Madras High Court
K.Venkatesan vs The Collector Of Vellore District on 11 January, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.20760 of 2002
1.K.Venkatesan
2.Shanthi ... Petitioners
(P2 is represented by her
power of attorney agent P1)
vs.
1.The Collector of Vellore District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009.
2.The Deputy Collector of Vellore District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009.
3.The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways,
Vellore-632 009.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer
& Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the fourth respondent's culminating in the Award Ref.No.A2 11752/76, dated 07.12.1982 and quash the same in respect of wrong name appeared in the impugned award and to direct the fourth respondent to insert/correct/substitute the petitioner's father name in the said Award in respect of the lands covered under Town Survey No.72/2 and situated at North Vellore, North Arcot District as detailed in the Schedule to the writ petition for amendment consequently further direct the respondents 3 and 4 to refer the same under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Civil Court for the purpose of determination of exact market market value as on date of Section 4(1) notification in respect of the entire lands as detailed hereunder:-
Town Survey & Patta Nos.
Extent in sq.ft.
61/1A Patta No.800
0-565
61/2A Patta No.800
0-346
2986/1 Patta No.800
0-1481
72/2
0-19,075 (out of total extent of 33,985 sq.ft.,)
Total extent
0-21,467 sq.ft.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, A.G.P.
* * * * *
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Award Ref.No.A2 11752/76, dated 07.12.1982, passed by the fourth respondent in respect of wrong name appeared therein and to direct the fourth respondent to insert/correct/substitute the name of the petitioner's father in the said Award in respect of the lands covered under Town Survey No.72/2, situated at North Vellore, North Arcot District as detailed in the Schedule to the writ petition for amendment and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to refer the same under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Civil Court for the purpose of determination of exact market value as on date of Section 4(1) notification in respect of the entire lands as detailed hereunder:-
Town Survey & Patta Nos.
Extent in sq.ft.
61/1A Patta No.800 0-565 61/2A Patta No.800 0-346 2986/1 Patta No.800 0-1481 72/2 0-19,075 (out of total extent of 33,985 sq.ft.,) Total extent 0-21,467 sq.ft.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners submit that the respondents 1 to 3 are requiring authorities, whereas the fourth respondent is acquiring authority for formation of 'National Highway' as per the request of the requisitioning authorities respondents 1 to 3 herein. The requiring and acquiring authorities acquired total extent of 20.84 Acres of irrigated, dry and wet lands for the formation of National Highway on behalf of the third respondent herein. An extent of 21,467 sq.ft., belonged to their father as follows:
Town Survey Extent in sq.ft.
61/1A 0-565 61/2A 0-346 2986/1 0-1481 72/2 0-19,075 (out of total extent of 33,985 sq.ft.,) Total extent 0-21,467 sq.ft.
Patta No.800 is already standing in the name of their late father for lands under Survey Nos.61/1A and 61/2A and 2986/1, which are purchased by their father under a registered sale deed bearing document No.84 of 1966, in the Sub Registrar's Office at Vellore. The finding of the fourth respondent is clearly indicating that those lands are belonging to their late father. The relevant portion of the Award reads as follows:
"These lands stand registered in the name of Thiru.Kuppusamy Mandiri in Patta No.800 separately. Kuppusamy is no more. Tmt.Lakshmi Ammal appeared for award enquiry on 23.02.1982 and gave statement. Thiru.Kuppusamy Naidu expired 7 years back. His wife has claimed compensation for T.S.No.2986/1, measuring 1481 sq.ft., on the ground that this land was purchased by her mother-in-law and that after the death of her mother-in-law, her husband was enjoying the land. During his lifetime, her husband mortgaged this land to one Thiru.Banu for Rs.3,000/-. However, she is cultivating the land. But, she has not produced any documents in support of her statement. No one appeared for award enquiry in respect of other T.S.Nos.61/1A and 61/2A."
3. Further, they submit that the fourth respondent has referred the matter to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, for determination only for the ownership of these lands under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference was assigned number as L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986 and ultimately held on 24.03.1986 in favour of the petitioners' mother Lakshmi Ammal stating that she alone is entitled for compensation for the entire lands of 2,392 sq.ft., covered under Patta No.800 and T.S.Nos.61/1A, 61/2A and 2986/1 as she is the legal heir of the deceased Kuppusamy, their late father. Subsequently, their mother Lakshmi Ammal died on 18.11.1992. During her lifetime, she claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre as compensation on the date of award enquiry. The relevant portion of the award reads as follows:
"During award enquiry Thirumathi.Lakshmi Ammal has claimed enhanced compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. But, she has not produced document in support of her claim. Hence, the request for enhanced compensation has not been considered."
While this being so, it is the duty of the enquiry officer/fourth respondent to refer the matter to Civil Court simultaneously under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of determination of ownership/title and enhancement of compensation.
4. They further submit that their father predeceased their mother and he died on 13.02.1975, whereas the Section 4(1) notification is promolgamated on 06.07.1977. Their mother is also an illiterate and as such she has not informed about these proceedings to them. One T.Janakiraman, a Teacher, who is one of the landowners in the said proceedings, brought us all these facts only in the middle of March, 2002. Since the first petitioner was aged 16 years and the second petitioner was aged 10 years, there was no possibility for them to know all these facts at that time. However, they have possessed all the documents such as Patta, sale deeds etc., which is already standing in favour of their Late father Kuppusamy. Hence, as Class-I legal heirs of their late parents, they are ultimately entitled to all the compensation amounts yet to be paid to their deceased parents for the acquired lands. So far as the land under T.S.No.72/2 is concerned, sale deeds stands in favour of Late.T.Chinna Kulandai Mandiri, who is none other than their grandfather vide Document No.1617 of 1964, dated 10.06.1964 and registered in the Sub-Registrar's office at Vellore. But, in the Award it was mentioned that one Govindaraja Mandiri as Pattadar, which is utter falsehood and even false to the knowledge of the fourth respondent on the face of records ie., Section 4(1) notification. Section 4(1) notification indicates their father's name while in the award it is wrongly indicating that one Govindaraja Mandiri alone as Pattadar, which is purely an error apparent on the face of the records. Their grandfather T.Chinnakulanthai Mandhri's land is also subjected in land acquisition of an extent of 19,075 sq.ft., in the same Survey No.72. Likewise an extent of 14,910 sq.ft., is also subjected in land acquisition in the same Survey No.72, in other words, both the Pattadhars' names appeared in the award in respect of their respective lands. But, due to oversight, Mr.Govindaraja Mandiri's name alone appeared in the award proceedings.
5. Further, they submit that the draft notification is preferred from the particulars of the revenue records. Likewise, the award is preferred from the particulars of the notification. While so, one Govindaraja Mandiri's name appeared in the Award instead of their father's name C.Kuppusamy Mandiri which is purely a clerical error on the part of the fourth respondent. Hence, it is just and necessary that the award is to be amended suitably in confirmation with notification under Section 13A of the Act. Because, Govindaraja Mandiri's name alone appeared in the award is nothing but purely a clerical error, whereas their grandfather predeceased their father and hence the acquired land an extent of 19075 sq.ft., is standing in the name of their late father C.Kuppusamy Mandiri in the same Survey No.72. In other words, their father's name and Govindaraja Mandiri's names have to appear in the award proceedings. Therefore, the award containing the Govindaraja Mandiri's name alone is nothing but purely a clerical error and can be rectified. Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act is extracted hereunder:
13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. -
(1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority:
Provided that no correction, which is likely to affect prejudicially any person, shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter.
6. They further submit that as per Section 13A, all the corrections have to be done within six months from the date of Award ie., 07.12.1982 and as such the last date for amendment on application is 07.06.1983. Their mother is an illiterate and their father predeceased their mother and their grandfather T.Chinnakulandhai Mandari predeceased their father and hence their mother has not made her application on time. As an uneducated woman, she was unable to understand the contents of the award and other allied proceedings. Therefore, non-application of mind by their mother for correction of the award is neither willful nor wanton, but due to the bona fide reasons as stated above. They are not a party to the award, but they are the legal heirs of the landowner in the above matter. Therefore, they are entitled for the relief under Section 13A of the Act from the date of their knowledge through another landowner, whose land was also subjected for acquisition. Therefore, their claim under Section 13A for amendment of the Award is to be treated within the time limit as prescribed in the said Section. If the amendment is not ordered, they will be prejudiced seriously and will face heavy monetary loss of compensation. On the other hands, the respondents will not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever as they are bound to pay compensation for the acquired lands from their ancestors. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
7. The fourth respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that an extent of 20.84 Acres in Survey No.197/1 of North Vellore Village, Vellore Taluk, were acquired for formation of Bye Pass Road by the National Highways during 1982 for which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet was the Land Acquisition Officer, as Vellore Taluk was a part of Ranipet Division. Since the formation of a separate division at Vellore from 01.10.1989, Vellore Taluk has become a part of this Division and as such the cases relating to Vellore Taluk have come under the administrative control of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore. The following details of Town Survey numbers and the extent of land acquired and claimed as their property in the writ petitions, were acquired in the above award proceedings for the purpose stated already:
Town Survey Extent in sq.ft.
61/1A 565 61/2A 346 1986/1 1481 72/2 19075 out of 33,985 sq.ft., Total extent 21,467 sq.ft.
8. Further, he submits that in this case, 4(1) notification for the said land acquisition was notified on 06.07.1977 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In furtherance of the Act as per stipulations, draft declaration under Section 6 and draft direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on 18.06.1980. Before passing of the Award, an enquiry was conducted on 23.02.1982 by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet. The claims and objections were recorded during the course of enquiry and the final phase of acquisition processes and the award proceedings were ordered on 07.12.1982 by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet. At the time of enquiry, one Lakshmi Ammal claiming to be the wife of Kuppusamy Mandiri appeared and preferred claim over the land in T.S.No.2986/1, measuring 1481 sq.ft., only on the ground that the above land was purchased by her mother-in-law and that after the death of her mother-in-law, her husband was enjoying the said land. During the course of enquiry, she stated that her husband Kuppusamy Mandiri expired 7 years back. Her husband mortgaged the said land to one Banu for Rs.3,000/- during his life time. But, however, she was cultivating the said land. She had not produced any documentary evidence for the land in question in support of her claims. As could be seen that as per the Award proceedings, no one had appeared for award enquiry in respect of T.S.Nos.62/1A and 61/2A. It has been observed in the Award proceedings that the above lands in Survey Nos.61/1A, 61/2A and 2986/1 stood in the name of Kuppusamy Mandiri in Patta No.800 in the Village accounts. Under the above circumstances and in the absence of death certificate, legalheir certificate, documentary evidence etc., from the said Lakshmi Ammal, the Land Acquisition Officer could not decide the ownership of these lands and hence the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for finalization of ownership and the compensation amount of Rs.632.65 was deposited in the Sub Court, Vellore. This was later on assigned as L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986.
9. He further submits that however, during the Award enquiry, Lakshmi Ammal had claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.1 = lakhs per Acre, but she had not produced any documentary evidence in support of her higher claim. It had also been observed that the request for enhanced compensation was not considered and this fact was incorporated in the award proceedings and intimated accordingly. During the course of enquiry, it was brought to notice that the Patta of the land in T.S.No.72/2 stood registered in the names of Govindaraj Mandiri and Kanagasundari Ammal in Patta No.792 in the Village accounts. As Govindaraj Mandiri was no more, his wife Kanchana Ammal appeared for Award enquiry on 23.02.1982 and stated that her husband had purchased the said land. She had not produced any document in support of her right over the land. She had however demanded enhanced compensation of Rs.1 = lakhs per Acre without producing sufficient documents in support of her claim for enhanced compensation. As such, her claim was also observed as not been considered. In this case also, in the absence of her non-production of documentary evidence in support of her claim over the land, the ownership could not be decided and the compensation amount of Rs.8,989/- was ordered to be deposited in the Subordinate Court, Vellore, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. One Kanagasundariammal, wife of Jeevarathinam said to be the owner of the remaining portion in the above T.S.No.72 was also observed in the Award proceedings that she had not appeared and preferred any claim over the land before the Land Acquisition Officer. In such circumstances, the Land Acquisition Officer could not decide the ownership and therefore the case was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of ownership and the compensation amount has been deposited in the Sub Court, Vellore.
10. Further, he submits that the petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Kuppusamy Mandiri, who is said to be their father and original land owner of S.Nos.61/1A, 61/2A and 2986/1 and 72/2 (Part). The said Kuppusamy died on 13.02.1975. They have also stated that their mother Lakshmi Ammal, wife of Kuppusamy Mandiri also died on 18.11.1992. Being the legal heirs of the above land owners, they have stated that the matter of land acquisition and other related matters were only brought to their knowledge in the middle of March 2002 through one T.Janakiraman, a Teacher and Co-landowner in the above land acquisition and that the lands belonging to their parents were acquired for the formation of new Bye-Pass Road. The ownership of the lands was already determined in the Subordinate Court, Vellore, in favour of the petitioners' mother Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.1986 as per L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986 referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and that she was entitled for compensation for an extent of 3282 sq.ft., covered under Patta No.800. As far as T.S.No.72/2 is concerned, the Patta, which was being registered in the name of Govindaraj Mandiri was an error and that was not an exclusive entry and that the name of their father Kuppusamy Mandiri being the enjoyer, who was enjoying the ancestral property of his grandfather Chinnakulandai Mandiri, had been omitted. They pleaded for carrying out the corrections in the award and hence they filed this writ petition stating that in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986 it had been decided in favour of their mother Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.1986 itself by the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. Therefore, as per the Land Acquisition Act, any correction in respect of Survey Number, extent, ownership and the claim of compensation should be made in writing and presented before the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of six months from the date of passing of the Award. In the present case, the claimant or the LAOP awarded had not made any attempt as stipulated above for making the required corrections and inclusions and also make any claim for enhanced compensation etc. There had been a long gap of 20 years. Under such circumstances, it is stated that there are no provisions for complying with the request put-forth by the petitioners at this belated stage.
11. He further submits that the Land Acquisition Officer in this case had followed necessary procedures, as stipulated in the Land Acquisition Act, starting from publications of 4(1) notification to 6 and 7 and also during the conduct of enquiry towards claims, inclusions, inadequacies and justifications thereon and passed Award proceedings with factual of the case as prescribed and provided for. In this case, Lakshmi Ammal appeared for enquiry held on 23.02.1982 and enquired in respect of T.S.No.2986/1 only. There had been no claim made for T.S.No.61/1A and 61/2A apparently as per the Award proceedings. It is not correct that in so far as it has been putforth by the petitioners themselves that the determination of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986 on 24.03.1986 in the Subordinate Court, Vellore, was in favour of Lakshmi Ammal, their mother and it was there that she had failed to state her claim and receive the amount of compensation for the lands claimed for, and preferred claim under Section 18 for enhanced compensation within one month's time as stipulated. She had also not made any attempt in this regard till her death on 18.11.1992 in her capacity as the awardee of the land acquisition original petition case. As such no reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act could be made from the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, in the absence of any claim made after determination of ownership and entitlement conferred thereon within one month from the date of finalization of LA.O.P., case under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under these circumstances, the question for consideration of enhanced compensation does not arise.
12. Further, he submits that the plea of the petitioners that their mother was illiterate and they were of ages 16 and 10 at that time of Award etc., does not sustain the issue. Their pleading of ignorance of the said acquisition proceedings could not be an excuse. The title over the lands could have been perfected soon after the determination of the L.A.O.P., dated 24.03.1986 and within a month's time thus providing for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation as required. It is therefore impressed that it is out of question at this juncture. Neither the petitioners' mother herself had come forward to make claim of compensation amount deposited in the Sub Court, Vellore, nor the present legal heirs being the writ petitioners. As such any correction or inclusion as requested for by the petitioners is not possible as per rules at this stage. In the present case, as aforesaid, there has been a total failure on the part of the petitioners' mother, to take all claims after the decision of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1986 on 24.03.1986. As such, as admitted by the petitioners themselves, it is not possible for them to make their representation before the respondents as the entire circumstances have gone beyond their control as stated in the foregoing paragraphs. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act to condone the delay in preparing claims for making correction or incorporating omission in the Award proceedings and making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement beyond the stipulated time. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
13. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.Prakash appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are absolute owners of the property, but they have not been paid compensation. The highly competent counsel requested for direction to the fourth respondent to refer the matter to a civil Court for determination of exact market value. Further, the property was standing in the name of the petitioner's father.
14. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan appearing for the respondents submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings against the original owner as per the records. Accordingly, the award had been passed.
15. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers, this Court grants liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representation along with copy of the title deeds pertaining to the subject matter of the lands to the fourth respondent herein and after receipt of the said representation, the fourth respondent has to dispose the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
16. In the result, the above writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
11.01.2013
(=)
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
To:
1.The Collector of Vellore District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009.
2.The Deputy Collector of Vellore District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009.
W.P.No.20760 of 2002
3.The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways,
Vellore-632 009.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer
& Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009.
11.01.2013
(1/2)