Madras High Court
M/S.Omshakthy Realties Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.07.2024
Pronounced on : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.Nos.663, 667, 668, 670 & 671 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.690, 693, 694, 691, 700, 698, 684, 695, 697 & 692 of 2024
W.P.No.663 of 2024
M/s.Omshakthy Realties Pvt. Ltd
Rep by its Director N.R.Manigantam
No.N-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai – 600 032 .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
4.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
Phase I, Oragadam and Irungattukattai
Expansion Scheme, SIPCOT
Sriperumbudur
5.The Special Tahsildar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Oragadam Expansion Scheme
SIPCOT-Unit-1, Sriperumbudur
6.The Managing Director, SIPCOT,
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st Respondent relating to the notification under Section 3 (1)
of the Tamil Nadu acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act dated 20-
09- 2022 Published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Volume No.451 Vide
Proceedings No.Rc.No. S2/ 1416076/ 2021 and the consequential award dated
30.11.2023 in Award No.1/ 2023 passed by the 3rd respondent to acquire the
petitioners lands measuring 2.12 hectares or 5.24 acres for setting up of New
Sipcot Industrial Park at Thirumudivakkam Village Kundrathur Taluk in
Kancheepuram district out of the total extent of 12.66.3 hectares (or) 31.28
acres and quash the same as arbitrary and abuse of process and consequently
direct the respondents to proceed with acquisition as per G.O.Ms.No.200,
Industries (SIPCOT LA) Department dated 03.09.2020 in the same manner as
adopted in Phase I and Phase II at the same rate under Section 7(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
In all cases
For Petitioners : Mr.Vijaynarayanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Solomon Francis
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran for R1 to R5
Special Government Pleader
Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Palaniappan for R6
COMMON ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Commonality involved in all the writ petitions, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this Common Order.
2. These writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent relating to the notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act dated 20-09-2022 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Volume No.451 vide Proceedings No.Rc.No.S2/1416076/2021 and the consequential award dated 30.11.2023 in Award No.1/ 2023 passed by the 3rd respondent to acquire the respective petitioners' lands for setting up of New SIPCOT Industrial Park at Thirumudivakkam Village, Kundrathur Taluk in Kancheepuram District, quash the same consequently direct the respondents to proceed with acquisition as per G.O.Ms.No.200, Industries (SIPCOT LA) Department dated 03.09.2020 in the same manner as adopted in Phase I and Phase II at the same rate under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondents had approached the petitioners to acquire land to the extent of 82.15 acres in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Survey No.400/1A and adjacent survey numbers that belong to petitioners and others at Thirumudivakkam Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District for the purpose of developing an industrial area through SIPCOT. The lands were sought to be acquired by private negotiation under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act. The respondents had formulated and put up the proposal before the Government of Tamil Nadu for acquiring 82.15 acres in Survey No.400/1A and adjacent survey numbers that belong to petitioners and others at Thirumudivakkam Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District was accorded single administrative sanction on 03.09.2020 in G.O.Ms.No.200 (Industries Department) dated 03.09.2020 for proceeding for acquisition under private negotiation. The respondents proceeded with the land acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and have acquired the lands to an extent of 25.18 acres in Phase-I and an extent of 25.69 acres in Phase-II totalling to 50.87 acres in 2 phases and after deliberations by following the procedures under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act belonging to the petitioners and others. After negotiations, it was mutually agreed to fix Rs.1,46,93,750/- for the lands type wet lake irrigation single crop Type-I and Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the lands type of Wet Special Type-II as base sale value https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 under provisions of the Act 30 of 2013. After applying the multiplier and the solatium as per the Act 30 of 2013, the compensation price was fixed at Rs.4 crores per acre, award has been passed and amount has been disbursed to the petitioners.
4. Thereafter, the respondents also initiated the proceedings for acquisition of the balance extent of 31.86 acres, the third respondent called the petitioners for an enquiry with respect to Phase III, a negotiation was called and the petitioners had participated and it was mutually agreed to adopt the same value as fixed for the other two phases at Rs.4 crores per acre, the same was also recorded by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent made recommendation by a letter dated 29.09.2021 recommending the acquisition of land as done earlier in Phase I and II at Rs.4 crores per acre. In view of the same, the petitioners were under bonafide and legitimate expectation that the respondents would pay the very same amount and were ready and willing to execute required Form 7 as per Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2001. However, to their shock and dismay, the third respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.2022 unilaterally fixed a lower base value amount of Rs.73 lakhs per acre without adhering to the provisions or taking into consideration the acquisition of the land under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Phase I and II.
5. Under this background, the 5th respondent issued a notice dated 18.10.2022 to the petitioners for an enquiry on 02.11.2022 for determination of the market value, when there was a consensus reached already and the third respondent had also forwarded the fixation of the compensation value as Rs.4 crores per acre vide proceedings dated 29.09.2021. However, the second respondent unilaterally after a period of 12 months had returned the recommendations of the 3rd respondent stating that the acquisition of lands in Phase 3 should be done compulsorily under Section 7(3) of the Act and under 7(2) as contemplated under the administrative sanction and the recommendations of the 3rd respondent.
6. Hence, it is the contention of the writ petitioners that the second respondent was not empowered to return the proposal with recommendations as the entire proposal for acquisition was under a single administrative sanction. Based on the directions of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has proceeded to conduct enquiry under Section 7(3) of the Act not as per Section 7(2) as contemplated under the Government Order. The second respondent being a subordinate cannot usurp the powers of the higher authorities. It is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 impermissible as the decision of an authority cannot surpass and override the decision of the Government that has culminated into a Government Order. The petitioner has also challenged the 3(1) notification and subsequent notification dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.No.28759/2022 and the above writ petition was dismissed on 03.08.2023 holding that the respondents are at liberty to fix a date and time for the purpose of negotiations once again by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioners. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner is at liberty to attend the meeting and place all the facts and documents available with him for negotiations. The parties are at liberty to negotiate the issues under Section 7(2) of the Act and form a final opinion for determining the compensation to be settled. In the event of failure, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. All the disputed issues between the parties, if any, are kept open for negotiations to be held between the parties without causing any undue delay and in the public interest. The said meeting and negotiations are directed to be completed between the parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the petitioners to appear for enquiry for acquisition of land under Section 7(2) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 the Act on 08.09.2023. The petitioner and others appears for the enquiry and submitted their reply. The third respondent having conducted the enquiry did not take a decision. Strangely, the 3rd respondent issued another notice on 27.09.2023, calling upon the petitioners to attend enquiry under Section 7(3) of the Act. However, the award has been passed fixing the base value at Rs.73 lakhs per acre. The impugned award does not give a reason for the third respondent to proceed under Section 7(3) instead of Section 7(2), this is in total violation of G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 30.09.2020. Hence, sought for quashing the impugned order on the grounds that they are in violation of the Order of this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 and the third respondent has deviated and adopted from the method of acquisition by invoking Section 7(3) of the Act instead of Section 7(2) of the Act.
8. Common Counter has been filed by the third respondent, wherein, it is the stand of the third respondent that the petitioners have not given any objection neither at the time of 3(2) enquiry nor issuance of Form B, only after passing of the award, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions and hence, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The Award is passed strictly in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and Central Act 30 of 2013 and the petitioners can very well agitate before the Reference Court for determination of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 compensation. The award is passed in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 by providing hearing to the petitioners for negotiations and as the negotiations did not fructify, the respondents proceeded with the compulsory acquisition. Hence, opposed the writ petitions.
9. Mr.Vijayanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that for acquiring the lands in 82.15 acres for the purpose of developing an industrial area through SIPCOT, the Government has granted administrative sanction to enter private negotiations vide G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 30.09.2020. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the respondents have conducted private negotiations for Phase I and Phase II. The District Level Committee has recommended for compensation at Rs.4 crores per acre which has been approved by the State Level Committee and the Government has also approved and the amount has been paid. It is the contention that originally, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 has granted administrative sanction to enter private negotiation for the entire extent of 82.15 acres. Lands were acquired in the Phase I and II, however, for the remaining land, the District Level Committee has also initiated proceedings under private negotiations and adopted the earlier value accepted for Phase I https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 and II and forwarded it to the State Level Committee. Even after such recommendation, the third respondent has fixed the base value as Rs.73 lakhs per acre. It is the contention that when the administrative sanction is granted to enter private negotiation for the entire extent of land and the private negotiation is already taken place for Phase I and II and the District Level Committee has also recommended Phase 3 for the compensating with the same amount as fixed for the Phase I and II, now the Government is estopped from going back from the private negotiation, the same cannot be rescinded by either of the parties and it creates an estoppel between the parties.
10. The impugned award has been passed by the 3rd respondent by invoking Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, circumventing G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 is non est in law as the third respondent being a subordinate of the Government not being the Government cannot usurp the powers of the Government and unilaterally overrule and contradict a Government Order passed by the Government relating to acquisition of land under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and pass an award. Having made a recommendation for acquisition of the land under Section 7(2) relating to Phase – III on 29.09.2021 by private negotiation to be acquired at Rs.4 crores per acr, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 very same District Collector had ignored the recommendations and issued a draft award by invoking Section 7(3) of the Act by compulsory acquisition on 29.09.2022. The impugned award does not disclose any decision of the Government nor any reason for compulsory acquisition and dropping the acquisition under Section 7(2) by private negotiation. When the petitioners challenged the draft award on earlier occasion in W.P.No.28759 of 2022, the respondents had categorically stated that the notice will be issued to the private negotiation also. Despite the order of this Court, wherein, the respondents taken a stand that further opportunity will be given to private negotiations, however, now, the impugned notification is passed for invoking compulsory acquisition. Hence, it is the contention that there is no materials available to show who took the decision to rescind from the G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020. Therefore, the entire award passed for invoking Section 7(3) of the Act for compulsory acquisition is bad in law and cannot be sustained. The award also do not contain any reasons as to the Government has estopped from going back from private negotiation.
11. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance to the case of P.R.Jagannathan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in MANU/TN/4172/2020 and State of Gujarath and others vs. Daya Shamji Bhai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 746
12. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that this Court in W.P.Nos.24182 of 2014 batch cases vide order dated 03.07.2019 has held that the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was declared to have become repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thereafter, on 19.07.2019, the State of Government of Tamil Nadu sent a bill titled Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act 2019 and the same came into force on 02.12.2019 and received the assent of the President with retrospective effect to its operation from 26.09.2013. Hence, it is the contention that the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act 2019 has effectively revived all provisions except the provisions relating to the determination of compensation. Therefore, the very private negotiations for acquiring the land itself is bad. According to him, since the determination of the compensation is put strictly as per Central Act 30 of 2013 not under the private negotiation. Hence, the impugned order has been passed under the Central Act 30 of 2013, wherein, it also provides for reference. It is his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 contention that the Central Act 30 of 2013 is a self contained code and thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable.
13. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Advocate General submitted that even under the Act namely the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 private negotiation is permissible. He would submit that though the Government has passed Government Order granting administrative sanction for private negotiation of the entire extent of land, private negotiation has been accepted by the Government only in respect of Phase I and II. As far as the Phase III is concerned, the Government has not accepted that. Therefore, mere offer for private negotiation which has not culminated into acceptance, it cannot be said that private negotiation has reached between the parties and concluded. Therefore, the question of applying principle of estoppel does not arise at all. According to him, when the recommendation made by the District Collector is not accepted by the State Level Committee and the notification issued for the compulsory acquisition that itself indicate that the decision of the State Government not to accept the private negotiation. Therefore, when the compulsory acquisition is culminated into an award, the writ petitions are not maintainable that too challenging the notification after the award is passed, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 the same is not maintainable. According to him, possession is also taken, however, merely, because of the private negotiation is adopted in respect of some other land, the same is not a criteria for compulsory acquisition and the award is passed strictly in accordance with the Central Act 30 of 2013. Therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable. All the grievance of the petitioners can be agitated only before the Reference Court.
14. The learned Advocate General also submitted that for the same relief, a notification has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 and the same was dismissed. This Court while dismissing the writ petition has clearly held that the proceedings of the District Collector dated 29.09.2022 is not final and granted liberty to fix a private negotiation once again. In the event of failure, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, once the notification is already challenged and dismissed by this Cour, again the same notification cannot be challenged that too after the award is passed.
15. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
16. The impugned award has been passed under the Central Act 30 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 2013 fixing the base value as Rs.73 crores. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that for similarly situated lands, i.e., Phase I and II, private negotiations culminated fixing Rs.4 crores per acre and the amount is also disbursed, whereas, for the remaining land in Phase III, though the District Level Committee has recommended for the similar amount on 29.09.2021 to the State Level Committee, the same has not been accepted, whereas, the notification has been issued fixing the base value at Rs.73 lakhs per acre. The main contention of the writ petitioners are that the notification is passed contrary to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020. On perusal of the Government Order, it would indicate that the Government has, in fact, accepted the request of private negotiation for acquisition of 82.15 acres and has granted administrative sanction. Pursuant to the said Government Order, following the guidelines set out in Circular No.M2/7304/2018 dated 16.10.2020, private negotiations were conducted and the District Level Committee has recommended fixing the value at Rs.4 crores per acre and forwarded it to the State Level Committee and the Government has accepted that value and the lands both in Phase I and II, in around 50.87 acres were acquired on private negotiations. Thereafter, for the remaining land to an extent of 31.28 acres, again, the District Level Committee has initiated the private negotiations and recommended fixing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 same value as that of Phase I and II, i.e., Rs.4 crores per acre and forwarded it to the State Level Committee. However, the second respondent has not accepted the recommendation and directed the third respondent to acquire the land compulsorily under Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order.
17. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the District Collector has initiated the proceedings for compulsory acquisition despite, he has made the recommendation. According to him, when the Government has agreed to enter into private negotiation and issued a Government Order for the entire land, the District Collector being a subordinate of the Government cannot overrule and contradict a Government Order and proceed under compulsory acquisition. It is relevant to note that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 is only a administrative sanction for private negotiation. There is no amount whatsoever fixed or agreed upon between the parties and the Government. The recommendation made by the District Level Committee has been accepted by the Government with regard to the Phase I and II, however, in respect of Phase III, the recommendation is not accepted by the Government. The notification has been issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 read with Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act 2019. The very issuance of notification under Section 3(1) of the Act will clearly show that the Government has, in fact, no accepted the recommendation of the District Level Committee. Therefore, when the Government has offered for private negotiation which has not culminated into acceptance, it cannot be said that the recommendation sent by the District Level Committee is always to be accepted by the Government. The Government being Eminent Domain is within its own right to take a decision and acquire the land as per law. Earlier on Phase I and II, the Government has accepted the private negotiation. In respect of Phase III, the Government did not agree to the recommendation of the District Level Committee. In such situation, it cannot be said that there was consensus reached between the Government and the private parties that has been culminated in the form of the acceptance by the Government to act upon it. Therefore, applying the principle of estoppel as against the Government does not arise in this case.
18. It is relevant to note that the same notification was challenged when the draft award was published, before this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022. This Court, by Order dated 03.08.2023, dismissed the writ petition. Similar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 prayer is made in the above writ petition challenging the notification as made in the present writ petition. This Court, in paragraph, in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 held as follows:
"9. The proceedings of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, relied on by the petitioner was dated 29.09.2022, i.e. before issuance of the notice dated 18.10.2022. Thus, we cannot form an opinion that the proceedings of the Collector dated 29.09.2022 became final, since the respondents have subsequently issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to attend for a meeting, wherein the petitioner is at liberty to place all the facts including the compensation determined in respect of the adjacent lands acquired. Instead of availing the opportunity provided, the petitioner approached the High Court and obtained an order of interim stay, which caused inconvenience to the development of the industrial park in that locality.
10 It is made clear that the proceedings of the District Collector dated 29.09.2022 is not final and thereafter, they have decided to invite the petitioner for a meeting to discuss the issues under Section 7(2) for the purpose of determining the compensation to be settled.
11. This being the factum established, the respondents are at liberty to fix a date and time for the purpose of negotiations once again by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner is at liberty to attend the meeting and place all the facts and documents available with him for negotiations. The parties are at liberty to negotiate the issues under Section 7(2) of the Act and form a final opinion for determining the compensation to be settled. In the event of failure, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. All the disputed issues between the parties, if any, are kept open for negotiations to be held between the parties without causing any undue delay and in the public interest. The said meeting and negotiations are directed to be completed between the parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 receipt of a copy of this order."
19. The above order makes it clear that in the event private negotiation is failed, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Now, it is the stand of the State Government since the private negotiation has not been fructified, they resorted to proceed under the Central Act 30 of 2013, following the procedure set out in the said Act. It is the contention that for similarly situated lands, higher compensation agreed earlier, the same has not been considered while passing the impugned award. It is relevant to note that once the private negotiation is failed and consensus not reached merely compensation awarded on private negotiation earlier cases, the same may not be a criteria for compulsory acquisition. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and others vs. N. Savitha reported in (2022) 7 SCC 256, wherein, it is held as follows:
“ 5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ext. P- 17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition.
In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs per acre relying upon the award — Ext. P-17 in respect of the land which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.”
20. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) vs. Yunus and others reported in (2022) 9 SCC 516 has held as follows:
“ 38. The scheme of Section 28-A of the Act is unmistakably clear from its very opening words. What Section 28-A contemplates is a redetermination of compensation under an award passed under Part III. Part III takes in Section 23. Section 23 deals with the matters to be taken into consideration. Various aspects including the market value on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) are indicated. What we wish to emphasise is that elements of Section 23 are not in consonance as such with the guiding principles set out in Section 19(4) of “the 1987 Act” which are to guide a Lok Adalat. When the Court deals with the matter under Section 18, in other words, it is bound to look into the evidence and arrive at findings based on the evidence applying the legal principles which have been enunciated and arrive at the compensation. While it may be true that there is reference to “other legal principles” in Section 19(4) of the 1987 Act, the Lok Adalat also can seek light from the principles of justice, equity, and fair play. The Lok Adalat by virtue of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It has no adjudicatory role (see State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh).
40. An argument was raised by Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that the Lok Adalat insofar as it manifests the stand of the appellant and it being consensual https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 based on the consent of Noida, Noida is estopped. In this regard, he drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job [P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478].
63. An award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree. An award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia. We would approve the view of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in P.T. Thomas [Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas, 2003 SCC OnLine Ker 270 : (2003) 3 KLT 936] . An award unless it is successfully questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and non-violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the court to apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the imprimatur of the court. It becomes a compromise decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone.
64. An award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the court for adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes the garb of an award which in turn is again deemed to be a decree without anything more. We would think that it may not be legislative intention to treat such an award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act to be equivalent to an award of the court which is defined in the Act as already noted by us and made under Part III of the Act. An award of the court in Section 28-A is also treated as a decree. Such an award becomes executable. It is also appealable. Part III of the Act contains a definite scheme which necessarily involves adjudication by the court and arriving at the compensation. It is this which can form the basis for any others pressing claim under the same notification by invoking Section 28-A. We cannot be entirely oblivious to the prospect of an “unholy” compromise in a matter of this nature forming the basis for redetermination as a matter of right given under Section 28-A.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22
21. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 48 has held as follows:
“ 17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627] ) this Court observed as below: (SCC p. 628, para 4) “4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in GOR No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of Synthetic Rasina by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 30-4-1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in GO.Ms No. 816 Industries dated 24-3-1971 in favour of another subsidiary company. Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the Company had requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the agreement in G.O.Ms No. 439 Industries dated 10-5-1985. In GO.Ms No. 546 Industries dated 30-3-1986, the same came to be approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original GO.Ms No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962 contending that since the original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23 possession taken from them. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of the compensation by the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.”
20.The observations however pertain to the Transfer of Property Act and in particular reference to Section 105 and the facts therein are clearly distinguishable and the sentence emphasised as above depicts the disgust feature. Hindustan Petroleum case [(1999) 4 SCC 450] is not a case for acquisition at all and reliance thereon thus is totally misplaced.”
22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695 has held as follows:
“ 17. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay [ Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16910 of 2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4- 9-2006 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 134 of 2006 :
2006 AIHC 3465] it was held: (D.R. Laxmi case [(1996) 11 SCC 501] , SCC p. 452, para 9) “9. … When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third- party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” [Ed.:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24 Also observed in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501, p. 520, para 29.]
18. To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig [(2000) 2 SCC 48] wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627] held: (Shah Hyder case [(1996) 6 SCC 445] , SCC p. 55, para
17) “17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy.
Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [Ed.: Also observed in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501, p. 520, para 29.] )….”
23. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in the case of P.R.Jagannathan's case (cited supra), wherein, it has held that once the negotiation reached between the parties, the Government is estopped from from resiling back from the terms settled. The State also has an obligation to preserve public exchequer and be watchful enough so that public funds are not depleted.
24. On perusal of the above order, this Court is of the view that of course in the above judgment, negotiation was finalised on 06.03.2018. Majority of the land owners given their consent, thus the above order is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25 passed. Whereas, in the present case, the recommendation of the District Level Committee was not accepted and such recommendation has not been culminated into contract by way of acceptance. Therefore, the question of applying the principle of estoppel does not arise at all. On the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2022, administrative sanction was granted for private negotiation, wherein, the private negotiation was fructified in respect of Phase I and II and insofar as Phase III, the same has not been fructified and no consensus is reached. Therefore, merely on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Level Committee, it cannot be said that the State Government has accepted the private negotiation to act upon it. The moment when the notification issued for compulsory acquisition, it cannot be said that still the State Government has to pay the compensation as that of the the earlier Phases.
25. Therefore, once, the notification is already challenged before this Court, this Court had also dismissed the writ petition, merely, because, subsequent opportunity is given for further negotiation, it cannot be said that the compensation should be paid in par with the earlier negotiation. Thus, this Court is of the view that as the award has already been passed under the Central Act 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation and other aspects https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26 can be challenged only in the reference Court. The petitioners can very well agitate that compensation arrived by the authority is not according to law and not followed the requisite procedure. Such view of the matter, it is for the writ petitioners to agitate their right in the reference Court not in writ petition.
26. With regard to submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Viduthalai that the private negotiation itself is bad as per the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act 2019. All the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 except the provisions relating to the determination of the compensation. Therefore, according to him, Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 has not been revived. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General that what has not revived is only the provision relating to the determination of the compensation. According to them, only for determination of the compensation amount alone has not been revived. Determination should be made only under the Central Act 30 of 2013, whereas, for entering into the contract between the parties that provision has not been taken away. Though submission is made with regard o the application of Section 7(2) of the Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27 the same is left open since, the same is not germane for determination in this writ petition.
27. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. It is for the writ petitioners to work out their remedy in the reference Court in the manner known to law.
02.08.2024
dhk
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
4.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
Phase I, Oragadam and Irungattukattai
Expansion Scheme, SIPCOT
Sriperumbudur
5.The Special Tahsildar
Oragadam Expansion Scheme
SIPCOT-Unit-1, Sriperumbudur
6.The Managing Director, SIPCOT,
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29
W.P.Nos.663, 667, 668, 670 & 671 of 2024
02.08.2024
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis