Madras High Court
N.Venugopal vs The District Collector on 31 October, 2020
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 17.08.2021
PRONOUNCED ON: 25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos. 18130, 18548, 18620, 19566, 19571 and 19574 of 2020
W.P.Nos. 532, 556, 502, 513, 523, 1849, 542, 549 and 554 of 2021
And
W.M.P.Nos. 23094, 23092, 24184, 24188, 22988, 24194, 22994 and 22523
of 2020
W.M.P.Nos. 574, 588, 606, 2085, 595, 602, 608, 2084, 577 and 582 of
2021
N.Venugopal ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 18130 of 2020
1. Thomas Innaiah Prabhu P.C,
2. P.C.Singaraj ... Petitioners in W.P.No. 18548 of 2020
1. C.Regeenal
2. R.Rickson Raj
3. R.Regila Rex
4. Maria Rosa ... Petitioners in W.P.No. 18620 of 2020
R.Pramila ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 19566, 19571 & 19574 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
V.Sundaramoorth ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 502 & 513 of 2021
N.A.Vathchala ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 523 of 2021
V.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 532 of 2021
T.S.Arumugam ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 542 of 2021
R.M.Elango ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 549 & 554 of 2021
A.Natarajan ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 556 of 2021
N.A.Francis Xavier ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 1849 of 2021
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Oragadam Industrial Park Road
Infrastructure Scheme
Ramanuja Nagar
Sriperumbudur 602 105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3
4. The Chief Engineer (General
Highways Department
Integrated Chief Engineers Office Complex
76, Sardar Patel Road,
Little Mount, Guindy
Chennai – 600 025.
... Respondents in W.P.Nos. 18130, 18548, 18620, 19566,
19571 & 19574 of 2020 and 523, 532, 542, 549, 554, 556 &
1849 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
State Highways Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Oragadam Industrial Park Road
Infrastructure Scheme
Ramanuja Lane
Sriperumbudur 602 106
Kancheepuram District.
5. The Chief Engineer (General
Highways Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4
6. The Divisional Engineer – II,
TNRSP-II, Highways Department,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
... Respondents in W.P.Nos. 502 and 513 of 2021
Prayer in W.P.No. 18130 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1568A/2C1 part
subdivided as S.No. 1568A/5 to an extent of 210 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur
Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 18548 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioners in
S.No. 1568A/2C3B part subdivided as S.No. 1568A/7 to an extent of 187
sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 18620 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioners in
S.No. 1587/1A to an extent of 950 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 19566 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1587/1B part subdivided as S.No. 1587/8 to an extent of 1410 sq.mtr
Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 19571 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1562B/1 part subdivided as S.No. 1562B/1A to an extent of 657
sq.mtr in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 19574 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1564B/3 part subdivided as S.No. 1564B/3 to an extent of 750 sq.mtr
in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 502 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner
comprised in S.No. 1585B/2A3 part subdivided as S.No. 1585B/4 to an
extent of 30 sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 513 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner
comprised in S.No. 1567B/2 to an extent of 50 sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur
Village, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 523 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1568A/2C3A pt.subdivided as S.No. 1568A/8 to an extent of 200
sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 532 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1564B/2D pt.subdivided as S.No. 1564B/2D to an extent of 400
sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 542 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1571B/1A2 pt. subdivided as S.No. 1571B/25 to an extent of 332
sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10
Prayer in W.P.No. 549 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1564B/1D to an extent of 100 sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village and
Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 554 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1564B/2A to an extent of 100 sq.mtr, Sriperumbudur Village and
Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11
Prayer in W.P.No. 556 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1570/3B1 subdivided as S.No. 1570/27 to an extent of 170 sq.mtr,
Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
Prayer in W.P.No. 1849 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by
the third respondent in Award No. 01/2020 dated 31.10.2020
Na.Ka.No.10/2010/A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements
required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 as well as
Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)
and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in
S.No. 1568A/2C2 subdivided as S.No. 1568A/6 to an extent of 217 sq.mtr,
Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12
For Petitioners in
all W.Ps. : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents in
all W.Ps. : Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
By consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, a common order is passed in all the Writ Petitions.
2. All these writ petitions have been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the common Award No. 1 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent with respect to the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners herein in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, in Kancheepuram District and the communication dated 06.11.2020 in Na.Ka.No. 10/2010/A issued by the third respondent.
3. The lands measuring to an extent of 28104 sq.mts in S.No. 1587/1A etc., in Sriperumbudur Village, were acquired for widening of the existing road from Singaperumal Koil to Sriperumbudur Road. Notification https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13 under Section 15(2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 was published in the Newspaper on 26.08.2009. Thereafter, notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 02.06.2010. The Government then issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 143, Highways Department dated 13.08.2012 reducing the width of the road from 60 mts to 50 mts. Consequently, the area under acquisition was reduced to 26416 sq.mts. A further notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act was issued on 12.05.2015. The writ petitioners herein received notices for payment of compensation for the lands acquired from each one of them as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the Act.
4. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have uniformly stated that they had attended the meeting in the office of the District Collector on 29.07.2016. It had been very specifically further stated that the District Revenue Officer, who presided over the meeting did not mention the estimated amount individually to each one of the petitioners but rather compelled all the petitioners to fill up a form and sign it for the purpose of a common award. It was informed to the petitioners that irrespective of the category of the land, the compensation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14 would be awarded at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.ft. The petitioners contend that the said value was very low and had been fixed arbitrarily by the respondents. Thereafter, notices under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the Act for enquiry on the common award was issued and the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 29.11.2018. The petitioners attended the enquiry. The petitioners however claim that they did not give their consent. As a matter of fact, they claim that proper enquiry was not conducted by the second and third respondents. The second and third respondents read out a statement for the value of the lands and it had been claimed in the affidavit that this led to chaos and confusion. The petitioners also claimed that they were not handed over any statement giving the basis of how value of the land was determined. It was stated that the meeting ended abruptly.
5. It had been further stated that the petitioners received a communication dated 06.11.2020 from the third respondent informing that a common award had been passed on 31.10.2020 and enclosing only one sheet of the common award, the first page containing the property taken up for acquisition and the second page containing the calculations for the common award. It had been claimed by the petitioners that the common https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15 award in entirety was not served on them and therefore, they did not know the actual reasons for arriving at the compensation amount as stated in the common award dated 31.10.2020.
6. The petitioners had therefore preferred the present Writ Petitions seeking to quash not just the award dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent but also the communication dated 06.11.2020 enclosing the calculation sheet of the common award of the third respondent.
7. Counter affidavits had been filed by the second respondent in which it had been sated that procedure as established by law and as recognised by law had been followed. The fact that notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act was published in the Daily Newspaper and notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette were stated. It was also pointed out that notices under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the said Act for enquiry on the common award was also served on the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the award No.10 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 was passed by the first respondent/District Collector, Kancheepuram District. Since the common award ran into 100 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16 pages and since the petitioners had already been informed about the estimated value for the acquisition to be paid as compensation, the specific extract of the above relating to calculation of the award amount was served on each one of the petitioners.
8. It has also been stated that some of the writ petitioners had also accepted to receive the award amount and had given that fact in writing. It had therefore been stated that the petitioners having accepted the award, the present writ petitions cannot be maintained. It had also been stated that after the award had been passed, the petitioners should approach the competent authority to raise grievances against the award and that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
9. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
10. The grievance expressed by Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had been served only an extract of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17 the common award passed by the first respondent. This extract contained only the calculation portion. The basis or the reasoning for arriving at such calculation had not been served on the petitioners herein. The petitioners are not at all aware as to how and on what basis the award had been arrived at. The learned counsel therefore stated that the petitioners could not seek a reference to the Court for further determination of the award.
11. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government Advocate has produced the entire original records for perusal of the Court. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners have been served with an extract of the award for the lands acquired from each one of them. This calculation statement according to the learned counsel was self explanatory and contained all the details which are required for determining the award amount. The learned counsel pointed out that a reference to the Court should have been made by the petitioners and they could have vented their grievances before the said jurisdictional Court. The learned counsel urged that these Writ Petitions are not maintainable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18
12. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and also the records produced.
13. The records produced reflect that the notices have been served on each one of the petitioners with respect to the award enquiry as contemplated under the various stages of acquisition. Notices had been served under Section 19(2) of the said Act. The meeting was held in the Office of the District Collector on 29.07.2016. It was presided by the District Revenue Officer. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that chaos and confusion prevailed during the said meeting but however they have not chosen to raise that grievance at the earliest instance.
14. Further, notices as contemplated under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the Award was also served on the writ petitioners on 12.11.2018. The meeting was held on 29.11.2018. There is no record to show that the petitioners gave representations or objections. The respondents have therefore followed the requisite procedure to the limited extent, they can do so. There is no charge of mala fide against the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19
15. The first respondent after due consideration of the entire materials had passed a common award dated 31.10.2020. However, the records show that an extract alone had been served on each one of the petitioners, and the entire award copy had not been served on the petitioners. The extracts were served by communication dated 06.11.2020. Records are available for receipt of the same by the writ petitioners.
16. The normal procedure to be adopted next if the award is not acceptable is to seek reference to the Court for further determination of the award. The petitioners have not taken up that course but have rather filed the present writ petitions.
17. I would agree with Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the petitioners, even though some of them had accepted the common award, are still entitled for individual copies of the entire award. Their lands had been acquired by the Government. They must be served with the award which would reflect that the lands were acquired, the purpose for which the lands were acquired, and the basis on which the value of the lands were estimated for compensation, the total amount of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20 compensation actually determined and the reasons for such determination. These are all facts which each one of the petitioners would certainly like to know whether they accept the award or they seek reference to the Court for further determination of the award. At any rate, a copy of the award in entirety must be served on the writ petitioners herein.
18. The stand taken by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government Advocate that since the award ran to 100 pages, it was not possible to serve a copy on each on of the writ petitioners has to be rejected since valuable land had been taken by the respondents and the common award must be served on each one of the petitioners. The petitioners also have a right to examine as to how their lands had been valued. They require reasons as to the basis on which the value of the land was determined. They require to also know the negative factors which affected the compensation amount. These are all factors which each one of the petitioners have a right to know and that can be done only when a copy of the award in entirety is served on the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21
19. However, the award cannot be set aside on the ground that it had not been served on the petitioners.
20. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Trustees of the Will of A.H. Wadia, reported in 1956 SCC OnLine Bom 141 : (1956) 58 Bom LR 766, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had stated as follows:-
“2. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer, as has often been said, is nothing more than an offer. It is open to the person whose lands are being acquired to accept that offer or he may not accept that offer and claim a reference to the Court. By claiming a reference to the Court and going to the Court he challenges the fairness of the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, and to the extent that he challenges the award he is in the position of a plaintiff and the burden is upon him to satisfy the Court that the award made is not a proper or a fair award.”
21. In Union of India v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22 6 SCC 454 at page 455, it had been stated as follows:-
“2. The award of the Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and, therefore, under law, the State cannot question the correctness of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State is bound by the same.”
22. It is thus seen that the award passed is only an offer. This has to be served in entirety to enable the person whose lands had been acquired to take a decision to either accept the offer or claim a reference to the Court.
This decision can be taken only when the reasons for arriving at the compensation given in the award are disclosed. In this case, the petitioners have not been served with the award in entirety. They are entitled for the same.
23. In Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado, (2004) 7 SCC 431 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 868 at page 436, it had been observed as follows:-
“12. Even in respect of administrative orders https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23 Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 :
(1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed: (All ER p. 1154h) “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24 judicial performance.”
24. I would therefore direct a fresh copy of the award dated 31.10.2020 to be served on each one of the petitioners herein even if they had accepted the award and had accepted to receive the award amount. The respondent is under obligation to serve a copy of the award in its entirety on each one of the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioners may take a decision whether to accept the award or to proceed further in the manner known to law within the time prescribed period from the date of receipt of a copy of the award in entirety as aforesaid directed.
25. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of without interfering with the award dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
25.08.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsg To https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 25
1. The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2. The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme Ramanuja Nagar Sriperumbudur 602 105.
4. The Chief Engineer (General Highways Department Integrated Chief Engineers Office Complex 76, Sardar Patel Road, Little Mount, Guindy Chennai – 600 025.
5. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu State Highways Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 26 vsg
6. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme Ramanuja Lane Sriperumbudur 602 106 Kancheepuram District.
7. The Chief Engineer (General Highways Department Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
8. The Divisional Engineer – II, TNRSP-II, Highways Department, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
Pre-delivery order made in W.P.Nos. 18130, 18548, 18620, 19566, 19571 and 19574 of 2020 W.P.Nos. 532, 556, 502, 513, 523, 1849, 542, 549 and 554 of 2021 And W.M.P.Nos. 23094, 23092, 24184, 24188, 22988, 24194, 22994 and 22523 of 2020 W.M.P.Nos. 574, 588, 606, 2085, 595, 602, 608, 2084, 577 and 582 of 2021 25.08.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/