Madras High Court
M.Celestine vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
M.Celestine ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the District Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The land Acquisition Officer /
Special Tahsildar (LA),
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to redetermine the
compensation amount of the petitioner's land in Award No.7/90-91, dated
20.09.1990, on the file of the Land Acquisition Office under Section 28 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the basis of L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1991, dated
17.03.2003, on the file of the Sub Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Government Advocate
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the first respondent to redetermine the compensation
amount under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) on the basis of the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.43 of
1991, dated 17.03.2003.
2. Heard Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property
originally belonged to one Chellamma Nadachi and two of her daughters.
One of the daughter, namely, Suseela @ Saroja was married by the petitioner
and on her demise, her 1/3rd share devolved upon the petitioner and his son.
4. The respondents initiated acquisition proceedings and the
property belonging to the petitioner was also acquired. The compensation
was determined and an award was passed on 06.09.1990. The other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
co-owners of the property submitted their objections on the inadequacy of the
compensation awarded by the second respondent and the matter was referred
under Section 18 of the Act, before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram.
5. The Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, entertained the claim in
L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1991 and an order was passed on 17.03.2003, wherein, the
compensation was enhanced from Rs.1,100/- per cent to Rs.4,500/- per cent.
6. The petitioner soon after coming to know of the order passed
in L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1991, filed a petition before the first respondent on
01.10.2003, seeking for redetermination of the compensation under Section
28 A of the Act. Since the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition
has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
7. In the considered view of this Court, even where a claimant
has not made a reference under Section 18 of the Act, he will be entitled to
claim compensation on par with others by taking advantage of the enhanced
award made by a Court by virtue of Section 28 A of the Act. Useful reference
can be made in this regard to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of V.Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited
reported in 2011 (1) MLJ 351.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
8. The Act specifically provides that an application under
Section 28 A must be made within a period of three months from the date of
the order of the Court. The Proviso to Section 28 A (1) of the Act makes it
very clear that while calculating the period of three months, the day, on which
the order was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the
order shall be excluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it very clear
that the Collector can entertain such application under Section 28 A of the
Act, only, if it is filed within the time limit stipulated under the Act and the
Collector has no powers to condone the delay. Useful reference can be made
to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popat Bahiru
Govardhane Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (10) SCC 765.
9. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ
petition has stated that the application was filed before the first respondent /
District Collector, immediately, after obtaining a copy of the order passed by
the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, on time.
10. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on
01.10.2003 and deal with the same under Section 28 A of the Act and pass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to
the first respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of
this order.
12. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.
22.06.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
tsg
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.
To
1. The District Collector,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The land Acquisition Officer /
Special Tahsildar (LA),
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
tsg
W.P.(MD).No.9918 of 2012
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
