Madras High Court
Selvam vs The Land Acquisition Officer/ on 26 February, 2021
WA.No.615/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
WA.No.615/2021
Selvam .. Appellant
Versus
The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the RDO/Sub Collector
Tirupattur 635 601
Vellore District. .. Respondent
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in WP.No.7497 of 2018 dated 16.03.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Kothandam
For Respondent : Mr.E.Manoharan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.615/2021
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. through Video Conferencing]
(1)By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal and is
disposed of by this judgment.
(2)Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent.
(3)The writ petitioner is the appellant herein and he filed
WP.No.7497/2016, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to refer the matter to competent Civil Court,
viz., Special Sub Court [Land Acquisition Tribunal], Vellore, for
determination of the compensation under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as the acquired land in S.No.91/7
admeasuring to an extent of 0.67.0 Hectares and S.No.91/15
admeasuring to an extent of 0.41.5 Hectares situate at Sundarampalli
Village, Vellore District based on the representation dated 27.01.2018.
(4)The writ petition came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated
16.03.2020 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed
by the appellant/writ petitioner.
(5)A perusal of the impugned order would read among other things that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.615/2021
the Land Acquisition Award came to be passed as early as on
05.09.1988 and the father of the appellant/petitioner, while he was
alive, did not sought for any reference and he died on 31.10.1993 and
thereafter, the appellant/petitioner, by invoking the provisions of the
RTI Act, sought necessary information and got the copy of the Award
and the petitioner, having found that the compensation is less, has
sought for reference and since the said representation has not been
considered and disposed of, he filed the writ petition and the learned
Judge, has taken note of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which
provides for written application within six weeks from the date of
receipt of the Award, failing which, the claim would be barred by
limitation. However, the father of the petitioner/appellant, while he
was alive, did not sought for any reference and even by invoking
Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also, the claim of the
appellant/petitioner is barred. The learned Judge having found that the
claim is hopelessly barred by limitation, has dismissed the writ
petition.
(6)The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit
that in the light of the fact that the other land owners, whose lands
were acquired in the same Notification, had the benefit of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.615/2021
enhanced Award, prays for appropriate orders.
(7) Per contra, Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent would submit that since the claim of the
appellant/writ petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation and that, he
is also guilty of laches and interference may not be warranted by this
Court, in exercise of its Appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent and hence, prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
(8)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the
materials placed before it.
(9)The Award came to be passed as early as on 05.09.1988 while the
father of the petitioner was alive and till his demise on 31.10.1993, he
did not made an attempt to seek reference in the light of the inbuilt
limitation contained in Section 18[1] of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, cannot extend the said period of limitation.
The learned Judge has also found that the appellant/writ petitioner also
cannot invoke Section 28-A of the said Act, as it provides for filing of
application within three months from the date on which the Award has
been passed. In the considered opinion of the Court, the learned Judge
has taken note of the factual aspect as well as the legal position and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.615/2021
rightly reached the conclusion to dismiss the writ petition.
(10)This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire
materials, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or
infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Judge in dismissing
the writ petition and finds no merits in the writ appeal.
(11)In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated
16.03.2020 made in WP.No.7497/2018. No costs.
[MSNJ] [AANJ]
26.02.2021
AP
Internet:Yes
To
The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the RDO/Sub Collector
Tirupattur 635 601
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.615/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
AP
WA.No.615/2021
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
