road into four lane road to prevent ever occurring accidents and to give trouble-free traffic. By widening the East Coast Road with center median, lives of the local inhabitants would be saved from road accidents and the survey taken from the year 2008 has substantiated the requirement to widen the East Coast Road from Km 22/300 to Km 55/800.
9. Further, the seventh respondent has submitted that when such being the factual position, writ petitions had been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of the acquired lands in Km 36/000 36/206 RHS, where the lands had already been acquired for the aforesaid purpose during 1995 itself, which had been found absolutely necessary for completing the said road project. The lands, measuring about 3.86 Acres and 3.87 Acres, comprised in Survey Nos.73/1B and 73/3 respectively, originally belonged to the petitioners in W.P.No.12909 of 2014. Out of the said total extent of land, 0.29.0 Hectares and 0.23.5 Hectares of lands respectively were acquired for the purpose of widening of East Coast Road during 1995 itself. Since the land owners did not attend award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer had deposited the award amount in revenue deposit. The award amount was not yet claimed by the original land owners, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.12909 of 2014.
10. The seventh respondent has further submitted that the subsequent purchasers from the original land owners herein had filed writ petitions, before this Court, under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013) and ultimately the original land owners, on whose name, the award amount was deposited, had also filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.12909 of 2014. The subsequent purchasers, who filed writ petitions, as stated above, are as follows:
i. M/s.Cee Dee Yes Housing & Infrastructure Ltd., (W.P.No.8487 of 2014), ii. D.Prabhu (W.P.No.10123 of 2014), iii. P.Vijaychand and V.Asha (W.P.No.11174 of 2014), iv. Malini Krishnamoorthy (W.P.No.11175 of 2014), v. V.V.S.Kashyap (W.P.No.111746 of 2014) vi. Balasubramanian & Diwakar Rathinam (W.P.No.12909 of 2014)
11. Further, the seventh respondent has submitted that in all these writ petitions, the respondents 1 to 6 had filed their counter affidavit stating that except Balasubramanian and Diwakar Rathinam, the other names did not find place in the award copies and they did not have right to claim. Moreover, the original land owners did not attend award enquiry and hence the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation amount in revenue deposit. Accordingly, all these writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the original land owners of Survey Nos.73/1B and 73/3 were dismissed by this Court, on 02.09.2015 on the ground that compensation amount had been deposited in the name of the original owners of the property and hence the writ petitions do not have sufficient force to allow it.
12. The seventh respondent has further submitted that by widening the East Coast Road with center median, lives of the road users and local inhabitants would be saved from road accidents and the survey taken from the year 2008 has substantiated the requirement to widen the East Coast Road from Km 22/300 to Km 55/800. In such circumstances, if any of the provisions of the project is curtailed for want of lands, in any particular stretch, it would lead to accidents as well as repercussions in the other stretches also. Ultimately, the purpose of widening would be nullified without adequate provisions executed. Therefore, the lands acquired during 1995 for the purpose of converting the two lane road into four lane road are completely required for the project in the larger interest of public. Already a portion of the acquired lands was utilized during 2000 and now the remaining portion is required for the said purpose.
13. Further, the seventh respondent has submitted that the said project has been carried out of public money and it is an ongoing project and any hindrance to the project would affect the public exchequer. Since the East Coast Road runs through Corporation area and sub-urban area, which have been heavily built up having lot of tourism points throughout the stretch, it got ultimate importance and all the acquired lands have been found absolutely necessary. Having future development in mind, on both sides, lands were acquired to 45.0 M total width during 1995 itself. Utilizing the lands acquired, the project has been taken up with 2 M centre median and on both sides 0.25 M shy away distance, 7.00 M carriage way, 1.50 M paved shoulder, 2.00 M divider, 5.50 M service road, 1.50 M closed drainage with foot path and 4.0 M for utility services, which come to a total width of 42.50 M, within the acquired width of 45 M. Hence, for all these reasons, they have prayed for dismissal of the review application.
14. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has argued the case, submitted a written submission along with a highlighted diagram, disclosed the factual current position of the case and prayed this Court to review the earlier order, dated 02.09.2015. In the written submission, the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition, in W.P.No.11175 of 2014, wherein the Order dated 02.09.2015, which has been sought to be reviewed, has been passed, relates to the landed property, situated at Plot No.6A, measuring about 3600 sq.ft., comprised in Survey No.73 Part of Thiruvidanthai Village (formerly Semmancherry Village), Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The said landed property originally belonged to Balasubramanian (first petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2014), Rathina Guruswamy (father of the second petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2014) and Rajapaul. They had entered into a Partition Deed, dated 04.08.1987, and by virtue of which an extent of 03.86 Acres in Survey No.73/1B and an extent of 03.87 Acres in Survey No.73, had been allotted as the share of Balasubramanian and Rathina Guruswamy respectively and they have obtained separate Pattas in their name for their respective share of the landed property. Subsequently, under a Settlement Deed, dated 13.06.2003, Rathina Guruswamy settled his portion, measuring about 03.87 Acres in Survey No.73, in favour of his son (second petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2014). Thus, Balasubramanian and Diwakar Rathinam (petitioners in W.P.No.12909 of 2014) became the owners of the landed property, measuring an extent of 03.76 Acres in Survey No.73/1B and an extent of 03.87 Acres in Survey No.73 respectively.
15. The petitioner has further submitted that during 2003, Balasubramanian and Diwakar Rathinam had formed a layout and got permission for construction of a Villa building in the said land. They had formed a layout by leaving sufficient space of 40 feet between the existing East Coast Road and the housing plot in the said layout and they had never parted with that land. Subsequently, the plots on the eastern side of the layout were sold to third parties, who are petitioners in W.P.Nos.10123, 11174, 11175, 11176 and 8487 of 2014 and they had also constructed a Villa in their respective plots by constructing a compound wall in the space left by them. There is sufficient space of about 47 feet from the road to the plot and 29 feet from the road in front of the main gate constructed in the compound wall in the said layout. The land, which is kept vacant in front of the plot, is still in the petitioner's possession. She has constructed a compound wall in the said vacant land between the East Coast Road and plots and she has never parted with the said land to any third party till date.
16. Further, the petitioner has submitted that the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2014 had cultivated casuarina in the said land ever since the date of partition till formation of layout and revenue records reflect the same. No notice of any acquisition has been served on the land owners and no one has interfered with their peaceful enjoyment of the said land. Even at the time of forming of the layout, the revenue records reflected the first petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2014 as the owner of the said land and there is no sign of any acquisition in the revenue records. No notice, either under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Highways Act, was served on the owners of the land in respect of the above alleged acquisition. If any crop is standing in the land to be acquired, the concerned authority has to give notice to the occupier / land owner, who cultivated the crops in the land and take possession in the presence of independent witness and get their signature on the Panchanamma. However, no notice was issued to the land owners thereof and the same had been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The above said proposition of law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 and Magnum Promoter Private Limited v. Union of India and others, reported in 2015 (3) SCC 327. Therefore, as per the revenue records, possession has not been taken over from the date of acquisition.
17. The petitioner has further submitted that on 27.12.2013, a notice was served by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (C & M), Chengelpet, on the watchman of her property by filling up his name in the notice. The said notice was to the effect that a portion of her property had already been acquired for widening in the East Coast Road and for converting it into a four lane road, compensation amount was about to be paid and called upon her to vacate the premises as if it constituted as an encroachment. Thereafter, she verified before the Assistant Divisional Engineer and made an oral representation that the notice was bereft of particulars such as the name of the owner, survey number under reference, description, extent of the property, particulars regarding the alleged acquisition and the relevant notification. Further, the person, who came and served the notice signed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer had only filled up the name of the Watchman as if he is the owner of the property. The Assistant Divisional Engineer directed her to approach the Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation, who executed the road widening work. On enquiry, the Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation had not furnished any particulars, but they had alleged that the land kept by the petitioner abutting the East Coast Road had been acquired under Notifications, dated 13.11.1992 and 30.11.1993, under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
18. Further, the petitioner has submitted that through an agent, she sought some information before the Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to the details of acquisition and compensation paid to the land owners. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by letter dated 25.03.2014, had replied that no compensation has been paid to the land owners for the land acquired in Survey Nos.73/1B and 73/3B and he had written letter to the Government to allot fund for payment of compensation to the land owners. Aggrieved by the said notice, she had filed the writ petition seeking the relief stated therein.
19. The petitioner has further submitted that in the alleged acquisition proceedings, no compensation was paid to the owners of the property or to the person interested for more than 20 years and physical possession was not taken. Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 reads as follows:
Section 24: Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
b) where an award under section 11 has been made, then, such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
20. Further, the petitioner has submitted that the Public Information Officers of the Revenue Divisional Office, in their letter, dated 25.03.2014, had admitted that no compensation has been paid to the land owners for the land acquired in Survey No.73 and the Revenue Divisional Officer has written letter to the Government to allot fund for payment of compensation to the land owners. Therefore, it is clear that no compensation amount has been paid till 25.03.2014. The said letter, dated 25.03.2014, is extracted hereunder:
jpUg;BghUh; tl;lk;, jpUtple;ij fpuhkk;, Block I kw;Wk; II fpHf;F flw;fiu rhiyf;F epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljw;F nHg;gPl;Lj; bjhif tHA;fpa tptuk; Bfhhp jpU.$p.bre;jpy;Bty; vd;gth; jfty; mwpa[k; rl;lj;jpd; fPH; kD bfhLj;Js;shh;.
1) jpUtple;ij fpuhkk;, Block I kw;Wk; II fpHf;F flw;fiu rhiyf;F epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljw;F nHg;gPl;Lj; bjhif Vjk; tHA;fg;gltpy;iy.
2) jpUtple;ij fpuhkk; g[y vz;.73/gp2, tp!;jPuzk; 0.73 brd;l; kw;Wk; g[y vz;.73/3gp tp!;jPuzk; 0.58 brd;l; fpHf;F flw;fiu rhiyf;F epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljw;F epy nHg;gPl;L bjhif Vjk; nJtiu tHA;fg;gltpy;iy. Epjp xJf;fPL Bfhhp muRf;F fojk; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ.
3) jpUtple;ij fpuhkk;, Block I kw;Wk; II fpHf;F flw;fiu rhiyf;F epy vLg;g[ bra;ag;gl;ljw;F epy nHg;gPl;Lj; bjhif Vjk; tHA;fg;gltpy;iy.
4) jpUtple;ij fpuhkk;, Block I kw;Wk; II fpHf;F flw;fiu rhiyf;F epy vLg;g[ bra;ag;gl;ljw;F epy nHg;gPl;Lj; bjhif Vjk; tHA;fg;gltpy;iy.
nizg;g[ Bkw;go bghJ jfty; mYtyh; kw;Wk; tUtha; Bfhl;l mYtyhpd; Beh;Kf cjtpahsh;, brA;fy;gl;L.
21. The petitioner has further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, on 28.08.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued a notice, dated 26.07.2015, under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act intimating the amount of compensation and calling upon the land owners to receive the compensation with relevant documents, failing which the compensation amount will be deposited before the court. From the said notice, it has been revealed that the compensation amount had never been paid to the land owners as on 26.07.2015. The said notice, dated 26.07.2015, is extracted hereunder:
njdhy; ne;j Behl;Orpy; fz;l jpUthsh;fs; jpU.ghyRg;gpukzpak; MfpBahUf;F bjhptpg;gJ vd;dbtd;why;, ne;j Behl;O!; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l 15 ehl;fSf;Fs; tUtha; Bfhl;lhl;rpah;, brA;fy;gl;L Kd;ghf Behpy; M$uhfp, Bkw;go epyk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l mry; gj;jpuk;, jha; gj;jpuk;, 30 Mz;LfSf;F tpy;yA;f rhd;W, mry; gl;lh kw;Wk; epyj;jpd; kPJ jA;fSf;Fs;s chpik bjhlh;ghd jA;fs; trKs;s nju MtzA;fs;, epue;ju tUkhd thp fzf;F vz; ml;il (PAN CARD) kw;Wk; urPJfSld; tUtha; Bfhl;lhl;rpah;, brA;fy;gl;L, vd;w Kfthpapy; tUtha; Bfhl;lhl;rpah; Kd;ghf M$uhfp MtzA;fis rkh;gpj;J nHg;gPl;L bjhiff;fhd gl;oaypy; ifbahg;gkpLkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. me;jg;go bra;a jtwpdhy; Bkw;go bjhifahdJ ePjpkd;w itg;gpy; itf;fg;gLk;. BkYk;, Bkw;go bjhifapy; tUkhd thpr;rl;lk; 194(A) kw;Wk; 194(1A)-d; fPH; tUkhdthp gpoj;jA;fs; bra;ag;gLk;.
Fwpg;g[:
epy chpikahsh;fs; jA;fSila FLk;g ml;il, tUkhdthp epue;ju fzf;F vz; ml;il (PAN CARD), thf;fhsh; ml;il (mry; kw;Wk; nuz;L efy;fs;) kw;Wk; tA;fp fzf;F vz; bjhlh;ghd MtzA;fs; tA;fp fzf;F g[j;jfk; Kd;gf;f efy; bjspthf fzf;F vz; bjhpa[k; tpjkhf bfhz;L tu Btz;Lk;.
Xk;/- nuh.gd;dPh;bry;tk;, tUtha; Bfhl;l mYtyh;, brA;fy;gl;L. //cj;jputpd;go// Beh;Kf cjtpahsh;
bgWeh;:
jpU.ghyRg;gpukzpak;
jpUtle;ij. Therefore, from the above said documents, dated 25.03.2014 and 26.07.2015, it has been revealed that the compensation amount has not been paid to the land owners for the alleged acquisition during 1992.
22. Further, the petitioner has submitted that the Supreme Court of India in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchan Misrimal Solanki and others, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 : 2014 (1) CTC 755, has held that if the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied viz., (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The extract of the said decision reads as follows:
10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned, it begins with non obstante clause. By this, Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed.
11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act.....
23. The petitioner has further submitted that the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Chengelpet Division, had filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.05.2014, stating that compensation amount had been deposited in the revenue deposit. But, he had neither stated when it had been deposited nor filed any document in order to prove the same. Even admitting the said deposit of compensation before the revenue deposit, the Apex Court has held in Harakchan Misrimal Solanki's case (cited supra), deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and it cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners / persons interested. The extract of the decision reads as follows:
20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
24. Further, the petitioner has submitted that for the reason of non-payment of compensation for the alleged land acquisition for more than 20 years and possession not having been taken from its owners, the entire acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014.
25. The petitioner has further submitted that in view of the public purpose involved in widening of the East Coast Road, she is ready and willing to give the vacant land lying between the plots and the East Coast Road without affecting the plot and the Villa building constructed therein. The alleged acquisition was initiated for formation of six way lane in the East Coast Road, however the respondents have decided to lay only four way lane and Government has also sanctioned amount only for the four way lane. The vacant land lying between the plots and the existing East Coast Road is more than enough to form four way lane along with the existing road and no land is required for the formation of four way lane beyond the plots. The Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation is not laying the road as alleged in their counter affidavit, instead they are laying 29 feet road from the centre median on either side. Already 29 feet road has been formed from the centre median on the opposite side and there is 16 feet existing road on the petitioners' land and 13 feet of land is only required to form 29 feet that too without affecting the buildings constructed in the plots. Furthermore, they have not laid any service lane in the East Coast Road.
26. Further, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10123, 8487, 11174, 11175 and 11176 of 2014, who had purchased part of the land in plots from the original land owners, have every right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings by stepping into the shoes of the original land owners if the compensation has not been paid to the original land owner. Further, the Apex Court has held that the subsequent purchasers' objection can also be taken into account in the acquisition proceedings and further allowed the appeal filed by the subsequent purchaser on the ground that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in Union of India vs. Shiv Raj and others; Vinod Kumar Kapur and others, reported in 2014 (6) SCC 564. The extract of the said decision reads as follows:
2. The facts and circumstances which have arisen in this appeal are that the land, the subject matter of the appeal, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980. The other persons whose land had also been acquired by the same notification had challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 by filing the writ petitions and its validity was upheld by the judgment and order dated 15.11.1983. It was during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings that the present appellant had purchased the land vide registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1985 and 24.5.1985. In respect of the same land, the Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report on 4.6.1985 on the objections made under Section 5A of the Act 1894 by the predecessor-in-interest and the same was accepted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 7.6.1985. In the year 1987-1988, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the land.
3. In respect of the same land covered by the same notification, various orders in various litigations pending before the High Court had been passed. The writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2004.
4. In view of the fact that the other land covered by the same notification and declaration had been the subject matter of various other writ petitions and particularly, the land belonging to one Geeta Devi, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4374 of 2009, the matter remained pending, thus, Review Petition etc. had been filed, which was dismissed on 27.7.2007.
5. It is evident from the orders passed by the High Court that it had granted stay of dispossession during the pendency of the writ petition as well as the review petition, though no interim order has been passed by this court. The respondent did not take possession of the land in dispute though award had been made in the year 1987-1988, and the High Court had decided against the appellant in the year 2007. Thus, a period of 7 years has lapsed without any stay of proceedings and yet no action has been taken by the respondents in pursuance to the award.
6. However, keeping in view the decision rendered in C.A. Nos. 5478- 5483 of 2014, this appeal is allowed in terms thereof. No order as to costs. In such circumstances, the writ petitions filed by the subsequent purchasers, challenging the acquisition proceedings, under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, are also maintainable. Hence, for all the reasons, the petitioner has prayed this Court to review the earlier Order, dated 02.09.2015, passed by this Court.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent has submitted the subject matter of lands have been acquired during 1995 in order to widen the East Coast Road, measuring about 113.2 Kms. Therefore, the subject matter of lands are absolutely necessary for widening the said road. Since the land owners did not attend the award enquiry, compensation amount had been deposited in the revenue deposit. The acquired subject matter of lands are absolutely necessary for widening of the East Coast Road in the larger interest of the public. Now, this purpose is gradually being implemented. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the review application and to confirm the earlier Order, dated 02.09.2015.
28. In reply, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has raised a pucca building in the subject matter of land. The rest of the vacant lands, lying between the plots and the existing East Coast Road, is more than enough for the formation of four lane road. Hence, beyond the plots, a part of the subject matter of land is not required for the said purpose. The respondents are laying road to a width of 29 feet from the center median on either side. Already 29 feet road has been formed from the centre median on the opposite side and there is 16 feet existing road on the petitioners' land and 13 feet of land alone is required to form 29 feet road that too without affecting the buildings constructed in the plots. Further, the seventh respondent has not formed any service lane in the East Coast Road. Therefore, there is no scope for the existing building being affected. However, the learned counsel has fairly admitted that in view of the general public usage involved in the widening of the East Coast Road, the petitioner is ready and willing to offer the vacant land between the subject matter of land and the East Coast Road, which is sufficient for the formation of four lane road without affecting the petitioner's constructed building. Further, the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure in constructing Villa building.
29. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the review petitioner has established the fact that sofar the compensation amount has not been paid to the land owners and the same has been confirmed from the Revenue Divisional Officer's report issued under Right to Information Act. As such, the review petitioner is entitled to receive remedy under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since compensation amount has not been paid and the possession of the acquired lands had not been taken over from the land owners. But, in the instant case, this Court has declined to grant the relief sought for, since the subject matter of land is absolutely necessary for the formation of four lane road. The petitioner is ready and willing to give the vacant land lying between the plot and the East Coast Road without affecting the plot and the Villa building constructed therein. This Court appreciates the petitioner for extending her cooperation for welfare of the general public. However, she is entitled to receive an adequate compensation from the respondents for the vacant land lying between the plots and the East Coast Road.
30. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either and on analyzing the current factual position, this Court holds that there is sufficient force in the review application to allow it in part and to direct the respondent to utilize the minimum requirement of vacant land lying in front of the petitioner's plot and East Coast Road and to discharge the rest of the land from the acquisition proceedings.
31. In the result, the review application is partly allowed and the Order, dated 02.09.2015, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.11175 of 2014, is modified to the extent as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.12.2015 (3/6) Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No krk To: 1.The Secretary, Highways Department, State of Tamil Nadu. Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Collector of Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chengelpet Division, Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District. 4.The Tahsildhar, Tiruporur Taluk, Tiruporur, Kancheepuram District. 5.The Divisional Engineer (Highways), Chengelpet Division, Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District. 6.The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C & M), Highways Department, Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District. 7.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC), No.171, II Floor, Tamilnadu Maritime Board Building, South Kesava Perumalpuram, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. C.S.KARNAN, J. krk Rev.Aplc.No.250 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.11175 of 2014 15.12.2015 (3/6)