Karunakaran vs Land Acquisition Officer & Sub ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20179 Mad

                                                                           Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016
                                                                                                  against
                                                                          W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 01.10.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                         Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016
                                                    against
                                         W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

                1. Karunakaran                           ... Petitioner in Rev.Appl.No.64 of 2016
                2. Shokku
                3. Muthu
                4. Sathya                                ... Petitioners in Rev.Appl.No.65 of 2016
                5. C.Kannappa Mudaliar                   ... Petitioner in Rev.Appl.No.66 of 2016

                                                         Vs.

                Land Acquisition Officer & Sub Collector,
                District Revenue Officer,
                Tiruvallur.                          ... Respondent in all Rev.Appls

Review Applications filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C r/w Article 226 of Constitution of India, to review the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012 dated 17.12.2013.

For Petitioners in all Rev.Appls : Mr.G.Karthikeyan

For Respondent in all Rev.Appls : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

COMMON ORDER

These Review Applications have been filed to review the orders of this

Court in W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012, dated 17.12.2013.

2. The lands which belonged to the petitioners were acquired by the

respondent for the purpose of laying 3rd and 4th Railway track between

Thiruvallur and Arakkonam. After Section 4(1) notification under the Tamil

Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short)was issued on 06.09.2007 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu

Extraordinary Gazette No.257 on 07.09.2007. Thereafter, notices under

Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were served on them on 18.06.2008, directing

them to appear for enquiry on 25.07.2008. Accordingly, the petitioners have

attended the award enquiry on 25.07.2008 and made a claim of compensation

at Rs.1,30,000/- per cent. However, the respondent determined the value of the

property at Rs.3,500/- per cent and the award was passed on 27.08.2009.

Though the petitioners have received the compensation under protest, the

respondent failed to refer the petitioners protest to the Court under Section 18

of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court for a

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

direction, directing the respondents to refer the petitioners' objections to the

Court relating to the award in Award No.3 of 2009 dated 11.08.2009 for

determination of proper valuation for the land which was acquired by the

respondent. This Court, by order dated 17.12.2013, dismissed all the writ

petitions for the reason that 80% of the compensation amount as awarded in

Award No.3 of 2009, dated 11.08.2009 was received by the petitioners under

protest on 08.09.2008. The balance 20% of the award amount was also

received under protest on 13.01.2011. However, they had not mentioned in

their sworn statements with regard to the innate desire/intention in seeking a

reference or made a specific request to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Only

if they had made a request for making a reference/seeking a reference to the

Civil Court at the earliest point of time viz., when they made their sworn

statements before the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.07.2008, then, the

petitioners in law are entitled to demand their reference being made to the

Civil Court by the Land Acquisition Officer. Only on 03.11.2011, the

petitioners had submitted a petition seeking reference under Section 18 of the

Act, viz., after expiry of more than two years from the date of award enquiry or

date of passing the award. The petitioners, at the earliest point of time, had not

expressed their desire/intention in writing to refer the matter to the Civil Court.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

Hence, all the Writ Petitions failed and the same were dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, at the time of

hearing the writ petitions, the petitioners failed to cite the judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1587 (The

Managing Director vs. Chinnasamy & others). In the said judgment the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court referred various judgments and held as

follows:-

“7. In this context, it is useful to refer to a recent decision rendered by the First Bench of this Court reported in 2006-1-L.W-

347 (Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant, Salem vs. The Salem Urukkalai Thittathal Nilam Ilanthor Sangam & Others). While considering similar objection raised by a public body, viz., Steel Authority of India Limited, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab ((1994) 4 SCC 67), the Bench held that the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The Division 18.12.1990 (Pachaianna Gounder and another vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Salem Steel Plant and another). The following conclusion of the Division Bench is very relevant and the same is extracted here-under, “21. Having regard to this settled legal position laid

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts it is clear that mere protest or expression of dissatisfaction to the award of compensation without there being anything in writing may be sufficient and that the authority concerned is under an obligation to refer the matter to the court in accordance with Section 18(2) of the Act. In view of this legal position various categories as indicated hereinabove, expressing their protest and filing their applications for reference and some having not even received notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, cannot be denied the right to refer their cases to the Court under Section 18(2) of the Act, and therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge.” Thus, it is clear that even without a formal application, if the land owner expresses his protest or dissatisfaction to the award of compensation, the authority is under an obligation to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18(2) of the Act.”

4. From the above judgment, it is clear that even without formal

application, if the land owner expresses his protest or dis-satisfaction to the

award of compensation, the authority is under an obligation to refer the matter

to the Court under Section 18(2) of the Act.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

submitted that provisions under Section 18(2) of the Act categorically, says

that; (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector

at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the

Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the

notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2); or within six

months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first

expire. He further submitted that admittedly, the petitioners submitted their

applications only on 03.03.2011 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act,

that too, after expiry of more than two years from the date of the award dated

11.08.2009. Therefore, this Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions.

6. Though the award was passed on 11.08.2009, the petitioners received

80% of the compensation amount under protest on 08.09.2008 and the balance

20% of the award amount was also received by them under protest on

13.01.2011. Though the petitioners made request on 03.03.2011 for reference

under Section 18 of the Act, from the above judgement cited by the learned

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that even without a formal application, if

the land owner expresses his protest or dis-satisfaction to the award of

compensation, the authority is under an obligation to refer the matter to the

Court under Section 18(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it cannot be

contented that, without a formal application, reference cannot be made to the

Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 947

(Syed Abubacker vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court referring the judgment reported in 2006 (1) M.L.J.252 (Steel

Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant vs. Salem Urukkalai Thittathal

Nilam Illanthor Sangam, Salem & 7 others), wherein it was held that, for

making a reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

mere protest, expression of dis-satisfaction of the award amount without there

being anything in writing is sufficient and the authorities are under obligation

to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18(2) of the Act. It was further

held that, it is sheer common sense that, in no case, the land owner will be

satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

Therefore, the above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand.

However, the petitioners failed to bring to the notice of those judgments before

this Court while passing the order. Therefore, the petitioners made out a case

for review applications.

8. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by this Court in

W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012 dated 17.12.2013 are set aside. The

respondent is directed to refer the award passed in Award No.3 of 2009 dated

11.08.2009 before the Civil Court under Section 18(2) of the Act, within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

reference, the referral Court is directed to dispose of the petition within a

period of three months thereafter. No costs.

9. In the result, these Review Applications are allowed. No costs.

01.10.2021 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kv

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

To

The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub Collector, District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv

Rev.Appl.Nos.64 to 66 of 2016 against W.P.Nos.22713 to 22715 of 2012

01.10.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in