Madras High Court
K.Rakkianna Gounder vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2014
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.01.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.33337 of 2013 M.P.No.1 of 2013 1.K.Rakkianna Gounder 2.R.Rajaram 3.R.Murugesan 4.S.Selvamani 5.S.Selvamurali 6.S.Selvananth ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem-600 008. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of Collectorate, Salem, Salem District. 4.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. by its Executive Engineer and Administration Officer, Salem Housing Unit, Salem-636 008. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorary, calling for the records relating to the second award in ROC No.929/98 in Award No.1/2003-2004, dated 13.05.2003, passed by the respondent 2 in respect of the petitioners' land in Survey No.69/5C to an extent of 0.90.0 Hec. and in Survey No.26/4 to an extent of 0.58.0 Hec. and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.R.V.Babu for R4 O R D E R
Acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, issued in G.O.Ms.No.146, Housing and Urban Development and G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development (I.A.IV(2), dated 29.03.2000, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in Part II Section 2 supplement on 10.05.2000 and section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development (LA 4-2) Department, dated 16.05.2001, published in Part II - Section 2 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary on 16.05.2001, in respect of the properties in Survey No.69/5C, an extent of 0.90.0 Hectares and in Survey No.26/4, an extent of 0.58.0 Hectares, have been challenged W.P.No.13370 of 2002, to quash the abovesaid order. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed on 13.12.2012.
2. Being aggrieved by the same, Mr.K.Rakkianna Gounder, Mr.R.Rajaram and Mr.R.Murugesan, have filed W.A.No.788 of 2013. By an order dated 29.09.2013, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal. Thus, the declarations, have reached a finality.
3. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Award in ROC.No.929/98 in Award No.No.1/2003-2004, dated 30.04.2003, passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent No.2.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that earlier, the then Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.P.Gunasekar passed an Award, dated 30.04.2003, in Award No.1/2003-2004, in Proceeding No.ROC.929/98, for a total compensation of Rs.42Lakhs. Before passing the Award, Notice under Sections 9(3) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act, were served on the petitioners, fixing the award enquiry on 28.04.2003. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and submitted a statement before the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent No.2 on 28.04.2003. Thereafter, an Award No.1/2003-2004 has been passed on 30.04.2003. According to Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the first award.
5. He further submitted that after passing the abovesaid award, dated 30.04.2003, Mr.P.Gunasekar, the Land Acquisition Officer, was changed and the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.Jayagandhi, passed another award, for the same lands, on 13.05.2003, which according to him, is the 2nd award. The latter Award is impugned in this Writ Petition.
6. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia and Another v. Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 83. Mr.M.Elango, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, is quasi-judicial in nature. He further submitted that when an enquiry was conducted by the then, Land Acquisition Officer namely, Mr.P.Gunasekar, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer Mr.G.Jayagandhi, has no jurisdiction or authority to determine the quantum of compensation to the land owners and pass any award, on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor.
7. Inviting the attention of this Court to the Award dated 13.05.2003, enclosed in the typed set of papers, he submitted that Mr.G.Jayagandhi, subsequent Land Acquisition Officer in the above award, has stated that "the undersigned after full enquiry into the case and on due consideration or various circumstances connected with the acquisition, as have before set forth made the following award under his hand". He has further stated that "the notices were served on all the interested persons, as per rules and that an award enquiry was conducted, by the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.G.Jayagandhi, in the schedule place and time." Learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the abovesaid averments in the Award, dated 13.05.2003 and further contended that no enquiry was conducted by the successor, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, Land Acquisition Officer.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no award shall be made under Section 11 of the Act, by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent 2, dated 13.05.2003, without getting the prior approval of the District Collector. Referring to the date of approval by the District Revenue Officer, Salem, dated 14.05.2003, he further submitted that the Award made on 13.05.2003, is invalid, in the eye of law, for the reason that the approval of the award by the Competent Authority should precede the date of passing of the award, by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, respondent 2.
9. Placing reliance on the decision in P.Venkatesan and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department,Chennai-9 and another, reported in 2001(3) L.W. 518, and in particular to Para 7, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to ratify the award passed without prior approval of the Competent Authority. Hence, the impugned award dated 13.05.2003, passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent 2, should be declared as null and void.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhera Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1986 Rajasthan 113 and contended that once an award has been passed, by the Land Acquisition Officer, he becomes functus Officio. According to the petitioner, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer namely Mr.G.Jayaganthi, has no jurisdiction to reopen and pass a second award. He invited the attention of this Court to Paras 8 and 9 of the Judgement, which are extracted hereunder:
"8.The question is whether the Land Acquisition Officer was competent to do so inasmuch as after the passing of the order (Annexure R. 1) dt. April 17, 1967, he became functus officio. This was thus necessitiated for us to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with Enquiry and Award by Collector. The Collector has been empowered to make an award within the time specified in the section. Section 12 provides for Award of Collector when to be final. It lays down that the Award shall be filed in the Collector's office and subject to what has been provided in the Act shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the person interested. It was not contended before the learned single Judge that the Award (Annexure R. 1) dt. April 17, 1967 was not made or that it was not filed. In the Award (Annexure R. 1), it was specifically held that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation of the price of the land which belonged to the State Government. He, therefore, ordered for payment to the State Government through Collector, Sriganganagar and that the remaining land left with the petitioner was beyond ceiling limit and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim any compensation. The learned single Judge was right when he held that it was a final order. Thus, under Section 12 of the Act, the Award became final and so thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer could not review the order (Annexure R. 1) by making a second Award (Ex. 3) dt. June 24, 1967. The order (Ex. 3) dt. June 24, 1967 was not warranted as it was an order without authority and the Land Acquisition Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass that. Section 31(3) of the Act has been reproduced by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal.... and it is as under:
"Section 31(3). Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may with the sanction of the State Govt. instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make an arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land either by the grant of other lands held under the same title, or in such other way, as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned."
A reading of Section 31(3) of the Act clearly shows that if the Land Acquisition Officer is of the opinion that instead of awarding the money compensation in regard to any land acquired, the interested person should be given the land in exchange even this cannot be done without the sanction of the State Govt. Admittedly, the sanction of the State Govt. was not obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer before allotting the land in exchange to the petitioner. Without sanction, the land could not be allotted. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer had exceeded the powers. He directed the Tehsildar Colonisation to deliver possession of the land given in exchange and for making necessary entries in the Government records: We agree with the learned single Judge that the order (Ex. 3) dt. June 24,1967 of the Land Acquisition Officer by which he reviewed the award/order of Annexure R.1) dt. April 17,1967 is bad being illegal and cannot be sustained. It is true that the Land Acquisition Officer could not pass the order (Ex. 3) by reviewing the award/order dt. April 17, 1967 as he was not competent to do so because it had become final under Section 12 of the Act. It was held in Kashi Prasad v. Notified Area, Mahoba, AiR 1932 All 598 that whatever be the nature of the proceedings and the character of the award, no review is possible and once the award is given under Section 11 and filed in the Collector's office under Section 12 of the Act, the Award shall except as provided by the Act becomes final. In Baru Mal Jain v. State of U. P., AIR 1962 All 61, it was held that once the award is prepared and filed in the Collector's office, it becomes final and then it cannot be changed. Reference was made to Kooverbai Sorabji v. Asstt. Collector, Surat, AIR 1920 Bom 265 and Surendra Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 194.
9. It is correct that the orders Exs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are without jurisdiction as no appeal or revision lay against the order of the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner has sought the relief in the writ petition that the order (Ex. 3) dt. June 24, 1967 may b: restored by setting aside the orders Exs. 6, 7, 8 and 9. For the restoration of the wrong order (Ex. 3) dt. June, 24, 1967, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Jagan Singh v. S. T. A. T., AIR 1980 Raj 1 that as allowing the writ petition would result in restoring the illegal order of the R. T. A. and as there had been no failure of justice in the instant case, it will not be proper for the High Court to interfere with the appellate order. Gani Mohammed v. S, T. A. T., 1976 Raj LW 201 : (AIR 1977 (NOC) 183) and G. Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A. P., AIR 1966 SC 828 were referred to. In the latter decision, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the State Govt. had no power under Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act to review its previous order, yet their Lordships refused to interfere with the order passed by the State Government, upon such a review on the ground that quashing of that order would lead to restoration of an illegal order passed earlier by the State Government. In the case on hand, the learned single Judge was right when he held that the extraordinary powers of this Court cannot be availed of for restoring a wrong order even when the order was set aside by the authority not competent. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief of restoration of the order (Ex. 3) dt. June 24, 1967 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on review. The learned single Judge had also set aside the order dt. April 17, 1967 by which it was held that the petitioner was not competent to any compensation and remanded the case to the Land Acquisition Officer to examine the petitioner's case solely on the point of compensation under the relevant provisions of the Act. This finding of the learned single Judge was not assailed by the respondents before us.
11. On the aspect of approval, he invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph 6 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. And others v. Rajiv Gupta and another, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 686. Passage of the Judgment, referred to by the Learned Counsel is extracted hereunder:
"6. Section 11 postulates of conducting an enquiry and making the award by the Collector. The first proviso envisages that "no award shall be made by the Collector under sub- section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf ". It is common knowledge that exercising the power under the first proviso, the appropriate Government made rules or statutory orders or instructions whatever be the nomenclature, they have statutory operation giving authorisation to the Land Acquisition Collector to make an award up to a particular pecuniary limit without prior approval either of the appropriate Government or an officer authorised by the appropriate Government in that behalf. If the award exceeds the limit, prior approval of the State Governments or authorised officer is mandatory. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Collector or Officer. No doubt, Mr Markandeya is right that the State had not produced before us rules or orders issued under the first proviso to Section 11 that the Land Acquisition Officer shall not make an award exceeding one crore of rupees without prior approval of the Commissioner, namely, Commissioner, Board of Revenue. But nonetheless, there is a statutory inhibition by first proviso to Section 11 that the prior approval either of the appropriate Government or of an officer which the appropriate Government authorises in that behalf, is mandatory for making an award. It is a condition precedent. Obviously, for this reason, the Collector in his letter dated 20- 12-1992, addressed to the Commissioner, seeking prior approval thus:
Proposed award *** Thus the proposed lands are disputed lands, and therefore, it has been mentioned in the proposed award that payment of compensation shall be made after obtaining the final report of the enquiry officer and the final judgment passed in the cases pending in different courts. Since, in the present case, the award is to be made up to 21-12-1992 only, it is to request you to kindly give your prior approval on the proposed award."
Its bare reading clearly indicates that the conscience that he is required to make the award on or before 21-12-1992 and to seek prior approval and accordingly he requested the Commissioner to grant him prior approval as is enjoined in the first proviso to Section 11 to make the proposed award. The heading of the award itself clearly indicates working of his mind that it is only a proposed award and after prior approval is given, he is enjoined to make the award under Section II of the Act. Since prior approval was not given before the expiry of 21-12-1992, there is no award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the eye of law the proposed award of the Collector under Section It of the Act is not the award. As seen, Section 11-A is mandatory and on expiry of two years from the date of publication of declaration, i.e., on 21-12-1992, the entire proceedings under the Act stood lapsed. We are not concerned in this case with the proviso to Section 11-A. The High Court was, therefore, not right in its construction that there was an award made by the Collector on 20-12-1992 and the direction to take further steps in that behalf are clearly illegal. The review petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 10-12-1993 of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.
12. Referring to Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, he further submitted that the District Collector can only make corrections of any arithmetical and clerical errors in the Award and even if the District Collector proposes to make any corrections in the Award, it should be done in the interest of any land owner or the interested persons, and in such circumstances, the District Collector is required to provide a reasonable opportunity before any corrections are made, in the award. According to him, the petitioners were not provided with any opportunity.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except for the abovesaid reasons, neither the District Collector nor the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent No.2, has any authority or jurisdiction, to alter the award, much less, to pass any second award on 13.05.2003.
14. He further submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, providing an opportunity to the owners of the lands. According to him, the enquiry as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, is quasi-judicial in nature, and as to the determination of compensation to the land owners or the interested persons, it should be based only on the opinion of that particular Officer, who conducted the enquiry under the Act, and it cannot be based on the opinion of any other subsequent Land Acquisition Officer. He therefore submitted that the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer Mr.P.Jayagandhi ought to have conducted an enquiry under Section 11 of the Act.
15. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the subsequent award dated 13.05.2003 is without jurisdiction. The subsequent Land Acquisition Officer cannot make any assessment of the material, already scrutinized by his predecessor. Approval has been granted only on 14.05.2003, after the passing award by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, 2nd respondent, on 13.05.2003 and hence, it is a post approval. Only one award is permissible under the Act. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that the impugned award dated 13.05.2003, is without jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set aside.
16. The Special Tahsildar (Land acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, in his counter affidavit has submitted that the Housing Board has applied for acquisition of 14.49.5 Hectares of lands in Survey No.25/5, etc., situated in No.64, Kottagoundampatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, for construction of houses. The draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was approved in G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.03.2000 and that the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.18 (A) in Page 3-4 Gazette dated 10.05.2000. An enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, was conducted by the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 07.07.2000, after due publication and service of notices. The Government examined the objections of the land owners in Survey No.27/2A1, etc., and approved the draft declaration under Section 6 of the said Act with regard to 10.43.5 Hectares, leaving 1.04.00 Hectares. After observing the formalities, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development (LA 4-2) Department, dated 16.05.2001, for an extent of 10.43.5 Hectares of land and that the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Extraordinary Government Gazette No.348, dated 16.05.2001.
17. A Draft award was prepared on 30.04.2003 for Rs.42,05,621/- by Mr.Gunasekar, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, and it was submitted to the District Collector for confirmation. But, the District Collector orally suggested to Mr.P.Gunasekar, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent 2, to exclude the extent of lands covered under Stay Orders passed by this Court. The Draft award submitted on 30.04.2003 was not approved by the District Collector. On 13.05.2003, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer Mr.P.Jayagandhi prepared an award for Rs.16,85,200/- for the lands owned by the petitioners and others, after excluding the lands, covered under the orders of stay and that the same was pronounced on 14.05.2003.
18. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, has denied the contentions that two awards were passed, one by the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) namely Mr.P.Gunasekar and the second award, by the Successor Mr.Jayagandhi. According to him, there is only one award.
19. Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that an Award enquiry has already been conducted by Mr.P.Gunasekar, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem and that compensation amount due and payable to the petitioners, to the tune of Rs.4,04,735/- for the lands in Survey Nos.26/4 and 69/5C, owned by the petitioners, has also been determined.
20. He further submitted that in so far as the acquisition proceeding is concerned, this Court has granted Stay, in respect of certain lands and that the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, by oversight and inadvertence, had included those lands also, subject matter of writ petitions, pending on the file of this Court, and computed the total compensation to be paid to the land owners or persons interested. He further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority to rectify the clerical or arithmetical mistakes, before the Award is pronounced. Therefore, the District Collector has instructed the Land Acquisition Officer, to rectify the mistakes. Accordingly, after making necessary corrections, the Draft Award was sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai for approval.
21. Inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, in her Letter No.H2/11310/03, dated 14.05.2003, addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that when approval of the draft award, ie., compensation due and payable to the eligible land owners, by including the lands owned by the petitioners and excluding the lands covered under the orders of stay, passed by this Court, the proposal, amounting to Rs.16,85,200/- was sought for, the said authority, vide letter dated 14.05.2003, as stated supra, observed that since the award amount was less than Rs.20 lakhs, it is well within the monetary powers of the Collector or the District Revenue Officer, to grant approval and accordingly, returned the proposals to the District Revenue Officer to pronounce the award.
22. Accordingly, after approval by the competent authority, viz., the District Revenue Officer, on 14.05.2003, the award was pronounced on 14.03.2003, by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar. Learned State Counsel submitted that it is not a case of any post approval of the award. But, on the contrary, the award prepared on 13.05.2003, was duly approved on 14.05.2003, by the competent authority and only thereafter, it was pronounced in the open Court, on 14.05.2003. He submitted that there is no illegality in the award, pronounced on 14.05.2003, warranting intervention. In support of the abovesaid contentions, learned Additional Government Pleader produced necessary files for perusal.
23. According to Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned State Counsel, during the relevant time, the award was passed based on G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department), dated 25.09.1992 and that the Government have authorised the District Revenue Officer/Additional Collector/Collector to approve the Award, for payment of compensation, not exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs. It is his further submission that the then Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, had already conducted a detailed enquiry, by giving a reasonable opportunity to the land owners and all other interested persons and insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the compensation amount payable to the petitioners had already been determined at Rs.4,04,735/-. But, in the draft Award, dated 30.04.2003, prepared by Mr.P.Gunasekar, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), computed the amount as Rs.42,05,062/- erroneously, by including the lands covered under the orders of stay passed by this Court. Therefore, the Award, dated 30.04.2003 prepared by Mr.Gunasekar, the then Tahsildar (LA), was not approved. According to the learned State counsel, except rectifying the clerical errors and deleting the lands covered, under the orders of stay, there is no marginal change, in so far the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners. According to him, once determination of compensation, had been done by giving a reasonable opportunity, to the land owners and other interested persons, there is no need to conduct another enquiry, by the successor Tahsildar. He submitted that Sections 11 and 13-A of the Act, have been scrupulously followed.
24. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 of the Act, within a period of two years from the date of publication of Section 6 declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse. Referring to the date of declarations made under Sections 4(1) and (6) of the Act stated supra, he submitted that the pronouncement of the Award made on 14.05.2003, after due approval, by the competent authority, is well within the time, prescribed under the Act and therefore, there is no illegality.
25. In this context, he also invited the attention of this Court to Section 11 of the Act which states that no award shall be made by the Collector, under this Sub-section, without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer, as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf and further provided that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. He reiterated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 29.05.1992, the District Revenue Officer is empowered to approve the award for payment of compensation, not exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs and hence, there is no jurisdictional error.
26. According to the State Counsel, the date of pronouncement of the Award, with due approval by the competent authority, should be taken as the date of award and not the draft award dated 30.04.2003, sent for approval. Nor the award prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, on 13.05.2003, be treated as the date of pronouncement of award. He further submitted that there is only one award in this case. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that there is no illegality and for the reasons, stated supra, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
27. The issues to be decided in this writ petition, are as follows:
(i)Whether there are two awards?
(ii)Whether the subsequent land acquisition officer has to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act?
(iii)When the award becomes final, whether it is on the date, when it is pronounced or when it is prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar?
(iv)Who is the competent authority to approve?
(v)Whether the award prepared on 30.04.2003, by the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, by including the lands covered under Stay order, can be termed as an award, in terms of Section 11?
(vi)At what stage, the Collector or the Competent Authority, exercise the power to approve the award?
(vii)Whether the District Collector or the Competent Authority has properly exercised the powers under Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act?
(viii)Whether there is any vast difference in the quantum of compensation, arrived at by the then the Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar and on the date of pronouncement of award by the successor?
(ix)As there is any prejudice to the petitioners?
(x)Whether the land owners or persons interested, have to be provided with an opportunity, when the clerical corrections or arithmetical corrections are made? and if so, when to be given?
(xi)Whether it is the case of post approval by the competent authority?
(xii)Whether the approval granted is in accordance with Section 11 of the Act?
28. As per Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector, shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-Section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of:-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
29. As per first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-Section, without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider the orders issued by the Government, wherein, the Government have authorised certain officers, to approve the awards, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 (Central Act 68 of 1984). G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, dated 13.12.1984, reads as follows:
AUTHORISATION OF OFFICERS TO APPROVE AWARDS UNDER THE LAND ACQUSITION ACT, 1894 (CENTRAL ACT I OF 1894) AS AMENDED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1984 (CENTRAL ACT 68 OF 1984) (G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, Dated 13th December 1984)
1.Govt. Telex No.44790 C1/82-19, Revenue, dated 1st October 1984.
2.Govt. Telex No.44790 C1/82, Revenue, dated 30th November 1984.
ORDER:
The notification appended to this order shall be published in the next issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee.
2. The Works Manager, Government Central Press is requested to furnish fifty copies of the said Notification each to the Government in Revenue Department, Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, All Collectors/Additional Collectors/District Revenue Officers and all Departments of Secretariat (except Finance, P & D., and P & AR Department.
3. All the Collectors/Additional Collectors/District Revenue Officers are informed that any award passed on or after 24th September 1984 should be in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984). Accordingly, the awards, if any, passed on or after 24th September, 1984, have to be revised in accordance with the said provisions and the previous approval of the appropriate officer authorised under the notification appended to this order should be obtained.
APPENDIX NOTIFICATION Under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1984), as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises,-
(i) the Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds ten lakh rupees; and
(ii) the District Collector to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceed ten lakhs rupees.
30. Subsequently, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 29.09.1992, which reads as hereunder:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Abstract Acts Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 (Central Act 68, of 1984) Authorization of Officers to approve valuation statements and awards Amendment to notification -Issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Department G.O.Ms.No.1027 Dated:29.9.1992
1.G.O.Ms.1647, Revenue dated 24.7.1978
2.G.O.Ms.2003, Revenue dated 13.12.1984
3.From the Spl. Commr & Commr of Land Administration No.S/39058/86, dated 2.7.1986.
4.From the Spl. Commr & Commr of Land Administration Lr.No.J4/39058/86, dated 20.10.1987.
5.From the Spl. Commr & Commr of Land Administration Lr.No.J4/16949/88, dated 14.04.1988.
6.From the Spl. Commr & Commr of Land Administration Lr.No.I1/10496/89, dated 19.01.1990.
7.From the Spl. Commr of Land Administration Lr.No.L.Dis.I1/41768, dated 11.11.1991.
ORDER:
As per the Government order first read above, among other things, the Collector/Addl. Collr / Dist. Revenue Officer should get the approval of the Commissioner of Land Administration for the valuation statement in respect of lands being acquired were the cost of acquisition of a block of land is Rs.10 lakhs and above. Further, as per Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award has to be approved either by the Government or by an officer authorized by the Government. In the Government order second read above the Commissioner of Land Administration was empowered to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds Rs.10 lakhs and the Dist. Revenue Officer / Addl. Collr / District Collector was empowered to approve the awards in which the total compensation does not exceed Rupees ten Lakhs.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration in his letter fourth and seventh read above has suggested that due to the steep escalation of cost of land, pre valuation statement exceeding Rs.25 Lakhs and draft awards exceeding Rs.50 Lakhs may alone be sent to him for approval and that the pre valuation statement and the draft awards for payment of compensation not exceeding Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs respectively may be approved by the District Collector / Addl. Collr / Dist. Revenue Officer.
3. The Government examined the suggestion of the Commissioner of Land Administration mentioned in para 2 above. They direct, in modification of orders issued in the Government orders first and second read above, that the power to approve both the pre valuation statement and awards for payment of compensation not exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs be delegate to the Collector / Addl. Collr / Dist. Revenue Officer. Prevaluation statements and awards for payment of compensation in excess of Rs.20 Lakhs shall be approved by Commissioner of Land Administration. Inspection of cases is left to the Commissioner of Land Administration at his discretion.
4. The notification appended to this order shall be published in the next issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.
5. The works Manager, Government Central Press, Madras is requested to furnish fifty copies of the said notification east to the Government in the Revenue Department the Commissioner of Land Administration, all Collectors / Addl. Collectors / Dist. Revenue Officers and all Departments of Secretariat (except planning and Development and Personal and Administrative Reforms Department).
6. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.1971/Revenue/92 dated 04.02.1992.
(By order of the Governor) A.Balraj, Commissioner and Secretary to Govt.
To The Works Manager, Government Central Press, Madras 79.
All Collectors / Addl. Collectors / Dist. Revenue Officers.
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras.
Copy to All Departments of Secretariat (Except R & D and P & AR) The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Madras 35.
Revenue (C, N & Y) Department, Madras 9.
CC to file.
// true copy// Sd/.. 20.1.95 Superintendent Appendix Notification Under the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1984), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the Revenue Department Notification No.II(2)/REV/7150/84, dated the 13th December 1984, published at page 970 of Part II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the 26th December 1984, as subsequently amended:-
Amendments In the said Notification (1) In item (i), for the expression "ten lakhs" the expression "twenty lakhs" shall be substituted.
(2) In item (ii), for the expression "ten lakhs" the expression "twenty lakhs" shall be substituted.
A.Balraj, Commissioner and Secretary to Govt.
31. The Government, by letter No.86973/C.Spl.1/92-1, Revenue, dated 04.11.1992, has kept the orders made in G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.09.1992, in abeyance. Subsequently, the Government, vide Letter No.86973/C.Spl.2/92-10, Revenue, dated 23.11.1994, has cancelled the abeyance order. The said letter is extracted hereunder:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-9.
Letter No.86973/C.Spl.2/92-10, dated 23.11.94 From Thiru.S.Meikandadevan, I.A.S., Secretary to Government.
To All Collectors/Additional Collectors, District Revenue Officers.
Sir, Sub: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Central Act I of 1894) as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984) Authorisation of officers to approve valuation statements and awards upto and above 20/- lakhs - Instructions issued.
Ref: (i) G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.9.92.
(ii) Government Lt.No.86973/C.Spl.1/ 92-1, Revenue Department, dated 4.11.92.
(iii)From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration D.O.Lr.No.II/41206/ 92, dated 29.07.94.
--------
I am directed to state that the orders issued in the Government Letter No.86973/C.Spl.1/92-1, Revenue, dated 4.11.92 keeping in abeyance the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.09.92 are hereby cancelled. All the Collectors/Additional Collectors/District Revenue Officers are therefore requested to adhere to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue, dated 25.09.92 in which they have been empowered to scrutinise and approve the prevaluation statement and to pass awards upto Rs.20/- lakhs and to send the cases exceeding Rs.20 lakhs to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in land acquisition cases.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
for Secretary to Government.
Copy to:
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras-5.
32. Vide letter No.I1/41305/94, dated 16.12.1994, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, has issued directions to all the Collectors/District Revenue Officers of all Districts, to follow certain procedures in the matter of acquiring lands. The said letter reads as follows:
LAND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT From To Thiru.A.S.PADMANABAN, I.A.S., The Collectors/District Revenue Principal Commissioner and Officers of all Districts.
Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras-600 005.
...........
Lr.No.II/41305/94, dt. 16.12.94 ...........
Sir, Sub: LAND ACQUISITION Central Act, 1894, as amended by the Act, 1984 Authorisation of Officers to approve valuation statements awards upto and above Rs.20 lakhs Instructions issued.
Ref: 1.G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, dt. 13.12.84.
2.G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue, dt. 25.09.92.
3.Govt.Lr.No.86973/C.Spl.1/92-10, dt.4.11.92.
4.Govt. Lr.No.86963/C.Spl.2/92-10, dt.
23.11.94
5.This Department D.O.Lr.No.II/41305/94, dt.21.07.94 and 28.11.94.
........
The Government have authorised the Commissioner of Land Administration in their orders first cited to approve the award exceeding Rs.10 lakhs in cases of acquisition of lands. Subsequently, the Government have re-examined this issue and have issued instructions to approve awards exceeding Rs.20 lakhs in their references second and fourth cited.
2.The Government in G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue Department, dt. 13.12.1984, have issued the following notification:
"Under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises:
(i)The Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds ten lakhs rupees; and
(ii)The District Collector to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceed ten lakhs rupees."
In their Letter No.102081/R.Spl./84-2, dt.7.3.1985, the Government have issued an amendment to the above notification as follows:
"For the expression District Collector the expression "District Revenue Officer/Additional Collector/District Collector shall be substituted."
Now in the Government letter dt.23.11.94, it has been said that "cases exceeding Rs.20 lakhs" may be sent to Commissioner of Land Administration for approval.
3.In several circulars, instructions etc., issued from this Office, it has been clarified that if the total compensation to be paid in case of acquisition of lands for a scheme or a project exceeds Rs.20 lakhs, the proposals will have to be got approved by this office. But, it is noticed that the lands proposed to be acquired for a scheme/project is divided into several blocks by the Land Acquisition Officer with or without the concurrence and/or approval of the District Revenue Officers. I have been trying during the last five months to find out the rationale behind the splitting up of the lands into blocks by the Land Acquisition Officers. I have been informed that this is done only for "administrative convenience". What is meant by this "administrative convenience" and whose 'convenience' weighs with the Land Acquisition Officers could not be spelt out by any of the officers from the District Revenue Officer down to Deputy Tahsildars, whom I met either in Madras or during my camps. It is noticed that there has been no approved formula to divide the entire extent into several blocks and each districts has been doing it as they like. Some of the officers felt that due to large number of land-holders, it becomes impossible for the Land Acquisition Officers to complete the enquiry on a day, if the entire area is treated as one Block. But this lacks credence since there is no hard and fast rule to complete the enquiry on a day. The other theories put forward are when the lands are acquired for more than 100 acres, it would be "convenient" for the Land Acquisition Officer to continuously attend to the various processes of land Acquisition proceedings if the area is divided into blocks; as otherwise, the award has to be passed in respect of the entire extent at one time. In some cases it was represented that the blocks are divided taking into consideration soil, nearness to the town etc., but in an Airforce Station case, even this has not been followed.
4.In an instance a proposal for approval of award even for Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only) has been received from the Collector on the ground that the value of the scheme area is more than Rs.10 lakhs. In another instance, in a district, lands acquired for a particular project have been arbitrarily divided into more than 60 blocks of unequal extent and the value of each block is well below Rs.10 lakhs. Yet in another District, an extent of 10.74.12 hect. has been split into 5 blocks, and again another 9.72.91 hect. into four blocks, For acquisition lands for a road or canal, meagre extent constitute the blocks and the Land Acquisition Officers have total disregard for the convenience of the other authorities who are associated with the process of Land Acquisition.
5.For months, this office has waited for some sane advice and suggestions from the District Revenue Officers/Collectors. In the meeting held with District Revenue Officers in the secretariat on 17.10.94, none had any information or view when the Commissioner of Land Administration and Revenue Secretary enquired about the basis for such splitting up of blocks. The response was only a smug silence. This shows that none has applied his mind and an imperfect, ill founded practice is being followed by sheer force or habit for reasons best known only to the Land Acquisition Officers.
6.In order to streamline the procedure for dividing the lands to be acquired into various blocks, the following procedure shall be adopted with immediate effect:
"The tentative value of the lands as worked out at the time of sending 4(1) notification will be taken into consideration along with the approximate value of the structures and trees available at the time of sending proposals; the amount of solatium and interest to be paid if the award is passed within a reasonable period can also be added to the total value arrived at as above. For the scheme, costing more than Rs.20 lakhs award proposals are to be approved by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. If the compensation tentatively arrived at as above exceeds Rs.20 lakhs, it would be advisable to divide the lands to be acquired into blocks in such a way that the value of each block exceeds Rs.20/- lakhs. For example, if the cost of the lands to be acquired is about Rs.1 crore, the Land Acquisition Officer should have a maximum of only 5 blocks. He should not be allowed to divide the area into 15 or 20 blocks as he feels. There is no harm in further minimising the number of blocks raising the award amount to more than Rs.20 lakhs. The question of dividing the lands into blocks of 25 acres as already ordered in this office letter No.II/60045/92, dated 2.12.1992, is only subject to the above instructions. All other instructions in our letter II/41305/94, dt.28.11.94 shall also be followed particularly the time limit prescribed before which proposals have to be sent.
7.You must ensure that these instructions are carried out without any deviation.
8.Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-A.S.Padmanaban, Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration.
for Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration.
33. Reading of the above makes it clear that insofar as the power to approve both the pre-valuation statement and awards for payment of compensation, not exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs, it has been delegated to the Collector/Additional Collector/ District Revenue Officer. Subsequently, the Government have issued G.O.(Ms)No.12, Revenue [LA 1(1)] Department, dated 07.01.2011, enhancing the amount of compensation and the said G.O., is extracted hereunder:
ABSTRACT Act Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) Authorisation of Officers to approve awards Amendment to notification Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue LA 1 (1) Department G.O.(Ms)No.12 Dated:07.01.2011 Read: 1) G.O.(Ms) No.2003, Revenue, dated:13.12.1984. 2) G.O.(Ms) No.1027, Revenue, dated:25.09.1992. 3) From the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Land Administration Letter No.M3/26637/2009, dated: 20.8.2010. ***** ORDER:
As per the Government Order first read above, the Commissioner of Land Administration was empowered to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds Rs.10 Lakhs and the District Revenue Officer/Additional Collector/District Collector was empowered to approve awards in which the total compensation does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. In the Government order second read above, the Collector was empowered to approve award upto Rs.20 lakhs and the Commissioner of Land Administration was empowered to approve the award above Rs.20 lakhs.
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of land Administration now in his letter third read above, has proposed that over the year the land value across the State has gone-up manifold owing to economic development, spurring real estate expansion, infrastructure development etc., It would be appropriate that the financial limits may once again be revised across, as majority of award cases coming to Commissioner of Land Administration are beyond Rs.20 lakhs. This has increased paper work unnecessarily, and to avoid delay, the limits may be re-fixed as the District Collector to approve every award wherein the total compensation to be allowed does not exceed Rs.1 crore, and the Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every prevaluation and award wherein the total compensation to be allowed exceeds Rs.1 crore.
3. The Government examined the proposal of the Commissioner of Land Administration mentioned in para 2 above. Accordingly, direct that the power to approve awards for payment of compensation not exceeding Rs.50 lakhs be delegated to the District Collector. Awards for payment of compensation in excess of Rs.50 lakhs shall be approved by Commissioner of Land Administration. Inspection of cases is left to the Commissioner of Land Administration at his discretion.
4. The Notification appended to this order will be published in the next issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.
5. The works Manager, Government Central Press, Chennai 79 is requested to furnish fifty copies of the said Notification each to the Government in the Revenue Department, the Commissioner of Land Administration, all Collectors/Additional Collectors/District Revenue Officers and all Departments of Secretariat.
6. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.71399/Rev/2010, dated:29.12.2010.
(By Order of the Governor) V.K.Jeyakodi Principal Secretary to Government To The Works Manager, Government Central Press, Chennai-79.
The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5.
All Collectors/Additional Collectors/District Revenue Officers.
Copy to:
All Departments of Secretariat.
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-34.
Revenue (LA II/RAI/RAII) Department, Chennai-9.
//Forwarded by order// Section Officer.
APPENDIX NOTIFICATION Under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the Revenue Department Notification No.II(2)/REV/7150/84, dated the 13 December 1984, published at page 970 of Part II- Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee, dated the 26th December 1984, as subsequently amended:-
AMENDMENTS In the said Notification,...
(1) In item (i), for the expression twenty lakhs, the expression fifty lakhs shall be substituted;
(2) In item (ii), for the expression expression twenty lakhs, the expression fifty lakhs shall be substituted.
V.K.Jeyakodi Principal Secretary to Government
34. Extract of G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 07.01.2011, has been made to reiterate the position that on and from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 29.09.1992, the Collector/Additional Collector/ District Revenue Officer, has been authorised to approve, pre-valuation statement and awards, for payment of compensation, upto Rs.20 Lakhs.
35. Thus, during the relevant point of time, when the Award No.1/2003-2004, dated 14.05.2003, was pronounced, the District Revenue Officer, Salem, was the competent authority and duly authorised, to approve the award. Delegation of powers to the District Collector/Additional District Collector/ District Revenue Officer, is traceable to the 1st proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
36. In Shakir Husain v. Chandoo Lal reported in AIR 1931 All. 567 (FB), the Supreme Court explained the difference between the words, approval and Permission as follows:
Ordinarily the difference between the approval and permission is, that in the first the act holds goods until disapproved, while in the other case is does not become effective until permission is obtained. But permission subsequently obtained may all the same validate the previous Act.
37. A combined reading of Sections 11 and 11-A of the Act, makes it clear that, three things have to be satisfied, viz.,
(i) Award under Section 11 of the Act has to be passed within a period of two years, from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
(ii) Prior approval by the Government or Authorised Officer is mandatory before passing the award.
(iii) The Award should not be beyond the period prescribed and without the prior approval of the Government or Authorised Officer.
38. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the award has been passed, within the prescribed period of two years, from the date of Section 6 Declaration. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.1027, approval has been granted by the District Revenue Officer, Salem, on 14.05.2003 and that the records produced reveal that the award has been pronounced, on the same date, i.e., on 14.05.2003, in the Open Court. Entries in the files, are extracted hereunder:
The Draft Award for a total sum of Rs.16,85,200/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty five thousand and two hundren only) for an extent of 5.56.0 Hectares is submitted for approval (Counter Signed) Sd/- on 13.05.2003 District Revenue Officer, Salem Endt. R.O.C.107320/94(B3), dated .05.2003 Approved Sd/- on 14.05.2003 District Revenue Officer, Salem Pronounced by me in the Open Court. This 14th day of May 2003.
Sd/- on 14.05.2003 Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem 636 008.
H2/11310/03, dated .05.2003 The Draft Award for a total sum of Rs.16,85,200/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty five thousand and two hundren only) vide annexure. Scrutinised and approved, as required in the first proviso, under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
39. Files disclose that earlier, in response to a request made by the District Revenue Officer, Salem District, for approval, vide letter, dated 14.05.2003, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, has replied the District Revenue Officer, Salem District (WE), reiterating the competence of the District Collector/Additional District Collector/District Revenue Officer, to approve the amount, less than Rs.20 Lakhs and pronounce of the same. The said letter is extracted hereunder:-
LAND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT From To Tmt.O.P.Sosammal, I.A.S., The District Revenue Officer, Special Commissioner and Salem District. (WE) Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
Letter No.H/11310/03, dated 14.05.2003 Sir, Sub: Land Acquisition Salem District Omalur Taluk Kottagoundampatty Village S.No.25/5 etc. - Extent 5.56.0 Hectare for acquisition of lands for Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Scheme Draft Award Proposal submitted Reg.
Ref: Your letter No.107320/94 B3, dated 05.05.2003 and 13.05.2003.
-----
I invite your attention to the references cited wherein you have sent draft award proposal for an extent of 5.56.0 Hectares of land proposed for acquisition for Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Scheme at Kottagoundampatty Village of Omalur Taluk of Salem District in S.No.25/5 etc., amounting to Rs.16,85,200/-. This has been examined in detail.
2. Since the award amount is less than Rs.20 Lakhs, it is well within the monetary powers of the Collector/DRO. The award proposal is therefore returned to you for approval and pronouncement of award.
3. I also request you to mark a copy of the award to this office once it is pronounced for reference and records.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- I.Veerabadran for Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration.
// Forwarded/by order // Sd/-
Superintendent.
40. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, 2nd respondent has made an award on 13.05.2003 and when the District Revenue Officer, Salem approved the award, only on 14.05.2003, one day, later than the award was made by the Special Tahsildar, there was no prior approval of the award by the competent authority. According to him, the District Revenue Officer was not authorised officer. The award said to be pronounced on 14.05.2003. It was only a post approval award, which is not permissible in law. According to him, when there is no prior approval, it cannot be regarded as an award in the eye of law and therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated.
41. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the moment the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, he becomes functus officio and there cannot be any second award. On the contrary, the Additional Government Pleader has submitted that when the Land Acquisition Officer prepared an award on 30.04.2003, erroneously including the lands, covered under the orders of stay, the same was not approved by the District Collector or the competent authority, in exercise of the powers conferred under the First Proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
42. Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deals with the award of Collector, when to be final and the said Section is extracted hereunder:
"(1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's Office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made."
43. As stated supra, as per G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 29.09.1992, the Collector/Additional Collector/ District Revenue Officer, has been authorised to approve the award for the amount of compensation, less than Rs.20 Lakhs. When the award prepared by the then Land Acquisition Officer/Special Officer, Mr.Gunasekar, was sent to the Collector, for approval, he has not agreed to the same, for the reason that, the then Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, Mr.Gunasekar had erroneously included the lands covered under the orders of stay and that the quantum of compensation arrived at, also contained arithmetic errors. The tabular column extracted from the counter affidavit, shows the errors corrected by the Land Acquisition Officer, after deleting the lands, covered under the orders of stay. The then Land Acquisition Officer, by erroneous inclusion of the lands, covered under the orders of stay, computed the total compensation as Rs.42,05,062/-. Now, the compensation worked out at Rs.16,85,200/-, is only in respect of cases, where the acquisition proceedings have already reached a finality.
Sl.No Survey No Extent in Hectares Compensation suggested (draft award) prepared including the lands under stay on 30.04.2003 Order on 13.5.2003 Reason 1 25/5 69/1A 0.20 0.42.5 --------0.62.5 Rs.899577 Deleted In stay made absolute in WP.16482/2001 WMP 24501/2001 on 12.10.01 2 26/4 69/5C 0.58 0.90 ------- 1.48 Rs.404735 404686 Diff of Rs.49 due to clerical error corrected 3 27/2C2 32/1B1A2 0.32.5 0.56.5 -------- 0.89 Rs.281195 281161 Diff of Rs.34 due to clerical error corrected 4 67/1C 0.54 Rs.134419 Deleted Diff of Rs.16 due to clerical error corrected 5 67/2 67/3 0.48 0.81.5 -------- 1.29.5 Rs.1264803 Deleted In stay made absolute in W.P.No.16483/2001WMP 24503/2001 on 12.10.2001.
668/1B 0.65 Rs.214441 452997 In Stay made absolute in WP No.13405/03 WMP 16811/2003 on 28.04.2003 7 68/3B 0.98.5 Rs.453052 Deleted Diff of Rs.55 due to clerical error corrected 8 68/5B 0.56 Rs.141396 411953 In stay granted in WP 13406/03 on 28.04.2003 9 69/2A 1.66.5 Rs.412003 16,85,200 Diff of Rs.50 due to clerical error corrected.
Total Rs.4205621 16,85,200 (Sent to Collector adding the extent covered under stay) Approved by Collector, Salem
44. Inasmuch as strong reliance has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the award, prepared by the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, dated 13.05.2003, this Court deems it fit to extract the proceedings in Award No.1/2003-04 in ROC No.929/98, dated 13.05.2003.
AWARD NO.1/2003-2004 ROC.929/98, DT. 13.05.2003 MADE BY THIRU.G.JAYAGANDHI LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUSITION) NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEME, SALEM-8.
Whereas, an extent of 5.56.0 hectares of land in S.No.25/5 etc., situated in the village of 64, Kottagoundampatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and registered in the name of or occupied by persons specified below have been declared by the State Government at Page No.1-2 of Extra-ordinary issue supplement to part II, Section -2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee No.348, dated 16.05.2001 to be needed for a public purpose to wit for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The undersigned after full enquiry into the case and on due consideration of various circumstances connected with the acquisition as have before set forth made the following Award under his hand.
Sl.No. Description Value 1 The true value of the land is 5.56.0 Hectare 2 The compensation allowed for the land is as detailed below:
i) The market value of the land subject to full assessment or ground rent as the case may be house site held from the market value of each. Exclusive in all cases of trees, buildings, standing crops.
5.56.0 Hec. @ Rs.148672/- per Hec.
ii) In the case of Inam comes under para 4(1) of the R.S.0.90 the amount of new assessment by the extent acquired which represents the melvaram interest in rupee.
iii) Value on account of buildings and structures
iv) Value of trees
v) Other damage if any to be specified 8,26,616.32
---
1,84,242.00 5,855.00
---
Total 10,16,713.32 3 30% Solatium of land value 3,05,014.00 4 12% Additional amount from 22.05.2000 to 14.05.2003 (1088 days) 3,63,472.38 Total 16,85,199.70 5 ADD: Rounding to nearest rupee 0.30 Grand Total 16,85,200.00 (Rupees Sixteen lakhs eighty five thousand and two hundred only) ANNEXURE Survey No. Extent in Hec.
Name of the Registered holder of Occupier Boundaries North Boundaries East Boundaries South Boundaries West 26/4 0.58.0 Rakkianna Gounder and Selvakumar 69/5C 67/1 66/1 26/3B 27/2C2 0.32.0 Venkatesan 27/2D 27/2D 32/1B1A2 27/2C1 32/1B1A2 0.56.5 Venkatesan 27/2D 32/1B1B1 & 32/9 to 11 32/4 32/1B1A 32/7 & 8 67/1C 0.54.0 Ponnusamy and others 67/1A 67/1A 66/11 26/4 68/3B 0.98.5 Chinnapaiyan and others 68/1B & 4 68/5B 67/1A 68/3A 69/2A 1.66.5 Venugopal and Others 69/1A & 1B 69/6 69/3A 25/5 69/5C 0.90.0 Rakkianna Gounder and Selvakumar 69/4 69/3A 24/4 & 3 69/5A & 5B The person or persons to whom the compensation is due:
Sl.No. Name of the persons S.No. Extent in Hec.
Compensation 1 Sub-Judge, Mettur 26/4 69/5C 0.58.0 0.90.0 Total 1.48.0 4,04,686.00 2 Sub-Judge, Mettur 27/2C2 32/1B1A2 0.32.5 0.56.5 Total 0.89.0 2,81,161.00 3 Sub-Judge, Mettur 67/1C 0.54.0 1,34,403.00 4 Sub-Judge, Mettur 68/3B 0.98.5 4,52,997.00 5 Sub-Judge, Mettur 69/2A 1.66.5 4,11,953.00 Total 16,85,200.00 A sum of Rs.16,85,200/- will be deposited in the Sub-Court, Mettur under reference u/s.30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The undersigned certifies that:
(a) Notices
(a) Notices have been promulgated or served in accordance with Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and that evidence of such promulgation or service such forms part of the records.
(b) There is before him a plotted plan of land or land to be acquired.
Sd/-
Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem-8.
45. What is certified by Mr.G.Jayagandhi, the successor Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, is that notices have been promulgated or served, in accordance with Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and that evidence of such promulgation or service such forms part of the records. In the abovesaid proceedings, dated 13.05.2003, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, has only prepared the award, reiterating the entitlement of compensation, payable to the eligible land owners, including the petitioners.
46. As stated supra, the letter, dated 14.05.2003, sent along with the award, to the Land Commissioner, Chennai, has been returned, with a direction that such award could be approved by the delegated authorities. The Land Commissioner has also directed the authority to pronounce the award and send a copy of the same. Therefore, till 14.05.2003, the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, was not pronounced. Preparation of pre-valuation or computation of compensation for the lands acquired and to be paid to the eligible land owners or persons interested, would not amount to passing of an award or pronouncement of an award, in terms of Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, till an award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, is approved by the competent authority and pronounced in the manner, as per the procedure followed.
47. The award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, requires verification and if there is any arithmetical and clerical error, the same can be rectified by the District Collector, at any time, but not later than six months, from the date of award, where there has been a requirement under Section 18 to make a reference before making of such reference. Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deals with the correction of clerical errors, etc., and that same is extracted hereunder:
"(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.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award to all the persons interested.
(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue."
48. As stated supra, the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, had prepared an award, by including certain lands, covered under the orders of stay and erroneously computed the quantum of compensation, it was not approved by the District Collector. Pre-valuation and the quantum of compensation arrived at, by the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, cannot be treated as an award, passed under Section 11 of the Act.
49. In exercise of the powers under Section 13-A of the Act, the District Collector or the officer authorised to approve the award, in terms of first proviso to Section 11-A of the Act, can always issue suitable directions to the Land Acquisition Tahsildar to rectify the mistakes. Therefore, at the stage, when the award prepared on 30.04.2003 and placed before the District Collector, for approval, cannot be said to be an award in the eye of law, as per Section 11 of the Act and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 30.04.2003, an award, described as the first award, had already been passed, in the humble opinion of this Court, is not correct.
50. Reading of Section 13-A of the Act, makes it clear that the District Collector is empowered to 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, 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. Therefore, as per the statutory provision, if there are certain clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award, the District Collector can pass necessary orders, to rectify the mistakes and in such circumstances, there could only be a corrected award, which cannot be construed as a 2nd award. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there can be only one award. When it is permissible under Section 13-A of the Act, to correct arithmetical and clerical errors in the award, prepared by the Tahsildar, then it is only one award, in the eye of law. Even taking it for granted that an award has already been passed or pronounced, and if there is a requirement to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, still the District Collector, is empowered to make necessary arithmetical or clerical mistakes and even in such cases, it has to be meant that there is only one award, passed by the competent authority, eliminating the errors. Merely because certain arithmetical or clerical mistakes, have been rectified, it cannot be said that there are two awards. In the case on hand, on 30.04.2003, an award has been prepared by the then Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Mr.P.Gunasekar, but it contained certain mistakes. It has been corrected subsequently. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are two awards.
51. As stated supra, in the case on hand, at the time, when the award was prepared by Mr.P.Gunasekar, then Land Acquisition Officer and placed before the Collector, the latter did not approve the same. When the award prepared by Mr.G.Jayagandhi, subsequent Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem-8, was placed before the District Revenue Officer, Salem, he has sent the same for approval on 13.05.2003 to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, who in turn, by her letter, dated 14.05.2003, has pointed out that the District Collector/District Revenue Officer, as the case may be, himself can approve the award and pronounce the same. Accordingly, the District Revenue Officer, Salem, has approved the award on 14.03.2003. As per Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award becomes final, only on the date, when it is approved by the competent authority. In view of the G.O.Ms.No.1027, the challenge to the competence of the District Revenue Officer/District Collector, has to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.
52. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to to consider the meaning of the word, approval from reputed dictionaries.
Webster's Third New Dictionary:-
"Certificate as to acceptability ; The act of approving ; approve applies to a feeling or expression of commendation or of agreement with, but it may suggest any judicious attitude involved."
Law Laxicon By P. Ramanatha Aiyer:-
"To accept as good or sufficient for purpose Intended : to confirm authoritatively."
Black's Law Dictionary:-
"The act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another."
Oxford Dictionary:-
"The action of approving something; and the belief that someone or something is good or acceptable."
Words and Phrases Permanent Edition:-
"The term "approval" is susceptible of different meanings, dependent upon the subject-matter and context concerning which the term is employed and the object and purpose to be subserved or accomplished. Ordinarily, the term in its most obvious meaning is to common, confirm, ratify, sanction, or to consent to some act or thing done by another. As used in some statutes or tests, the act of "approval" implies the act of passing judgment, the use of discretion, and a determination as a deduction therefrom, unless limited by the statute. As used in other statutes, the term implies the exercise of sound judgment, practical sagacity, wise discretion, and final direct affirmative action. In some cases the term implies the exercise of judicial action or discretion, while in other cases the exercise of only an administrative function or capacity and not in a judicial sense. [In re State Bank of Millard Country, 30 P.2d 211, 214, 84 Utah, 147].
Generally, when the "approval" of a distinct officer or body of officers is made necessary to validate, the act of another, the legislature intends that such officer or board should be vested with discretion to sanction officially, or disapprove the act submitted to him or them. [Gustafson v. Wethersfield Tp. High School District. 191, 42 N.E.2d 311, 313, 319 I11.App. 225] The word "approval" must be given its usual and accepted sense, where neither the context, not the apparent intention of the Legislature justified any departure from the ordinary meaning, which is the opposite of "disapproval" and necessarily involves the exercise of discretionary power, which ordinarily is complete unless limited in some way, and power of local authorities was not limited to a mere verification of the facts stated in the application. [McCarten v. Sanderson, 190 P.2d. 1108, 1111, 1112, 111 Mont. 407, 132 A.L.R. 1229.]
53. While considering the legal character of an award made by the Collector under Section 12, in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Supreme Court held that the award is a decision of the Collector reached after holding an enquiry, as prescribed by the Act. It is a decision inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the persons interested in the property acquired, but legally the award could not be treated as decision. If the owner accepts the offer, no further proceedings will be required to be taken, the amount has to be paid and compensation proceeding is concluded, if the owner does not accept the offer, Section 18 could be availed by him, for making reference to the Civil Court.
54. In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that on the date of preparation of the Award, ie., on 30.04.2003, when the award was prepared by the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, or on 13.05.2003, by the subsequent Land Acquisition Tahsilar, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, the District Collector or the competent authority, authorised by the Government, had already taken a decision. On 13.05.2003, no decision has been taken to approve the award prepared by the subsequent Land Acquisition Tahsildar. Therefore, unless the competent authority takes a decision on the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and approves the same, it cannot be said that an award has been passed or made or pronounced by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar.
55. In Baru Mal Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1962 All. 61, the Allahabad High Court held that it is true that an officer can after writing out and signing an award change his mind and destroy it, but this can be done only up to a particular stage, ie., before it is filed. On the facts of the case therein, it has been observed that in the undernoted case, he not only prepared, signed and filed the award, but also took further steps to implement it. In these circumstances, he has no power let to change the award. If that view are not to be taken, disputes between parties could never be finally settled. There is a difference between the writing out and signing of an award and making an award. Making of an award presupposes a final determination to decide the dispute in a particular manner. Making an award may include the process of writing out and signing the award, but so long as the mind has not been finally determined and process of consideration is still going on the signatures must be held to be provisional and it cannot be said that the award has been made. On the facts of the above case, it was held that earlier an award had been made under Section 11 and it was also sought to be implemented. It was further held that the first award had become final and it was no longer in the power of the Land Acquisition Officer to have changed it and therefore, the second award must be held to have been given without jurisdiction.
56. It is discernible from the reading of the judgment in Baru Mal Jain's case (cited supra), that mere signing of an award does not partake the character of making or passing of an award, until a final determination or decision is taken. Thus, as per the statutory provisions, final determination or the decision by the competent authority, either the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government, to approve the award, as the case may be, in the manner provided for, assumes importance, which means that the award prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, has to be approved by the competent authority under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act and until such time, the process involved in the final determination of the award is not completed. Hence, any signature affixed or date mentioned in the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, should be held only as provisional. Such provisional conclusion or computation made by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, on the quantum of compensation, payable to the eligible land owners or the persons interested becomes final, only after the approval is granted by the competent authority, authorised to do so. Therefore, mere signing of an award, in the case on hand, on 13.05.2003, without there being any approval by the competent authority, does not amount to passing or making of an award.
57. In Madhu Ram v. Collector, Baramullah reported in AIR 1962 J & K 37, the Court, considered a case, under Section 12 of the Act, which speaks about the stage, as to when the award of the Land Acquisition Act becomes final. As per Section 12 of the Act, an award shall be filed in the Office of the Collector and would be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the other interested persons, whether they have appeared before the Collector or not. The Collector is also required to give immediate notice of his award to the interested person. But mere signing of the document in the nature of an award would not make the award final and conclusive. To be conclusive, the award must be filed in the Office of the Collector and would become part of his office record and only then the award would become final and conclusive.
58. In Mohamdadsarif Hakimji Chippa v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1967 Guj. 269, the Gujarat High Court meant the expression "award" as "decision" to be arrived at by the Collector on the matters mentioned in Section 11 of the Act. The Court further held that the said decision of the Collector given under exceptional circumstances may be contained in more than one document. So long as one or more documents constitute one compendious decision of the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector, the mere fact that it is contained in more than one document would not amount to two or more separate awards.
59. Reverting back to the case on hand, and as stated supra, on 30.04.2003, when the award prepared by the then Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Mr.P.Gunasekar, was sent for approval, no decision was taken by the District Collector, but the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, was instructed to rectify the mistakes, noticed in the award. Again, till 14.05.2003, no decision has been taken, either by the District Collector or District Revenue Officer, Salem District, on the award, prepared and signed by the subsequent Land Acquisition Tahsildar, but it was approved only on 14.05.2003, which means that a final decision has been taken only on 14.05.2003.
60. In Smt.Sugandhi v. Collector, Ranipur reported in AIR 1969 M.P. 79, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that simply because the award, after it was made by the Additional Collector, was sent to the Collector, for obtaining his approval in pursuance of the Government Instructions, it cannot be said that the award was made by the Collector.
61. The purpose of granting prior approval by a superior authority has been explained in Kusumabai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 1979 (1) Knt.L.J.76, wherein, it is held that, "it only to prevent capricious, arbitrary payment of compensation or collusion between the Land Acquisition Officer and the owner of the property and prevent loss to public exchequer."
62. Reverting to the case on hand, as stated supra, the then Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.P.Gunasekar, though not arbitrarily fixed the quantum of compensation, it has been noticed by the District Collector that the Land Acquisition Tahsildar has erroneously included the lands covered under the orders of stay and computed the compensation. Therefore, such erroneous computation of award has to be necessarily rectified by the Collector or the competent authority. As held in Smt.Sugandhi's case (cited supra), mere forwarding the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar on 13.05.2003, does not mean that an award has been passed on 13.05.2003. It is clear that till 14.05.2003, no decision has been taken nor the award was pronounced. Therefore, it is not open to the owners of the land or persons interested to claim that an award was passed or pronounced on 13.05.2003 itself. Mere preparation of an award and signing by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, affixing his signature and date, as to when, it was prepared, does not amount to an award being passed or pronounced, on the same date, unless and until, it is approved in the manner, as provided for. If the contentions of the petitioners that an award has been passed on 13.05.2003 itself, has to be accepted, then any award prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, with the signature and the date of preparation, has to be construed, as an award being passed and pronounced. Any officer, who prepares pre-valuation of the land acquired or prepares an award, has to necessarily affix his signature and date, as to when it was prepared. That does not mean that he had pronounced the award, on the same day itself. He can pronounce the award only after the final approval of the competent authority. The said provision of approval is a mandate in the Act, to have a check on the pre-valuation or award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, before a final decision or determination is arrived at, by the approving authority.
63. In P.Venkatesan and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2001(3) L.W. 518, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at Para 7, it is held as follows:
"7.Hence one the date when the award was passed, it is absolutely necessary that the Collector ought to have got the prior approved of the Commissioner and Land Revenue. In this case, admittedly, the Collector has not obtained the previous approval of the said Commissioner of Land Revenue. Only subsequent to the passing of the award, the Collector has written for the approval for which the Commissioner of land Revenue has sent a reply on 18.12.1995 stating that the Collector ought to have sought for the previous approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue before even the award was passed. There is no provision in the act to ratify the award passed by the Collector.
64. In the reported case, an award was passed on 02.09.1994, by the Land Acquisition Officer. On 18.12.1995, the Land Commissioner has sent a reply, stating that prior approval was not obtained. The abovesaid decision is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, for the reason that in the reported case, award came to be passed on 02.09.1994 itself, before the approval was granted by the competent authority. Whereas, in the case on hand, the award prepared and signed on 13.05.2003, has been sent for approval only on 14.05.2003 and receiving a reply from the Land Commissioner, it was approved by the District Revenue Officer on 14.05.2003, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1027 and pronounced on 14.05.2003 by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar in the Open Court. The date of preparation of the award and signature affixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.04.2003, cannot be said to be the date of passing or pronouncement of the award. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to consider a Full Bench decision made in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range v. V.Rani reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129, on the aspect, as to whether, circulars, issued has the force of law. After considering various decisions and on the facts and circumstances of the reported case, the Hon'ble Full Bench in the above reported decision, held that the circulars issued, have no force of law.
65. The facts in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia and Another v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another reported in (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 83, are as follows:
"3.The appellants are the owners of the land situated in Akola district, Maharashtra. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the appellants. A notice was also issued to the appellants under Section 9 of the Act for submitting their claim to compensation in respect of the area under acquisition. The appellants submitted their claim contending that the land under acquisition was converted to non-agricultural use by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola, dated 3.3.1983. The appellants also pointed out that by the said order, residential lay outs were sanctioned in the lands sought to be acquired and plots were also demarcated. The appellants also pointed out that the lands in question were surrounded by developed colonies with residential quarters, industries, marketyards and other commercial complexes in the near vicinity. The appellants also contended that the land is close to national highway and State bus-stand. On the said basis the appellants claimed a compensation @ Rs. 1.75 per sq. ft. Based on the claim of the appellants, the Collector who held an inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, called for information report from the Assistant Director of Town Planning for determination of the compensation payable. The said Asstt. Director of Town Planning in turn referred the matter to the Director. Town Planning, Pune, who as per the matter to the 20.10.2000 taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the lands and other prevailing factors, directed that the lands in question should be valued taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the land. Based on the said recommendation of the Director of Town Planning. the Asstt. Director. Town Planning, evaluated the land and held that the total value of the land is Rs. 21,76,622/- per hectare. The said finding was given also taking into consideration the sales transactions of the lands in the near vicinity. The Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector) on the basis of the said report, prepared a proposed award wherein he fixed the plot area as 53,991 sq. meters and fixed the valuation at Rs. 130/- per sq. meter. From the said valuation, he deducted 8% towards the period of 2 years which would be required for selling of the plots by the appellants and after giving deduction to such deferred payment, he fixed the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 1,82,29,048/-.
4. The said proposed award was sent to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, respondent No. 2 herein, as required under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act for his approval. The said Commissioner as per his order dated 28.3.2001 after reappreciating the material on record, came to the conclusion that the lands in question remained to be agricultural lands, therefore, the value fixed by the Collect or treating the same as potentially non-agricultural land, was erroneous and he came to the conclusion that the value should be Rs. 72,400/- per hectare. He also reconsidered the additions and deductions made by the Collector and came to the conclusion that the valuation made by the Collector was improper hence directed the Collector to refix the compensation as directed in his order dated 28.3.2001.
5. It is against this order of the Commissioner made under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act that the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Mumbai, Nagpur Bench, contending that the Commissioner acting under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the material found in the records of the Collector as an appellate authority. It was also contended that the authority of the Commissioner acting under the said provision of law was only to approve or not to approve the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector). The High Court rejected this contention holding that the Commissioner under the Act when required to give prior approval for the award can re-appreciate the material relied on by the Collector, hence the High Court held that the order of the Commissioner did not call for interference, hence, dismissed the writ petition. The High Court also held that if the appellants were aggrieved by the reduction in the market value, they would approach the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act."
The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are as follows:
"6. Mr.V.A.Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, reiterated the contention of the appellants urged before the High Court and further contended that under the Scheme of the Act, the proceeding before the Collector under Section 11 is a quasi-judicial proceeding wherein the Land Acquisition Officer is statutorily required to make an award taking into consideration the factors enumerated in the said section after giving notice to the interested persons. In the said proceedings, the determinaton of the market value or the compensation payable to the claimants is to be done on the satisfaction of the Collector based on the material on record and not based on any other authority's satisfaction. Learned counsel contended that the requirement of prior approval found in the proviso to Section 11(1) is not an appellate power but only an administrative act of accepting or not accepting the proposed award made by the Collector, therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence. While exercising the said authority of approval of the Collector's award the Commissioner at the most may not grant approval to the said award, but he cannot sit in appeal against the said award.
The reply of the respondents therein is as follows:
"Mr.V.B.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the very fact that there is a statutory requirement of obtaining prior approval would ipso facto mean that the approving authority, in the instant case the Commissioner, had to examine the correctness of the finding of the Collector, therefore in that process he has every right to disagree with the Collector based on material on record hence there is no error or want of jurisdiction as contended by the appellants when the Commissioner remanded the matter to the Collector to refix the market value and compensation payable based on the directions issued by him. He alternatively contended that assuming that the Commissioner had no appellate power, such power is definitely available to the appropriate Government under Section 15-A of the Act which power can also be exercised by the Commissioner."
On the above facts and submissions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paras 8 and 9 held as follows:
8.The issue in this appeal centres around the question of the authority of the Commissioner exercising a power under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act to reconsider the material on record and to disagree with the finding of the Collector and further to issue directions to the Collector to fix the market value/compensation in a manner he thinks appropriate. While the appellants contend no such power vests with the Commissioner, the respondents contend that the Commissioner is vested with such power.
9.From the Scheme of the Act, it is seen that the power of inquiry under Section 11 vests with the Collector who has to issue notice to the interested persons and hear the interested persons in the said inquiry. He also has to determine the measurements of the land in question and on the basis of material on record decide the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and if need be, he can also apportion the said compensation amongst the interested persons. The nature of inquiry which statutorily requires the interested parties of being heard and taking a decision based on relevant factors by the Collector shows the inquiry contemplated under Section 11 is quasi-judicial in nature, and the said satisfaction as to the compensation payable should be based on the opinion of the Collector and not that of any other person. Section 11 under the Act has not provided an appeal to any other authority as against the opinion formed by the Collector in the process of inquiry conducted by him. What is provided under the proviso to Section 11(1) is that the proposed award made by the Collector must have the approval of the appropriate Government or such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in that behalf. In our opinion, this power of granting or not granting previous approval cannot be equated with an appellate power. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines 'approval' to mean an act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. In the context of an administrative act, the word 'approval' in our opinion, does not mean anything more than either confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting. It will be doing violence to the Scheme of the Act if we have to construe and accept the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the word approval found in the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act under the Scheme of the Act amounts to an appellate power. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that this is only an administrative power which limits the jurisdiction of the authority to apply his mind to see whether the proposed award is acceptable to the Government or not. In that process for the purpose of forming an opinion to approve or not to approve the proposed award the Commissioner may satisfy himself as to the material relied upon by the Collector but he cannot reverse the finding as if he is appellate authority for the purpose of remanding the matter to the Collector as can be done by an appellate authority; much less can the Commissioner exercising the said power of prior approval give directions to the statutory authority in what manner he should accept/appreciate the material on record in regard to the compensation payable. If such a power of issuing direction to the Collector by the Commissioner under the provision of law referred to hereinabove is to be accepted then it would mean that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise the said power to substitute his opinion to that of the Collector's opinion for the purpose of fixing the compensation which in our view is opposed to the language of Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Act has not conferred an appellate jurisdiction on the Commissioner under Section 15(1) proviso of the Act. This conclusion of ours is further supported by the scheme of the Act and Section 15A of the Act which is also introduced in the Act simultaneously with the proviso to Section 11(1) under Act 68 of 1984. By this amendment, we notice that the Act has given a power akin to the appellate power to the State Government to call for any records or proceedings of the Collector before any award is made, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any finding or order passed or as to the irregularity of such proceedings and to pass such other order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit. Therefore it is not as if the acquiring authority namely the appropriate Government even if aggrieved by the fixation of compensation by the Collector it has no remedy. It can very well exercise the power under Section 15A and pass such orders as it thinks fit, of course, after affording an opportunity to such person who is likely to be prejudicially affected by such order of the appropriate Government, therefore, it is clear that the statute when it intended to give appellate or revisional power against the finding of the Collector in the fixation of compensation it has provided such power separately in Section 15A of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, if the Commissioner while considering the proposed award of the Collector under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act to grant or not to grant approval if he thinks that the order of the Collector cannot be approved, he can at the most on the administrative side bring it to the notice of the appropriate Government to exercise its power under Section 15A of the Act, but he cannot as in the present case on his own exercise the said power because that power under Section 15A is confined to the appropriate Government only. Therefore we have to negative the argument of Mr. Joshi that it is open to the Commissioner while considering the grant of approval to exercise the power either found in Section 15A of the Act or similar power exercising his jurisdiction under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.
66. In Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), when the award prepared, sent for approval, the Land Commissioner, in the process of forming his opinion, as to whether, the quantum of compensation arrived at, should be approved or not, by the appropriate Government, formed his own opinion, on the materials available on record, as if, he was exercising powers of an appellate authority, and reversed the finding and thereafter, remanded the matter to the District Collector, with directions, as to the manner, as to how, the latter should accept/appreciate the material on record, as the aspect of determination of compensation payable to the land owner. The said action of the Land Commissioner has been held, as without jurisdiction, on the grounds that the Act, does not confer any power on the Land Commissioner, to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse any finding.
67. The judgment in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), has been decided only in that context of the matter, as to whether, the Land Commissioner, by assuming himself to be an appellate authority, can re-appreciate the material on record. But in the case on hand, there is no such re-appreciation by the Land Commissioner. The award prepared on 13.05.2003, sent for approval has been returned, with a direction to the District Collector/District Revenue Officer, stating that the said authorities themselves, are competent to approve the award, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1027.
68. Though on the basis of Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), a contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same authority, who had conducted the enquiry, under Section 11 of the Act, has to pass an order, on the materials considered by him and that no award can be passed by any subsequent officer, without conducting a fresh enquiry, by providing another opportunity, to the land owners or persons interested, such contentions cannot be accepted at all.
69. In Bailamma v. Poornaprajna House Building Coop., Society reported in 2006 (2) SCC 416, at Paragraphs 24 and 25, the Supreme Court, held as follows:
Section 11 of the act requires the Collector to make an enquiry into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested pursuant to the notices given under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as to the value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. He is also required to make an enquiry into the respective interest of the persons claiming the compensation. After considering the objections raised by the persons interested he is required to make an award under his hand which should contain his findings on the matters enumerated in (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. The proviso to Section 11, however, mandates that the Collector shall not make an award under this sub-section without previous approval of the appropriate Government.
The Collector is required to hear the persons interested and enquire into the objections, if any, raised by them on the points which he is required to determine. It is possible to conceive that he may hear the objections on several dates having regard to the number of objectors and the nature of the dispute that may arise, where-after he must make up his mind and prepare his award. It is not expected of him that he should prepare his award in presence of the persons interested, since the Collector may take some time to make up his mind on the matters he is required to incorporate in his award. Thereafter, he is required to send his award to the Government for approval. The approval of the award may take sometime, and it is not known to the Collector as to when the Government will approve the award. However, after the award is approved, if there is no alteration in the award, he is required to notify the parties concerned about the award. He may do so by fixing a date on which the parties may be required to appear for pronouncement of the award, or he may inform them by giving them written notice of the award. This is because an award is in the nature of an offer and must be communicated to the persons to whom the offer is made. There is nothing in Section 11 which expressly requires the Collector to announce his award in the presence of the persons interested, though there is nothing which prevents him from declaring the award on a date fixed by him for the purpose. However, having regard to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, he must give immediate notice to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is made. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that after the award is approved the same becomes an offer to be made to the persons interested, and this can be done by either giving notice to the persons interested of the date on which he may orally pronounce the award, or by giving written notice of the award to the persons interested. The question of limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act has to be determined by reference to the date on which the award was either pronounced before the parties who were present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the award by those not present. The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award after notice in the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate the award, though it may have a bearing on the question of limitation in the matter of seeking a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. The award which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. At best the appellants can contend that it becomes an award when notice is given to the parties interested. Viewed from any angle, having regard to the fact that there is no dispute that the Government granted its approval on 16.11.1992 and notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on November 20, 1992, it must be held that the award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act. There was really no necessity for the Collector to sign the award again, nor does Section 11 require that for the purpose of pronouncing the award notice should be given by the Collector to the persons interested. Section 11 requires notice to be given for the purpose of hearing objections. After the objections are heard, the Collector has to apply his mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and prepare an award whereafter he is required to send it to the Government for approval. There is nothing in Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the persons interested of the date for pronouncement of the award, though, as we have observed earlier, there is also nothing which prevents him from giving such notice. We agree with the finding of the High Court that once it is shown that the award was made and signed and approved by the Government within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act an award is validly made. In the instant case, we have satisfied ourselves that the award was received by the Deputy Commissioner after approval, and notice was thereafter issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on November 20, 1992." (emphasis supplied) Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the land owners.
70. First of all, the case on hand is not a case of re-appreciation of evidence. Secondly, after providing an opportunity to the land owners/persons interested, the quantum of compensation, due and payable to the land owners, has already been provisionally determined, but the process of approval was pending and final determination did not take place, until 14.05.2003, when it was approved. If the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are to be accepted, then the officer, succeeding the one, who had conducted an enquiry and arrived at the provisional conclusion, on the quantum of compensation, due and payable to the eligible land owners or persons interested, has to re-do the exercise, again, and the same, cannot be countenanced.
71. In a given case, if the enquiry was not completed, the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, succeeding him, can always continue the enquiry. Whereas, if the Land Acquisition Officer, who had already conducted the enquiry, under the Act, by giving a reasonable opportunity to the land owners/persons interested, is transferred or promoted or retired or suspended or reverted or dismissed or has proceeded on medical leave or for any other reasons, including repatriation and he is not in a position to discharge the functions of the Land Acquisition Officer, to pass or pronounce an award, he cannot be put back in his seat, from where he had conducted an enquiry, to pass an award, nor he can be compelled, either to compete the enquiry and pass or pronounce an award. Such an argument is wholly untenable.
72. It should be borne in mind that it is not the subjective satisfaction of that particular Land Acquisition Tahsildar, who conducted the enquiry alone, to pass or pronounce an award. The object underlying the Act is that the land owner or the persons interested, should get appropriate compensation. Any officer, who assumes charge, as Land Acquisition Tahsildar, can always evaluate the materials on record and provisionally arrive at a conclusion, as the what amount is due and payable to the land owner or persons interested. Judgement of the Apex Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), can be cited, only for the proposition of law that the Land Commissioner or any other approving authority, as the case may be, cannot exercise the powers, as an appellate authority, which is not specifically conferred on him, under the Act. But as per Section 15-A of the Act, he can always bring it to the notice of the appropriate Government. Reliance placed on the abovesaid decision, is inapposite to the facts of the case.
73. A bare reading of Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, may indicate that there must be a pronouncement of an award and thereafter, either on the application of the land owner or persons interested, or suo motu, the Collector can rectify a mistake. But in the case on hand, rectification of the mistakes have been done even before the award was approved by the competent authority. If the Collector or the District Revenue Officer, as the case may be, has to merely approve the award, as prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, without there being any scrutiny, then the District Collector/District Revenue Officer, the competent authority empowered to approve the award, would perform only a ministerial act of counter signing the award and it would amount to failure on his part to oversee, as to whether, the quantum of compensation has been properly arrived at, without any clerical or arithmetical errors, in which event, the award prepared on 30.04.2003, by including the cases, covered under the orders of stay, also could have been, simply counter-signed by the approving authority. As mentioned earlier, the award prepared on 30.04.2003, included lands covered under the orders of stay also. Had the award been approved by the District Collector or the District Revenue Officer, as the case may be, it would have been construed by this Court, as an act of interference, with administration of justice.
74. Approval of an award prepared by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, is mandatory. It is not an empty formality. It includes scrutiny of the Award prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As observed by the Supreme Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), "approval" means, confirming, rectifying, assenting or sanctioning of the award. When an award is prepared, signed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and submitted for approval, the competent authority, authorised by the Government, to approve such award, has to pass a definite order, either confirming or ratifying, etc. Such authority is empowered to state the reasons, as to why, he is not approving the award, subject of course to the extent of bringing it to the notice of the Government, as to why, the compensation proposed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, is either acceptable or not acceptable to the Government.
75. In the light of Section 15A of the Act, the question of ratification or assent or confirmation, etc., stated supra, arises when the approving authority has to necessarily apply his mind, on the aspect, as to whether the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, has excessively arrived at the compensation payable to the eligible land owner or the persons interested, and that the award prepared, should be without any clerical or arithmetical mistakes. If the amount is higher, he can bring it to the notice of the Government or if the land acquisition officer determines a lesser compensation, the approving authority or the District Collector or any officer, authorised by the Government, cannot suo motu, enhance or reduce the compensation, by re-appreciating the material on record, when it is sent for approval, except, atleast to the extent of rectifying the mistakes or as stated supra, bring it to the notice of the Government.
76. On the question of inadequency, the matter has to be referred only to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction, on the application to be submitted by the land owner or the persons interested. Thus, as decided by the Apex Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia's case (cited supra), the approving authority can always bring it to the notice of the Government, under Section 15-A of the Act, and await the orders of the appropriate Government. Till such time, the award prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, cannot be said to be made or passed or pronounced under the Act.
77. Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, enables 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. Proviso to the said Section states that no correction which is likely to affect prejudically any person shall be made, unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter.
78. Within the period prescribed under the Act, the District Collector or the Competent authority, authorised by the Government, either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or at the time, when it is submitted for approval, can rectify the clerical or arithmetical errors in the award proposed, signed by the concerned Land Acquisition Tahsildar. When the power is conferred on the Collector to correct an award, for the abovesaid reasons, after an award is prepared, it has to be necessarily meant and held that the collector or the competent authority, authorised to approve the award, can also correct the mistakes, at any time, before approval. Though in the case on hand, no material has been placed to indicate that any reference is sought for, having regard to the statutory power to rectify a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award, conferred on the Collector or any competent authority, authorised to approve the award, even after the pronouncement and before reference of an award, this Court is of the humble view that Section 13-A of the Act can also be read into Section 11 of the Act, insofar as the rectification of mistakes is concerned.
79. One of the questions to be considered, in this case is whether, there is any prejudice to the petitioners, on the aspect of determination of the quantum of compensation and whether there is any vast difference between the award prepared on 30.04.2003 and approved on 14.05.2003. The Successor Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, has not done anything new. He has only acted as per the directions of the District Collector and deleted the lands already covered under the orders of stay. There is no re-appreciation of the material on record and there is no re-working of the award, except to the extent of correcting, the arithmetical or clerical errors.
80. Perusal of the award, dated 14.05.2003, clearly shows that as regards the compensation payable to the land owner and persons interested, rectification of certain arithmetical and clerical errors alone, have been done. There is absolutely no prejudice to the writ petitioners on the quantum of compensation. On the aspect, as to whether, the land owners or persons interested have to be given another opportunity, at the time of rectification, this Court is of the view that the principles of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula and in all cases, the whole exercise has to be re-done and an opportunity to be given.
81. In V.D.S.R. Re. Rolling Mill v. Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration reported in 2012(4) CLJ 211, this Court considered what notice means and why it has to be given. Extract of Paragraphs 107 to 114 would be relevant to the case on hand also.
"107. Notice is the making something known, of what a man was or might be ignorant of before. And it produces divers effects, for, by its, the party who gives the same shall have some benefit, which otherwise he should not have had; the party to whom the Notice is given is made subject to some action or charge, that otherwise he had not been liable to; and has estate in danger of prejudice. [Co.Lit.309 Tomlin's Law Dictionary]
108. Actual Notice is "When there is positive information of a fact," It is "Actual knowledge by the party of the very matter or thing, of which he is said to have notice," "It consists in express information of the fact." It is "knowledge brought directly home to the party." "However closely actual notice may be in many instances approximate knowledge, thee may be actual notice without knowledge." [See 29 Ame.Cyc.1113]
109. Constructive Notice, defines "Legal inference from established facts." "Notice imputed by the law to a person not having actual notice." "Knowledge of any fact which would put a prudent man upon inquiry." "Knowledge of such facts as should induce inquiry, and as would lead to injury in the case of an ordinarily prudent man and which cannot be neglected without a voluntary closing of the eyes, and conduct inconsistent with good faith."
110. Notice, in its legal sense, may be defined as "information concerning a fact actually communicated to a party by an authorised person, or actually derived by him from a proper source, or else presumed by law to have been acquired by him, which information is regarded as equivalent to knowledge in its legal consequences. [13 All 171 : 30 B. 275]
111. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinately the case he has to meet. Time given of the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity the order passed againt the person in absentia becomes wholly vitiated. Thus it is but essential that a party should be put on Notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fairplay. Another principle of natural justice is popularly known as rule against bias. A third one is that the party when requested should be given a copy of the order passed against him, containing the reasons for the adverse order. [Hurhanuddin Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 AP 137]
112. The word "Notice" means intimation, information, cognizance or observance, "notice" implies knowledge and this knowledge comes from direct perception or from inference reasonably arising out of several facts and circumstances. [Manick Lal Seal v. K.P.Choudhary, AIR 1976 Cal. 115]
113. The word 'Notice' means intimation annoncement, information, warning, cognizance, observation, "Notice" implies knowledge and this knowledge may come from direct perception or from inference reasonably arising out of several facts and circumstances which are manifest on plaint averments. [Kanchanbai v. Khetidas, (1991) 1 Civil LJ 553]
114. 'Notice' is originated from Latin word 'notifia' which means 'a being know', knowing is wide enough in legal circle to include plaint filed in suit, notice in its legal sense, is, information concerning fact actually communicated to party by authorised person or actually derived by him from proper sources or else presumed by law to have been acquired by him, which information is regarded as equivalent to knowledge in its legal consequences. [Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors., v. Subhash & Co., AIR 2003 SC 1623 = 2003 (3) SCC 454]"
82. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, without giving any opportunity and conducting an enquiry, the subsequent Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, has made the award on 13.05.2003, causing serious prejudice to the interests of the land owners. Adverting to the said ground of prejudice, this Court deems it fit to consider what prejudice means.
83. Prejudice means a prejudging of a case from any cause. It means a settled and fixed opinion, either as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, no matter from what cause that opinion is dervied or upon what it is based, whether from rumor, hearsay, newspaper report, or evidence upon a former trial, or from anything else, if it is fixed and settled. [Hinkle v. State, 21 S.E. 595, 600, 94 Ga. 595].
84. Webster defines prejudice in this wise: An opinion or decision of mind formed without due examination; prejudgment; a bias or leaning toward one side or another of a question, from other considerations than those belonging to it; an unreasonable predilection or prepossession for or against anything; especially an opinion or leaning adverse to anything, formed without proper grounds or before sufficient knowledge. [Matchell v. State, 36 S.W. 456, 464, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 278; In re Breckinridge, 48 N.W. 142, 143, 31 Neb. 489.]
85. A person is prejudiced or aggrieved, in the legal sense, when a legal right is invaded by an act complained of or his pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. Aggrieved means having a substantial grievance; a denial of some personal or property right. [Glos v. People, 102 N.E. 763, 766, 259 Ill. 332, Ann.Cas.1914C, 119.]
86. As per Corpus Juris Secundum, as a noun, prejudice is defined as meaning a bias or leaning toward one side or the other of a question from considerations other than those beloning to it; an unreaonable predilection or pre-possession for or against anything, especially an opinion or leaning adverse to anything, formed without proper grounds or before suitable knowledge; an opinion or judgment formed beforehand, or without due examination; an opinion or decision of mind formed without due examination; a pre-judgment; prepossession. Prejudice also means to the injury or detriment of another; but it was only detriment resulting from unfair judgment which constitutes legal prejudice.
87. As a verb, the word prejudice is defined as meaning to injure or damage by some judgment or action; to cause injury to; hence, generally, to hurt; damage; injure; impair; to cause any harm or damage or loss to; to bias the mind by hasty and incorrect notions, and give it an unreasonable bent to one side or other of a cause; to prepossess with unexamined opinions, or opinions formed without due knowledge of the facts and circumstances attending the question.
88. The word prejudicial in its broad sense signifies tending to injure or impair, and in its restricted sense signifies being blinded by bias. It may mean merely derogatory, or it may mean actually or naturally and probably bringing about a wrong result. Prejudicial is defined as meaning disadvantages; harmful; hurtful; injurious.
89. As regards prejudice, the Apex Court in State v. N.S.Gnaneswaran reported in 2013 (3) SCC 594, at paragraph 12, held as follows:
"12. The issue also requires to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. Thus, unless in a given situation, the aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or injustice, some infraction of law would not vitiate the order/enqury/result. In judging a question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities. (Vide: Janakinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa (1969) 3 SCC 392; State of U.P., v. Shatrughan Lal and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 3038; State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 554; and Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 68)."
90. No fresh materials have been collected behind the back of the land owners and used to the disadvantage of the petitioners. Already sufficient opportunity has been given at the time of award enquiry, and a provisional determination has been made. As the award prepared and signed on 30.04.2003, contained certain infirmities, as pointed out by the District Collector, the same alone have been rectified. There is minimum change in the quantum of compensation by few rupees. No pecuniary benefit is affected. The correction carried out cannot be said without due examination or application of mind or it has caused damage or injury or the authorities have unreasonably bent or leaned on one side and infringed the land owner's legal right. The corrections carried out, cannot at stretch of imagination, be said to have caused any prejudice to the land owners or the persons interested or on the aspect of providing a reasonable opportunity. Only in a case, where there is a likelihood of prejudice, a reasonable opportunity is required to be given. Correction made is too remote even to suggest any prejudice. Grievance expressed is not substantiated and not established.
91. Merely because, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, in the Award prepared and signed on 13.05.2003, had used the words, "made after full enquiry", it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the award prepared on 13.05.2003, has either been approved by the competent authority under the Act, nor the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, has already made or pronounced the award under Section 11 of the Act. As stated supra, when he has prepared and signed the award, dated 13.05.2003, he has forwarded the same to the District Revenue Officer, Salem District, who in turn, vide letter, dated 14.05.2003, has sought for approval from the Land Commissioner, who in response to the request for approval, has remitted the matter back to the District Revenue Officer, for approval by the competent authority, authorised under G.O.Ms.No.1027. A close scrutiny of the words employed in the award prepared and signed on 13.05.2003, would reveal that what he has mentioned thereunder was that, "after full enquiry into the case", and due consideration of various circumstances, he has made the award. At no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can be said to be prejudiced. Fulfilment of requirements obligated under the statutory provisions, cannot be said to give rise to any cause of prejudice, detrimental to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, causing injustice or infraction of any rights.
92. In the case on hand, notices have been given to the petitioners and only after due enquiry, a sum of Rs.4,04,735/- has been determined. Subsequently, after making the corrections, a final determination of Rs.4,04,686/- has been made. The deduction made is only Rs.49/-. There is absolutely no prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, a second enquiry, is totally uncalled for.
93. Proviso to Section 13-A, makes it clear that no correction, which is prejudicial to any person shall be made, unless such person is given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. In the case on hand, the correction made is only with reference to the inclusion of certain lands, covered under the orders of stay. There is very little change in the quantum of compensation, provisionally arrived at on 30.04.2003, by the then Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Mr.P.Gunasekar, subsequently approved and pronounced on 14.05.2003. The petitioner was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.26/4 and 69/5C. Earlier on 30.04.2003, the amount calculated in respect of Survey Nos.26/4 and 69/5C was Rs.4,04,686/-. A difference of Rs.49/- alone has been made, stating that there was a clerical error. In respect of some other Survey Nos.27/2C2 and 32/1B1A2, the amount provisionally arrived at on 30.04.2003 was Rs.2,81,161/-. The difference due to the clerical error was Rs.34/-. In respect of Survey No.67/1C, the initial amount determined was Rs.1,34,419/-, and after verification, a sum of Rs.34 alone has been deducted. Thus, the difference in the calculation is negligible. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioners, land owners/persons interested to contend that there is prejudice. In the light of the decisions, stated supra and as per the proviso to Section 13-A of the Act, the contentions are untenable.
94. In Padamsi Narain v. Collector of Thana reported in AIR 1922 Bom. 161, the Hon'ble Division Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Macleod, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shah, held as follows:
Per Macleod, C.J.:- The mere signing of a document by an Acquiring Officer, expressing his opinion as to the amount of compensation to be offered to persons whose land is being acquired does not amount to the making of an award within the meaning of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and has no binding effect where the officer himself does not intend the document to be final. Some further formality is required on general principles before it becomes binding on Government and this formality is prescribed by Section 12. (emphasis supplied)
95. The award, approved by the District Revenue Officer, Salem District, becomes final only on 14.05.2003, the date of its approval and consequential pronouncement by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and therefore, the award prepared and signed on 30.04.2003 by the previous Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Mr.P.Gunasekar, is not an award, in the eye of law. The corrected award prepared on 13.05.2003, by the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, cannot be said to be an award passed or pronounced in terms of Section 11(1) of the Act, on that day. As per G.O.Ms.No.1027, the District Revenue Officer, is the competent authority to approve the award prepared on 13.05.2003. It is within his competence, and hence, the challenge to lack of jurisdiction fails.
96. As approval of an award is mandatory, mere preparation does not amount to passing of an award. As the award has been pronounced only on 14.03.2003, after the approval, it is not the case of post approval. Both the approval, dated 14.05.2003 and the subsequent pronouncement of award on the same day, are in conformity with the statutory provisions. There is no illegality in the impugned award, warranting interference. For the reasons stated supra, I do not find any reason to set aside the impugned award.
97. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.01.2014 Index : yes Internet : yes skm To
1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem-600 008.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of Collectorate, Salem, Salem District.
4.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Unit, Salem-636 008.
S.MANIKUMAR, J., skm W.P.No.33337 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 29.01.2014