Madras High Court
Chenniappan vs The District Collector on 25 February, 2021
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
and WMP.Nos.2179 & 2180 of 2020
1.Chenniappan
2.Thulasimani
3.Venkatachalam ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The District Collector
Erode District
Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Brough Road
Erode – 1.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.20188/1999/AA.1, dated 28.05.2019 and quash
the same and consequently direct the first respondent to enhance the
1/8
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre together with all
benefits like interest, solatium and other aspects.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.D.Raja
Additional Government Pleader [R1, R2]
Mr.N.Damodaran [R3]
ORDER
The property of the petitioners in S.Nos.132/6, 133/1, 133/2 and 130/A
in Anainasuvampalayam, Erode District has been acquired for Bhavani
Kattalai Hydro Electric Project of the then TNEB. An award came to be
passed in Award No.3 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003. The petitioners,
however did not challenge the award under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. However, some of the other landowners had
preferred reference under Section 18, which was considered by the
concerned Sub Court in LAOP.No.5 of 2006, which by its order dated
12.10.2011 enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and
Rs.2,500/- per coconut tree.
1.2 The petitioners without any loss of time, rushed to the District
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
Collector, Erode District with their application under Section 28-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and this was pending. In the meantime, the
land owners still aggrieved by the order of the Sub Court in LAOP.No.5
of 2006, had approached this Court in A.S.No.535 of 2012. This Court,
Vide its judgment dated 24.02.2014, has fixed the compensation at
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre with regard to S.Nos.136 and 134/5. So far as
other survey number involved in that litigation in S.No.80/1AB is
concerned, this Court confirmed the value fixed by the Sub Court.
However, it enhanced the value of the coconut trees from Rs.2,500/- to
Rs.4,000/- per tree. Subsequent to the decree in A.S.No.535 of 2012, the
petitioners approached the District Collector for re-fixation of the
compensation under Section 28-A. The District Collector accepted the
same and passed the proceedings and fixed the value at Rs.4,00,000/- per
acre and Rs.4,000/- per coconut tree.
1.3 It appears that the District Collector has obtained some legal opinion
as to the true import of the judgment in A.S.No.535/2012 and came to the
conclusion that the property of the petitioners was not contiguous to the
property involved in S.No.136 and fixed the compensation at
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as was originally determined by the Sub Court in
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
LAOP.No.5 of 2006.
2. The petitioners herein contend :
(a) that the Collector has the statutory authority ought not to have
been exclusively guided by the legal opinion that he might have
obtained;
(b) that he has not given the petitioners any opportunity before
reducing the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-
3. Mr.D.Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader and
Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel who appeared for TNEB, the third
respondent made a joint statement, in that the properties covered in
A.S.No.535/2012 are different from the properties of the petitioners.
Merely because the properties of the petitioners as well as those involved
in A.S.No.535/2012 are acquired under the same notification, it does not
imply that the violation should also be alike. They also brought to the
notice of the Court how the learned Single Judge of this Court has drawn
the distinction in the judgment in A.S.No.535/2012, between the property
for S.Nos.136 and 134/5 on one hand and the property in S.No.80/1AB
on the other hand.
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
4. After weighing the rival submissions carefully, this Court is satisfied
that no prior notice has been given to the petitioners to explain why their
property cannot fetch the same amount of compensation as determined by
this Court in A.S.No535/2012. The impugned proceedings of the District
Collector has extracted certain portion of the legal advise that he has
obtained from a Senior Law Officer of the State. A legal opinion may be
guidance to the Collector, but as a statutory authority under the Land
Acquisition Act, the Collector has to apply his mind to the issue
himself/herself and must give his own independent reasoning as how
he/she justifies whatever award that he/she ultimately pass. Here this
Court finds that the District Collector appeared to have been influenced
exclusively by the legal opinion that he has obtained, and has omitted to
consider the relative merit of the petitioners' claim. Therefore, this Court
has left with little option, but to set aside the impugned order of the
Collector, and to remit the matter back to the District Collector for better
or de novo consideration.
5. This Court, Vide its order dated 29.01.2020 in WMP.No.2180 of 2020
in WP.No.1864 of 2020, has directed the third respondent to pay the
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
compensation valued at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, less the amount paid
under Award No.3 of 2003 with incidental and ancillary benefits, and
there was some confusion as to whether the Land Acquisition Authority
should receive and pay to the petitioners or not.
6. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent, this amount
has already been deposited in a Nationalised Bank favouring the
Registrar General of this Court.
7. Since there is no dispute as to the petitioners' entitlement to receive
this compensation amount, the petitioners will be at liberty to receive it.
The Registrar General is now required to transfer the amount to the
account of the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the
Revenue Divisional Officer at the first instance shall disburse so much of
compensation amount as can be paid, concerning which there is no
dispute in terms of the enhancement of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-
per acre, less the amount paid under Award No.3/2003.
8. The writ petition is allowed and the District Collector is now required
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
to take up the enquiry in the matter at the very earliest, but at any rate
not later than one week after the conclusion of the ensuing General
Election of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly 2021, and
conclude the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In
particular, the Collector is required to pass a speaking order detailing his
justification for his conclusion which necessarily should include the
disadvantage that the property of the petitioners may have in comparison
to the property covered under the decree of this Court in
A.S.No.535/2012. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
25.02.2021
ds
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
To:
1.The District Collector
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Brough Road, Erode – 1.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
.
W.P.No.1864 of 2020
25.02.2021
