Madras High Court

The Managing Director vs T.R. Dinakaran on 28 July, 2021

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019
and
CMP(MD)No.3208 of 2019

The Managing Director,
State Transport Corporation,
Madurai Zone,
Madurai.
...Appellant

Vs.
1. T.R. Dinakaran

2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.

3. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.

4. The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Land Acquisiton Officer,
Aruppukottai.

6. The Tahsildar,
Aruppukkottai.
...Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the letters patent to set aside
the order dated 23.07.2018 and dispose the W.P.(MD).No.5854 of 2017
on the file Court.

For Appellant : Mr. Veerakathiravan
Senior Advocate
for Mr. J. Senthil Kumariah
For Respondents : Mr. S. Kadarkarai
for R1
Mr. A.K. Manikkam
Standing counsel for Government
For R2 t R6

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

This Writ appeal by the Managing Director, State Transport

Corporation, Madurai Zone is directed against the order dated 23.07.2018

in W.P (MD) No.5854 of 2017.

2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein

praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the

notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894,

published in Tamil Nadu Government Virudhunagar District Gazette,

Extraordinary in Na.Ka.D2/22052/99, dated 10.09.2014 insofar as it

relates to the acquisition of the lands in RS.No.301/1 (T.S.No.2/1), Ward-

G, Block-13, having an extent of 0.39 acres and R.S.No.301/2 , (T.S.No.

2/2) Ward G, Block-13, having an extent of 0.45 acres in of Aruppukottai

Village and for a consequential direction upon the appellant and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

respondents 2 to 6 herein to surrender the vacant possession of the lands

in question and pay damages for use and occupation for taking over the

lands in the year 1977 till the date of payment of compensation and to

pay market value as on date along with damages.

3. We have elaborately heard Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned

Senior Counsel for Mr. J.Sentil Kumariah, learned Standing Counsel for the

Transport Corporation and Mr. S. Kadarkarai, Learned counsel for the first

respondent/writ petitioner and Mr. A.K. Manikkam, learned Government

Counsel for the respondents 2 to 6.

4. The case on hand has had a chequered history and it is a

classical case where bureacracy has taken away the rights of a land

owner, the first respondent, without following the due procedure

contemplated under law. To say the least, the appellant corporation can

be termed as a land grabber. We say so, because the lands, which are the

subject matter of this appeal, along with the adjacent lands, were

subjected to acquisition proceedings, which was put to challenge by the

writ petitioner in W.P.No.3753 of 2000 on various grounds and in

particular that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed as the award has

not been passed under Section 11 of the Act within the time stipulated

under Section 11 (A). The writ petition after contest was allowed by order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

dated 18.12.2009. The order attained finality since the writ appeal filed

by the department was dismissed. In fact, in the said order dated

18.12.2009, the court granted liberty to the appellant and the

respondents 2 to 6 to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the

Act. Nothing happened thereafter and in the year 2014, the notification

under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act was issued. This could not have been

issued because by then the 1894 Act stood repealed and the new Act,

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act,

2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) came into existence. Probably this legal

position was lost sight of by the authorities, and by sheer non-application

of mind, they issued notification dated 10.9.2014 under the 1894 Act and

probably after legal advise, all further proceedings were abandoned by the

authorities. Subsequently, the authorities took a turn and addressed to

the first respondent by various communications to come for private

negotiations. This did not fructify as there was a gross disconnect

between the amount claimed by the first respondent land owner and what

was offered by the department Therefore, once again the writ petitioner

had to approach this court and file a Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.5854 of

2017, to quash the notification dated 10.09.2014. The said writ petition

was disposed of by the impugned order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

5. The learned Single Bench, during the pendency of the writ

petition, had taken effective steps to mediate and settle the matter,

probably bearing in mind two important aspects; one is the land has been

utilised by the appellant corporation without initiating any land acquisition

proceedings and thereby they are virtually a trespasser into the first

respondent's property and the first respondent has been dealt with in a

most unfair and arbitrary manner. The second aspect, which probably

weighed in the mind of the learned Single Judge was that the land was to

be used as a depot for the State Transport Corporation. There appears to

be serious efforts taken at the behest of the learned Single Bench to

mediate and settle the issue. Ultimately the court found that the District

Revenue Officer, after conducting his spot inspection in the year 2017,

had fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,341/- per sq.ft. The learned Writ

Court came to the conclusion that this can be taken as the proper value

for the purpose of determining compensation. However, the first

respondent even at that stage appears to have acted in a very reasonable

manner and agreed to accept compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.

800/- per sq.feet. Based on such submission directions and observation,

the Writ petition stood disposed of.

6. Before us the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant would vehemently contend that as per the report submitted by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

the Collector, the value is far less than what has been ordered by the

learned Writ Court and such fixation cannot be made and what the first

respondent would be entitled to is only fair and reasonable compensation

and not any exorbitant amount which had been arrived at in the impugned

order. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant corporation

would submit that the District Collector has passed the order on

12.10.2017 taking note of all relevant factors and documents and fixed

the compensation at Rs.4,95,000/-. Therefore, it is submitted that this

amount is a reasonable amount which is payable to the land owner.

7. In our considered view, the strenuous efforts taken by the

learned writ court have all turned out to be wasted efforts. As mentioned

earlier, the appellant corporation is a trespasser into the lands of the first

respondent and to say the least they are a land grabber and having acted

in such a high handed manner, the present action and attitude is highly

unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, we are inclined to take up the

matter on merits. Sofaras the notification which is impugned in the writ

petition is concerned it is wholly without jurisdiction in the light of the fact

that in the year 2014 notification could not have been issued under the

1894 Act which stood repealed and replaced by Act 30 of 2013. This

would be sufficient to quash the notification dated 10.09.2014 issued

under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

8. Next we come to the consequential relief sought for by the

first respondent who sought for directing vacant possession to be handed

over to him along with compensation. If the land acquisition proceedings

have been quashed, the resultant consequence is that possession has to

revert back to the land owner. Therefore, the consequential relief has to

definitely be granted. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that

the land has been utilised by the appellant transport cooperation ever

since 1977 and it has been utlised to establish a bus depot which is stated

to have been established not only in the first respondent's land but lands

owned by other land owners whose lands have been acquired and those

acquisition proceedings have attained finality. In any event, there can be

no viamedia in the present matter as all efforts which were taken by the

writ court have not been accepted by the appellant transport corporation

and they continue to state that they would pay only Rs.4,95,000/- to the

first respondent, having illegally entered upon the land and utlised the

same since 1977. The financial position of the appellant corporation is not

a matter of concern as we are concerned about the rights of a land loser.

Though right to property is not a fundamental right, yet the citizen

cannot be disposessed of his property without following due procedure

established under the relevant statute. Admittedly in the instant case, the

same has not been followed and therefore the possession of the property

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

at the hands of the appellant corporation is illegal. Therefore, the

appellant corporation has to vacate and surrender vacant possession of

the land in question to the first respondent/writ petitioner.

9. The second limb of the consequential direction sought for is

for payment of damages for use and occupation since 1977. In our

considered view, this is a matter where evidence is to be recorded and

during the course of such enquiry, certain disputed factual aspects may

also have to be gone into. Therefore, as a Writ Court, we may not be

justified in quantifying the compensation payable to the first respondent

but we record a positive finding that the first respondent land owner is

entitled to be compensated by the appellant corporation for illegally

entering upon his land and establishing a bus depot and continue to be in

possession ever since 1977.

10. In the light of the above,

(i) the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed

and the 4(1) notification dated 10.09.2014 issued under 1894 Act is

quashed.

(ii) The appellant corporation is directed to vacate and surrender vacant

possesssion of the lands in question to the first respondent within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

(iii) In the alternative, if the appellant corporation and the official

respondents are of the view that the land is still required for them for the

purpose of the bus depot, we give liberty to the official respondents and

the appellant to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Act 30 of 2013

within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. It

goes without saying that if proceedings are initiated under Act 30 of 2013

and the acquisition proceedings is sustained and it travels up to the stage

of payment of compensation, the compensation needs to be computed

based on the value of the property on the date of notification which is to

be issued.

(iv) In the preceding paragraphs, we have specifically observed that the

occupation of the lands in question was illegal and they were a trespasser.

Apart from that, from the year 1977, the first-respondent has been

dragged into various litigations and he has been before this court ever

since the year 2000, due to which substantial money and time had been

spent on litigation. Therefore, we are of the view that the appllant

corporation is liable to pay cost to the first respondent which we quantify

at Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be paid to the first respondent within two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

11. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

No costs.


                                                                  [T.S.S., J]   [S.A.I., J]
                                                                          28.07.2021
                Index    : Yes / No
                Internet : Yes / No
                mnr
                Note :

                In view of the present lock down owing
                to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
                the order may be utilized for official
                purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
                of the order that is presented is the
                correct copy, shall be the responsibility
                of the advocate / litigant concerned.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

                                                                 W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

                To:-

                1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

2. The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisiton Officer, Aruppukottai.

5. The Tahsildar, Aruppukkottai.

6. The Managing Director, State Transport Corporation, Madurai Zone, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.

and S.ANANTHI,J.

mnr

W.A.(MD).No.538 of 2019 and CMP(MD)No.3208 of 2019