Madras High Court
V.Samundeswari vs The District Collector on 28 October, 2021
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.10.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
1. V.Samundeswari
2.V.Venrasi
3. V.Devarajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur.
3. The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent in Na.Ka.No.51241/2007/F2, dated 15.10.2013, quash the same
and further direct the first respondent to pay the enhanced compensation of
a sum of Rs.193.18 per cent as per the order in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994
dated 06.09.1996 to the petitioners.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajasekhar
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Government Advocate (for R-1 & R-2)
: Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
Standing Counsel for CMDA (for R-3)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.51241/2007/F2, dated 15.10.2013, quash the same and further
direct the first respondent to pay the enhanced compensation of a sum of
Rs.193.18 per cent, as per the order in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 dated
06.09.1996 to the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, originally one Venkadasamy
Naidu was the owner of the property to a larger extent of 10 acres and 73
cents situated at Keelkaranani Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. Thereafter, the
said Venkadasamy Naidu died leaving behind three sons, viz., Munusamy
Naidu, Narasapa Naidu and Rajappa Naidu. The first petitioner's husband
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
viz., the said Venkadasami Naidu along with Gopal Naidu and Muthu
Naidu, have purchased the property measuring an extent of 0.73 cents
comprised in S.No.160/1 and of an extent of 4 acres and 66 cents comprised
in S.No.163, in all, totalling an extent of 5 acres and 39 cents from the legal
heirs of the said Munusamy Naidu, out of the large extent of 10 acres and 73
cents, situated at Keelkaranai Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. The said lands
were acquired for developing Maraimalai Nagar New Satellite Town by the
third respondent. The second respondent fixed a sum of Rs.30/- per cent as
compensation to be paid to the land owners. Aggrieved by the same, some
of the land owners objected and as such, the case was referred to the referral
Court in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court,
Chengalpattu and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.30/- per cent to
Rs.193.18 per cent by the judgment and decree dated 06.09.1996 passed in
the said LAOP. The land belonging to a person, who failed to raise
objections to refer the case to referral Court in respect of his land comprised
in S.Nos.155/3 and 156/2 situated at Kilkarnai Village, Chengalpattu Taluk,
forms part and parcel of the very same Notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
for short) dated 16.10.1974, in which the petitioners' properties were also
notified. Therefore, the petitioners made representation before the third
respondent on 10.10.1996 for re-determination of the amount of
compensation on the basis of the award of the Additional Sub Court,
Chengalpattu in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 under Section 28-A of the Act,
thereby requesting to determine valuation of the land at Rs.193.18 per cent
as compensation. However, the petitioners did not make any application
under Section 28-A of the Act to the first and second respondents herein.
They have also sent representation wrongly to the third respondent who is
the requisitioning body on the impression that the third respondent is an
authority to enhance the compensation.
3. Thereafter, they did not pursue the said representation and
subsequently on 29.03.1997, they made another representation to the first
respondent claiming the compensation by re-determining the same as
contemplated under Section 28-A of the Act. It was received by the first
respondent on 02.04.1997. However, the first respondent did not pass any
orders. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted another representation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
subsequently, they have also filed a Writ Petition before this Court in
W.P.No.4777 of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 27.02.2013, directed
the respondents therein to consider their request within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the first
respondent, by the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, dated
15.10.2013, rejected the claim of the petitioners for the reason that it was
submitted beyond the period of 90 days and as such, their claim is barred by
limitation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon an order passed
by this Court in similarly placed matter in W.P.No.16577 of 2008 and this
Court, by order dated 09.09.2008, held that the representation was made to
the requisitioning authority, instead of the District Collector to re-determine
the value of the property for compensation for whose benefit or the scheme
formed by which the lands were acquired. It was made within a period of
three months. Even if it is taken that the requisitioning body had received
the said representation within a period of 90 days, the requisitioning body,
after having received the same kept it for several months before referring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
the matter to the Tahsildar concerned, and thereafter, it was kept in the
Office of the Tahsildar and referred before the Collector. Therefore, the
petitioners seek to consider their request for re-determination of the value of
the land and for payment of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act.
Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5. The first respondent filed counter affidavit, from which, it reveals
that during the enquiry, the first petitioner did not produce any proof for
having submitted her application in time under Section 28-A of the Act to
the first respondent. Though the petitioners submitted representation on
10.10.1996 to the third respondent herein, it is seen from the copy of the
petition that there is affixture of Office Seal without any signature which
raised doubt about its genuineness. Moreover, the third respondent is not an
authority to the land acquisition to entertain the application under Section
28-A of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners was rejected.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners' lands were acquired and the value of
the lands were determined at the rate of Rs.30/- per cent by the Acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
Officer and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.193.18 per cent by the
judgment and decree dated 06.09.1996 in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 on the file
of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu. On the strength of the same, the
petitioners have submitted application under Section 28-A of the Act before
the third respondent on 10.10.1996. Thus it is clear that within a period of
90 days from the date of the award passed in the said LAOP, the petitioners
made their claim for re-determination of the value of the land for
compensation on the strength of the Award passed in L.A.O.P.No.98 of
1994, dated 06.09.1996. However, the petitioners did not pursue the same
and thereafter, they filed another representation claiming for re-
determination of the value of the property under Section 28-A of the Act
before the first respondent on 29.03.1997, which was received by the first
respondent on 02.04.1997. However, this representation was not considered
and subsequently, they made another representation, in which the order
impugned in this Writ Petition was passed by the first respondent for the
reason that the claim made by the petitioners, is barred by limitation. The
third respondent, being the requisitioning body, only on their request, the
subject lands were acquired for the purpose of developing the Maraimalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
Nagar New Satellite Town. Therefore, the third respondent ought to have
forwarded the same to the authority concerned for re-determination of
compensation. Though the first and second respondents disputed the seal
put up on the representation submitted by the petitioners', dated 10.10.1996,
the third respondent have not denied the same. Therefore, the third
respondent ought to have forwarded the same to the first respondent for re-
determination of the value of the property.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners
being the losers of their respective properties by the acquisition and when
the adjacent owners of the land received higher compensation at the rate of
193.18 per cent, the petitioners are also entitled to have the same
compensation. They also submitted their said representation under Section
28-A of the Act within a period of 90 days from the date of judgment and
decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 dated 06.09.1996 on the file of the
Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu.
8. In view of the above discussion, the order impugned cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
sustained and it is liable to the set aside. Accordingly the impugned order is
set aside. However, the first respondent is directed to re-determine the value
of the subject property comprised in S.Nos.160/1 and 163, under Section
28-A of the Act, in view of the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.98 of 1994 dated 06.09.1996 on the file of the Additional Sub
Court, Chengalpattu within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and disburse the same to the petitioners, within a period
of two weeks thereafter.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
28.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
To
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur.
3. The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai – 600 008.
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9488 of 2014
28.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
