Madras High Court
The Indian Rare Earths Ltd vs Smt.Saraswathy (Died) ... 1St on 27 January, 2021
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(MD)No.771 of 2014
The Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,
Manavalakurichy,
Rep. By its Unit Head,
Manavalakurichy,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Revision Petitioner
/2nd Respondent/Referring Officer
Vs.
1. Smt.Saraswathy (Died) ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. .The Special Tahsildar,
Padmanabhapuram,
Thuckalay,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent/Referring
Officer
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 20.06.2013 in I.A.No. 6 of
2012 in LAOP No.59 of 1991 of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanykumari
District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan
For R1 : Mr.S.Meenaksh Sundaram
Senior Counsel
For R2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in1/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
ORDER
This revision at the instance of the requisitioning body for whose
benefit the lands were acquired.
2. An award was passed by the Referring Officer granting a sum of
Rs.1100/- per cent. The wife of the first respondent herein in whose name
the lands stood had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The reference was made and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.59
of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram.
3. As could be seen from the records, the said LAOP was closed on
24.01.1995 for failure to furnish address. Thereafter, the petitioner came up
with an application seeking restoration of LAOP contending that he came to
know about the closure only on 09.08.2005. The application was filed on
19.08.2005 before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. Another application
was filed seeking condonation of delay of 10 years and 176 days in filing
the application for restoration of LAOP in I.A.No.120 of 2009.
4. The said application resisted by the petitioner herein contending
http://www.judis.nic.in2/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for the delay. It was
also pointed out that the first respondent, who now has stepped into the
shoes of his wife seeking compensation for the land acquired, was in fact
heading the Manavalakurichy Union of the petitioner company and
therefore, according to the petitioner herein, he was well aware of the
proceedings and had been in negligence in prosecuting the claim for
compensation.
5. The learned Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai, before whom the matter was
heard by the order impugned in this revision, allowed the application on
condition that the first respondent herein pays a sum of Rs.2000/- to the
petitioner herein as costs. It is this order which is now challenged in this
revision.
6. I have heard Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for
Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisiton is represented by
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader.
http://www.judis.nic.in3/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
7. Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the application suffers from want of
diligence on the part of the first respondent. Pointing out that the first
respondent was actually an employee of the petitioner company and he was
very well aware of the proceedings, the learned counsel would contend that
the claim that he was not aware of the closure of LAOP in the year 1995 is
false to his knowledge.
8. Contending contra, Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in 2002(2) SC 242 (in Khazan Singh
(dead) By Lrs Vs. Union of India) the closure itself is incorrect and
without jurisdiction. A reference under Section 18 of the Act according to
the Hon'bel Supreme Court cannot be disposed of for default or closed. It
has to reach the logical conclusion for fixation of compensation. In view of
the said pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the trial court was right in taking a pragmatic
view and condoned the delay on payment of costs.
http://www.judis.nic.in4/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either
side.
10. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
merit acceptance and it cannot be said to be the first respondent was
ignorant of the closure of the LAOP in the year 1995, however in the
context of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I do not
think the application for restoration of LAOP that was closed or dismissed
for default could be rejected by the court. The order closing LAOP or
dismissing it for default cannot be considered to be a legal order as the
Supreme Court has categorically held that the court cannot pass such an
order in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
However, the courts should also attempt to balance the right of the parties
when such cases with inordinate delay come up before them.
11. The delay in this case is 10 years and 176 days which cannot be
termed as delay but can be termed as inordinate delay. Though the trial
court was justified in condoning the delay, I am of the considered opinion
that it should have protected the petitioner company from the liability to pay
http://www.judis.nic.in5/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
interest atleast for the period of delay. The fact that the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 mandates payment of interest at 15% per annum which is very
high compared to the prevailing interest rates. I am of the opinion that the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
should be protected from the liability to pay interest for the delayed period
is fair and just.
12. In the light of the above, the application in I.A.NO. 6 of 2012 is
allowed. The delay in filing to restore LAOP No.59 of 2009 is condoned.
13. At this stage, both the learned counsel would say that instead of
condoning the delay and sending the matter back to the trial court for
numbering the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, I can exercise
my powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and restore the
LAOP and direct the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai to dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
14. Accepting the request made by the learned counsel on either side,
the application filed for restoration of LAOP No.59 of 1991 is allowed.
LAOP will stand restored subject to the condition that the land owner/
http://www.judis.nic.in6/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
claimant will not be entitled to interest for the enhanced amount of
compensation, if there be any enhancement, for the period between
25.01.1995 and 19.08.2005. It is also made clear that it will be open to the
parties to request the court for hearing through video conferencing if the
facility is available at the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. If such request is made,
the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai is required to consider the same favourably.
15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
27.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
To:
1.The Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanykumari District.
2. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in7/8
CRP(MD)No.771 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN. J.,
CM
C.R.P(MD)No.771 of 2014
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in8/8
