Madras High Court

Mrs.J.Bhavani vs Mr.Praveen P.Nair on 24 September, 2021

                                                                               Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 24.09.2021

                                                              CORAM

                                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

                                                Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

                     Mrs.J.Bhavani                                     ..     Petitioner

                                                                -vs-

                     Mr.Praveen P.Nair, I.A.S.
                     The District Collector-cum-
                     Land Acquisition Officer (Arbitrator)
                     Office of the District Collectorate
                     First Floor, Nagapattinam
                     Nagapattinam District 611 001                     ..     Respondent

                           Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
                     praying to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this
                     Court dated 24.09.2019 made in Contempt Petition No.1284 of 2019.

                                        For Petitioner            ::   Mr.G.Thangavel

                                        For Respondent            ::   Mr.T.Arunkumar
                                                                       Government Advocate

                                                              ORDER

The petitioner for the second time has approached this Court with

this contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order passed by this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

Court.

2. The petitioner initially filed the Writ Petition No.1935 of 2017 with

the following prayer:-

“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record of the impugned proceedings in LA.No.100/2011 dated 28.09.2015, passed by the first respondent herein received on 3.11.2015 and quash the same as null and void and against the basic principles of natural justice and consequently direct the first respondent herein to work out the due compensation payable to petitioner in respect of the Survey No.204/6 ad-measuring 400 sq.mtr., at No.10, Athipuliur Village, Kilvellore Taluk, Nagapattinam District of National Highways Road No.67, with reference to the covered judgment of Hon'ble High Court, Karnataka in W.P.Nos.42505, 42506 of 1999 c/w. W.P.No.35755/2000 dated 11.10.2002 in Lalitha and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 165 also with reference to the proceeding of the National Highways Authority of India dated 18.8.2015 by strictly complying the mandatory provisions of circular dated 18.8.2015 issued by the National Highways Authority of India.”

3. After hearing both parties, by order dated 22.2.2018, the writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

petition was allowed observing as follows:-

“4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court Chakrapani case, challenging the Constitutional validity of 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956. This Court Vide its order dated 04.03.2011 in W.P.Nos.15699 of 2008 & batch etc.,[Chakrapani & others Vs Union of India and others, (2011 Writ L.R.193)], has held that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional. Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 excluded the operation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in matters connected with the former Act, and 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 Act, 1894.

4.2. Challenging the said order of this Court dated 04.03.2011 W.P.Nos.15699 of 2008 & batch etc., the land acquisition authority preferred Special Leave Petition in C.A.Nos.Nos.129-159 of 2014. The Supreme Court, however confirmed the order of this Court holding that Section 3-J is 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 have become entitled to solatium

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

and interest payable in terms of the said Act. 4.3. The petitioner's contention is that since there was a direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.07.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014, to grant compensation to the land owners under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the same parity may be shown to him, as his property, the subject matter of the present case, is also involved in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the National Highways Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the present petitioner, since he was similarly if not identically placed with those petitioners in Chakrapani case, he too would be entitled to the benefit based on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. There is no denying the fact that Sec.3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been declared unconstitutional. Necessarily, those who were denied benefit earlier would be entitled to the benefit now.

6. This petition is therefore allowed with a direction to the respondent concerned to grant the petitioner the benefits such as solatium and the interest that were denied to the petitioner contrary to the decision of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that Sec.3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, as unconstitutional, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

4. Complaining the non-compliance of the above order, the petitioner

along with others earlier filed the Contempt Petition Nos.1284 of 2019 etc.,

and this Court, by order dated 24.9.2019, passed the following common

order:-

“When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that this Court by judgment dated 01.04.2019 in W.A. No.2693 of 2018, while allowing the writ appeal, permitted the writ petitioners therein to raise all the issues in the pending application before the District Collector, Salem, i.e. claim for additional market value, solatium and interest. He would further submit that as per Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) or sub section (2) is not acceptable, on application by either of the parties, the amount shall be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

2. A perusal of the above judgment would show that this issue has to be necessarily adjudicated by the appropriate authority namely, the District Collector while exercising his powers as an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for dealing with the claim for enhanced compensation. It is relevant to extract para 14 of the above judgment as under:

'This issue has to be necessarily adjudicated by the appropriate authority namely the District

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

Collector while exercising his powers as an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for dealing with the claim for enhanced compensation.'

3. Similarly, Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is extracted as under:

'3-G(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) or sub section (2) is not acceptable, either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

4. A reading of the above Section would show that if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) or sub section (2) is not acceptable, on application made by either of the parties, the same shall be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

5. In the light of the above, the petitioners are permitted to move an application along with a copy of the Award and other documents for determining the additional market value, solatium and interest before the District Collector, Nagapattinam, who was appointed by the Central Government as a Land Arbitrator. The same shall be considered by the District Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer (Arbitration), Nagapattinam within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioners. With the above direction, the contempt petitions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

are disposed of. In view of this order, Sub Application

Nos.354, 363, 362, 361, 356 of 2019 are closed.”

The petitioner has once again filed this contempt petition alleging non-

compliance of the above order.

5. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent, taking instructions from Mrs.R.Muthumeenakshi, Special

District Revenue Officer, NH(LA), NH 67 & NH45C Nagapattinam-

Tiruvarur-Thanjavur project, who is present in the Court, submitted that

since the award dated 10.4.2012 was passed enhancing the compensation at

the rate of 10% along with interest at the rate of 9%, thereafter, it is stated,

no more enhancement can be considered.

6. The said argument is unacceptable to this Court, in the light of the

ratio laid down by this Court in T.Chakrapani and others v. Union of India

represented by Secretary, National Highways Department and others, 2011

Writ L.R.193, holding as follows:-

“36. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed, while

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Contempt Petition No.820 of 2021

upholding other provisions of the Act, Section 3-J of the Highways Act is held to be unconstitutional, being hit 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), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.”

7. When the said order was taken on appeal before the Apex Court by

the National Highways Authority in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014,

the Apex Court by its order dated 21.7.2016, while confirming the order

passed by this Court in T.Chakrapani's case holding that Section 3-J is

unconstitutional, directed that the respondents/writ petitioners be paid

solatium as due in terms of the impugned order(s) along with interest

thereon. Following the same, I have also passed an order in Writ Appeal

No.1555 of 2019 dated 7.9.2021 holding that the land owner(s) is/are to be

treated on par with those owners who fall within the ambit of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, and have become entitled to solatium and interest

payable under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the said Act.

8. In view of the above, this contempt petition is disposed of directing