Madras High Court
Syed Abubakcer vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2011
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19/09/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.10166 of 2007
Syed Abubakcer ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Land Administration,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramnad.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Ramnad
4. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
represented by its Executive Engineer
and Administrative Officer,
Ramanathapuram Housing Unit,
Ramanathapuram. - 623 501.
(R4 impleaded as per order of this Court in
M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.10166 of 2007,
dated 11.2.2008) ..Respondents.
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent
to send the matter for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
for the lands acquired in S.No.342/3-A, measuring o.39.5 Hectare situated in
Pattinamkathan Group Village, Ramnad Taluk and District as per the award No.1 of
1997, dated 03.04.1997 to the Sub-Court, Ramnad.
!For Petitioner ... M/s.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali
^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Muruganandam
1 to 3 Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-4 ... No appearance
:ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to refer the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the court of learned District Judge.
2. The property of the petitioner was acquired and the award was passed on 03.04.1997. The petitioner made an application for rectification, of the award as part of his land was not included in the award. The revised award was passed, thereafter on 11.09.1977.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner in the affidavit is, that the amount was disbursed to the petitioner after the revised order, dated 16.06.1998 on 19.06.1998 and a sum of Rs.2,58,917/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty eight thousand nine hundred and seventeen only) was paid to him. Compensation was received under protest, with a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the 'Act' for enhancement of compensation.
4. Para 6 of the affidavit reads as under:
"6. The Petitioner submits that the second respondent has disbursed the amount after the revised order dated 16.6.1998 to the petitioner on 19.6.1998 a sum of Rs.2,58,917/- The Petitioner has received the amount under protest and also requested the respondent to send the matter for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation."
5. The petitioner thereafter made representations, on December 2004, 13.09.2006, 24.11.2006 and 28.03.2007 for reference under Section 18 of the 'Act' to learned District Judge, for enhancement of compensation.
6. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, by placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant represented by its Chief Engineer-Project .vs. Salem Urukkalai Thittathal Nilam Ilanthor Sangam, represented by its President M.Chinna Chinna Husan, Alagusamudram, Salem Taluk and others(2006 1 MLJ 252),wherein, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, was pleased to lay down that mere protest or expression of grievance to the award, without there being any writing is sufficient, is sufficient to refer the clause under Section 18(2) of the 'Act'.
7. The reliance is also placed on the judgement of this Court in W.P(MD)No.5762 of 2006, reported in K.N.Ibrahim .vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Land Administration, Fort.St.George, Chennai and four others decided on 12.07.2011.
8. A counter has been filed by fourth respondent denying the averments made in Para 6 of the affidavit.
9. paragraph 4 of the counter reads as under:
"4. I submit that in Para 6 and 7 of the petitioner's affidavit admitted the disbursement of the amount awarded for the acquired land in S.No.342/3-A and further admitted that he had not filed or submitted any petition to refer the matter to the Court . The allegation that, the petitioner received the amount under protest and requested to refer the matter to the court for enhancement of compensation etc., are denied as false and misleading."
10. The petitioner for the reasons best known has placed on record the representations starting from December 2004, the receipt of which is also denied, but, failed to place on record any representation showing the receipt of money under Protest, or application for referring the matter under Section 18 of the 'Act' at the time of receipt of compensation.
11. The stand of the respondents further is that the petitioner did not follow the statutory provisions of law to seek reference.
12. Para 8 of the counter reads as under:
8. I submit that, for the enhancement of compensation, a separate application is necessary. The petitioner has not followed none of the mandatory provisions as per the Land Acquisition Act. The silence of nearly 6 years from 19.6.1998(admitted Award amount disbursement date) to December 2004, itself is an evidence to prove that he had no interest in getting Enhancement of Compensation and hence he has not submitted any petition on 19.06.1998."
13. As the factum of protest and making of application on 19.06.1998 is disputed. The Petitioner has placed no material in support of the averments in this regard which have been specifically denied. The disputed facts cannot be gone into in exercise of writ Jurisdiction. The stand taken by the respondents shows that the request made by the petitioner was after ten years of receipt of awarded money, then hopelessly barred by limitation. On the facts placed on record, the stand of respondents deserves to be accepted.
14. For the reasons stated, no ground is made out to interfere with the counter of the respondents in not referring the matter for objection under Section 18 of the Act.
15. The writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
vsn To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Land Administration, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramnad.
3. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Ramnad
4. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by its Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram Housing Unit, Ramanathapuram. - 623 501.