CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022
&
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
1. The District Collector
Namakkal District
Namakkal.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer /
Special Tahsildar (LA)
Land Acquisitioning Officer
Master Plan Complex Petitioners/
Namakkal. .. Appellants
Vs.
K.Ramasamy
Chellammal
P.Renukadevi Respondents in
P.Selvakumar .. CMP No.20716/22 &
WA No.SR 125117/22
P.Rajendran Respondents in
P.Murugesan .. CMP No.20686/22 &
WA No.SR 125240/22
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
Prayer: CMP Nos.20716 and 20686 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the
appeals against the order dated 02.11.2021 made in W.P.Nos.12107
and 12108 of 2017 respectively; and
(ii) Appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 02.11.2021 made in W.P.Nos.12107 and 12108 of 2017
respectively.
For the Petitioners/ : Mr.S.Silambannan
Appellants Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) Heard on the applications for condonation of the delay of 224 days in filing the appeals.
2. According to the petitioners, the lands covered in S.Nos.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1, 371/11K1, 389/6 were acquired by issuing notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 on Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 & W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022 05.06.1998 for constructing Master Plan Complex. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 on 24.06.1998. Some of the land owners filed W.P.No.8629 of 1998 and obtained an order of stay. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafater, an award was passed, against which, land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which culminated in LAOP Nos.5 to 173 of 2007. The Reference Court fixed Rs.26/- per sq.ft. for some of the lands and Rs.35/- for some of the lands. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of appeals. The said appeals were dismissed upholding the rate fixed by the Reference Court.
3. In the meantime, one Koundi Gounder, one of the land owner and father of the respondents, expired. Therefore, the respondents made a representation to the District Collector on 05.10.2016 seeking to fix compensation at the rate of Rs.26/- per sq.ft. for the lands in S.No.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1 and 371/11K1 and Rs.35/- per sq.ft. for the lands in S.No.389/6, along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount and interest at the rate of 15%. As no order or award was passed, the respondents filed W.P.No.12107 Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 & W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022 of 2017.
4. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the facts, directed the second petitioner/appellant to pass award for the lands comprised in S.Nos.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1 and 371/11K1 at the rate of 26/- per sq.ft. and for the lands comprised in S.No.389/6 at the rate of Rs.35/- sq.ft., along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount and interest at the rate of 15% for all the lands. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/appellants have come up with these appeals, along with the applications for condonation of delay.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the delay has occurred in obtaining instructions from the higher authorities either to proceed with the order of the learned Single Judge or to obtain legal opinion for filing appeals.
6. Heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners/appellants and perused the affidavit and documents. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 & W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
7. Admittedly, the award enhanced by the Reference Court was upheld in appeal. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the respondents have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act or not, they are entitled to the enhanced award amount fixed by the Reference Court in the reference sought by some of the land owners under Section 18, read with Section 28-A of the Act. Thus, we do not find any good and sufficient reason for filing the appeals nor to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the applications to condone the delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are rejected at the SR stage.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 02.01.2023 kpl Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 & W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022 T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J (kpl) CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 & W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022 02.01.2023 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis