Madras High Court
The Project Director vs M.Langalingam on 7 September, 2021
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.10677 of 2019
The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
"Sri Tower" 3rd Floor,
DP-34(SP), Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.M.Langalingam
2.Union of India,
Rep. by Secretary,
National Highways Department,
New Delhi.
3.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
4.The Competent Authority and
Special District Revenue Officer (L.A),
National Highways,
Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District,
Kancheepuram.
.. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6387 of 2018, dated 21.03.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan
Assistant Solicitor General
For Respondents : Mr.David Thyagaraj for R1
Mr.K.Ramamoorthy for R2
Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Government Advocate for R3 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed by the Project Director of the National
Highways Authority, challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated
21.03.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6387 of 2018, in and
by which the prayer of the writ petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the 4th respondent to grant compensation under the repealed Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and other
provisions of the said Act as declared in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014 by
the Apex Court dated 21.07.2016 in Union of India and others vs. T.Chakrapani
and others pertaining to the petitioner's lands in Old Survey No.106 B/3A, New
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
Survey No.106B/3A1 measuring an extent of Sq.mts 2448, at Karanodai Village,
Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District was allowed.
2. The sole point raised by Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant
Solicitor General of India is based on the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2572 of 2020 in Civil Appeal
No.7086 of 2019, wherein, the Apex Court has passed the following order, which
is extracted below :
Sh.Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the applicant(s), seeks a clarification of our
judgment dated 19.09.2019 in two aspects. First, he points out
that in paragraph 41 of our judgment, we have included Section
23(1A) as well, when Section 23(1A) was not present before any
authority or the Court on the facts of these cases.
He has also shown us the judgment and order dated
28.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Civil Writ Petition No.11461 of 2005 to buttress this submission.
Since this plea is correct, we delete the expression
"(1A) and " occurring in paragraph 41 (page 76 of the paper
book) for the reason given above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
Second, Sh.Shyam Divan points to paragraph 42
and the sentence reading, " The burden to prove that the land in
question is within 50m of the National Highway, and that it does
not have commercial potentiality,, is on the NHAI but, on facts,
has never been discharged." According to him, the burden to
prove that the land in question is within 50m of the National
Highway, is correctly on the NHAI, but whether it does or does
not have commercial potentiality, ought to be on the person
whose land is acquired. We may indicate that it was only on the
facts of those cases that it was held that the burden, in the facts
of those cases, as to commercial potentiality, is placed on the
NHAI. This is not a general statement of the law, as is clear
from paragraph 42.
With these modifications, the Miscellaneous
Application is disposed of."
3. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21735 of
2017, dated 25.01.2018, is also extracted as under for convenient perusal:
""By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final
disposal.
2.1. The seven petitioners herein possessed separate parcels of land in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
different survey numbers in Nerkundram Village and these properties
were acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956,
and separate awards were passed on 12.12.2006, quantifying the
compensation payable. The details thereto are as follows :
Sl. Name of the Survey Nos.of the Extent of the Award
No. petitioner property at property (sq.ft.) Amount
Nerkundram Village (Rs.)
1. T.Chakrapani 22/2A, 1B & 22/2A, Ground Floor : 11,94,969/
2B 720.55 -
First Floor :
620.00
Staircase leading to
First Floor :
36.00
Open terrace :
82.50
Parapet Wall :
59.62
Building :
720.55
O.T.S. Area :
253.50
2. K.G.Murali Old Survey No.16/3B 1100 15,93,131/
Part -
New Survey
No.16/3B2
3. Elumalai 8/1A 1069.08 2,39,644/-
Achari
4. V.Chidambar Old Survey 1700.00 14,01,380/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
Sl. Name of the Survey Nos.of the Extent of the Award
No. petitioner property at property (sq.ft.) Amount
Nerkundram Village (Rs.)
am No.15/2B1A1B2B2 -
5. K.Velayudam 8/1A3B 608.20 3,19,525/-
6. K.Saravanan 8/1A2B 612.50 2,66,270/-
7. Ranganayagi 7/4B 1030 7,97,902/-
The aforesaid award included 10% amount quantified as the
compensation amount payable for the deprivation of right of user or
any right in the nature of easement which the owners of the property
acquired, had suffered as provided under Section 3-G(2) of the said
Act. However, no solatium or interest payable thereon in the manner
provided in the land Acquisition Act, 1894, was awarded to them.
2.2. Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 excluded the
operation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in matters connected with
under the former Act. As this provision created irrational and
arbitrary disparity in the matter of compensating the owners whose
lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 on the one
hand and those whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
Act, 1894, the petitioner along with others moved this Court in
W.P.No.15699 of 2008 and challenged the Constitutional validity of
Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956, This Court Vide its
order dated 04.03.2011 has allowed the said writ petition and its
connected batch of cases [Chakrapani & others Vs Union of India
and others, (2011 Writ L.R.193)] and declared in paragraph No.36 of
its order:
“36. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed, while upholding
other provisions of the Act, Section3-J of the Highways Act is held to be
unconstitutional, being bit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
being in excess of legislative competence. The petitioners, therefore,
are held entitled to the compensation of additional market value under
Section 23(1)(a), a solatium under Section 23(2) and interest as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act.”
Ultimately, this issue reached the Supreme Court when Union of India
challenged the Order of this court declaring Sec.3J unconstitutional in
Civil Appeal Nos.129-159 of 2014. The Supreme Court, however
confirmed the Order of this Court holding that Section 3-J is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
unconstitutional and directed that the “respondents – writ petitioners
be paid solatium as due in terms of the impugned order(s) along with
interest thereon”. Consequently, the petitioners became entitled to be
treated in par with those owners who fall within the ambit of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and also entitled to solatium and interest payable
in terms of the said Act.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners herein moved the authorities concerned,
to secure their right, consequent to the order of this Court in
W.P.No.15699 of 2008 & etc., batch and confirmed by the Supreme
Court as stated above, Vide their representations dated 06.02.2017
and 09.03.2017.
4. Mr.David Thyagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that while the facts as narrated in the affidavit is self-
explanatory of the rights of the petitioners to seek compensation in
terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the respondents are yet to
respond to the representations of the petitioners. He also submitted
that one Mr.R.Srinivasan [Petitioner in W.P.No.15818 & 15819 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
2008], one of the petitioners in the aforesaid said batch of writ
petitions, had moved this Court in yet another W.P.No.43711 of 2016,
for enforcing the benefitsaccrued to the petitioner based on the
decisions of this Court as stated above, and the said petition was
allowed with a direction to the authorities concerned to dispose of his
representation. The learned counsel now only seeks parity in the
matter of conferring benefit of all the petitioners in W.P.No.15699 of
2008.
5. Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, learned counsel enters appearance for the first
respondent and Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate
enters appearance for the second and third respondent. The learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent made a statement on
instructions that pursuant to the order of this Court passed in
W.P.No.43711 of 2016, the authorities have considered the
representation of the petitioner therein and the sum payable is being
disbursed to him. Necessarily, the petitioners herein too are entitled to
similar treatment. The counsel for the national Highways promised
payment to the petitioner in the present case too.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
6. Does addressing the consequences that emanate from the Orders of
the Highest Court require another order or direction from this Court in
another proceeding? The pachydermic insensitivity and slow-motioned
response that has come to define the attitude of the statutory and
administrative functionaries in implementing the orders and directions
of the Courts unmindful of the agony the citizen endures, are disturbing.
Experience has it that they invariably feed another action which results
in stupendous wastage of judicial time lost in the same cause. Spate of
such litigations either as Original actions, or as actions for Contempt of
Court deluge this Court and others. It is therefore, time that those who
approached the legal system for remedy, and those who are required to
respond to them realised that the Court system belonged to them, and
that they acted responsibly to minimize the occasions for approaching
the Court. Every action spurred by lack of required responsibility
burdens the judicial axle, drains the judicial time and buries the cries
for justice in deserving causes. Those who cry foul of judicial delay
should now hurry to spare concern for the congestion at the entry points
to Courts. Judicial delay is not just a systemic malady as is being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
believed and perceived, but is also a product of tendencies that breed
causes for avoidable actions. Hence, it is imperative that those for
whose benefit Courts exist act with a sense of belongingness to the
judicial system and avoid congestions at the entry points to Courts in
order the congestion, if not perceived stagnation, at their exit-points are
addressed effectively.
7. Turning to the present case, since petitioners' representations are
pending consideration, the same has to be disposed of on the basis of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to
159 of 2014 dated 21.07.2016. Stricto senso there is nothing for the
respondent to consider since the Supreme court itself has directed
payment of solatium and interest payable. Therefore, the second
respondent is directed to dispose petitioner's pending representations
dated 06.02.2017 and 09.03.2017, consistent with the directions of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014 within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and make
payment expeditiously without driving the petitioners to approach the
Court yet another time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
8. In the result, this petition is allowed with the above direction. No
costs."
4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition as prayed for on
the basis of the fact that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, has been struck
off. The learned Single Judge granted the benefits included in Sections 23(1-A),
23(2), 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court has deleted the
provision under Section 23(1-A) of the Act without saying that the writ petitioner
is not entitled to get 12% on such market value for the period commencing on and
from the date of the publication of the notification under sub Section (1) of Section
4 in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Since the Apex Court has
deleted Section 23(1-A), as highlighted above, the writ petitioner is not entitled to
get 12% of the interest and additional market value.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
[T.R.,J] [T.V.T.S.,J]
07.09.2021
ub
To
1.Union of India,
Rep. by Secretary,
National Highways Department,
New Delhi.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Competent Authority and
Special District Revenue Officer (L.A),
National Highways,
Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
T.RAJA,J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
W.A.No.1555 of 2019
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
