Madras High Court
T.D.Tataji vs The Collector on 25 April, 2022
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.Nos.18697 & 18699 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.19960 & 19965 of 2021
T.D.Tataji ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18697 of 2021
T.D.Naidu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18699 of
2021
Vs.
1. The Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit,
"Sri Tower" 3rd Floor, DP-34(SP), Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), NH-205,
No.3 & 4 Lal Bagadhur Sasthri Street,
Periyakuppam Railway Station,
(Near) Thulasi Theatre,
Thiruvallur - 602 001. ...Respondents in both W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.No.18697 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
the entire records pertaining to the proceedings pursuant to the impugned
order passed in Rc.No.79/2021/NH-205 by the 3rd respondent dated
22.07.2021 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to
disburse the statutory entitlements namely 30% solatium per annum on the
market value of the land and 12% on the additional amount under Section
23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification issued under the Act to the
date of making of the award and on the enhanced market value under
Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of
notification for the first year ending and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till
the date of tender of compensation along with interest on the additional 12%
amount on market value (Section 23(1-A) and solatium in the light of the
Judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
Union of India and another Vs Tarsem singh and others in Civil Appeal
No.7064 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 for the petitioner's property measuring
an extent of 1570 Sq. mts which is 16899.34 square feet situated at
Ramancheri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District acquired by the
2nd and 3rd respondent.
Prayer in W.P.No.18699 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the entire records pertaining to the proceedings pursuant to the impugned
order passed in Rc.No.78/2021/NH-205 by the 3rd respondent dated
22.07.2021 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to
disburse the statutory entitlements namely 30% solatium per annum on the
market value of the land and 12% on the additional amount under Section
23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification issued under the Act to the
date of making of the award and on the enhanced market value under
Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of
notification for the first year ending and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till
the date of tender of compensation along with interest on solatium and on
the additional 12% amount on market value (Section 23(1-A) in the light of
the Judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
Union of India and another Vs Tarsem singh and others in Civil Appeal
No.7064 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 for the petitioner's property measuring
an extent of 17,259 Sq. mts which is 185774.33 square feet situated at
Ramancheri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District acquired by the
2nd and 3rd respondent.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saravanan
in both W.Ps
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP, for R1 & R3
in both W.Ps : Mr.Su.Srinivasan, NHAI, for R2
ORDER
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings of
the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.79/2021/NH-205 and
Rc.No.78/2021/NH-205 dated 22.07.2021, quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the statutory entitlements
namely 30% solatium per annum on the market value of the land and 12%
on the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of
notification issued under the Act to the date of making of the award and on
the enhanced market value under Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum
from the date of issuance of notification for the first year ending and
thereafter, @ 15% per annum till the date of tender of compensation along
with interest on the additional 12% amount on market value (Section 23(1-
A) and solatium in the light of the Judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the matter of Union of India and another Vs Tarsem singh
and others in Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
petitioners' property measuring an extent of 1570 Sq. mts which is 16899.34
square feet situated at Ramancheri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and
District acquired by the 2nd and 3rd respondent.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their properties measuring an
extent of 1570 sq.mtrs., and 17,259 sq.mtrs., respectively situated at
Ramancheri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District were acquired
by the respondents for the purpose of widening the National Highways-205
from Alamelumangapuram to Pakkam Village and the Award for the same
was passed by fixing a value of Rs.247/- per Sq.Mtr. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent for
enhancement of the compensation and the 1st respondent, after conducting
enquiry, enhanced the compensation fixed to Rs.781/- per Sq.Mtr along with
9% interest per annum after deducting development charges on the
difference amount of land value from the date of taking possession under
Section 3-D till the date of actual deposit thereof, as contemplated under
Section 3-H(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 and passed an Award in
R.C.No.21899-2/ 2011/ F2(Arbit) and R.C.No.21899-1/ 2011/ F2 (Arbit)
dated 16.02.2021 respectively. In order to avail the benefit of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
India and another Vs Tarsem singh and others in Civil Appeal No.7064
of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 and for the payment of statutory entitlements, the
petitioners made representations dated 26.03.2021 and 23.03.2021
respectively, before the respondents for grant of statutory entitlements,
however, there was no response from the respondents. Therefore, the
petitioners filed Writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.10220 & 10219
of 2021 respectively, and this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2021 disposed
of the same and directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation before
the Acquisition Officer / 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the order of this Court,
the petitioners made representations dated 08.05.2021 before the 3rd
respondent, however, the same were rejected by the 3rd respondent, vide
proceedings dated 22.07.2021 in Rc.No.79/ 2021/ NH-205 and Rc.No.78/
2021/ NH-205 respectively, on the ground that, the 3rd respondent is
"FUNCTUS OFFICIO". Hence, challenging the same, the present Writ
petitions are filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have filed these Writ petitions challenging the order dated 22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
passed by the 3rd respondent and contended that without appreciating the
order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the 3rd respondent has passed the
impugned order, which reveals total non-application of mind on the part of
the 3rd respondent to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Therefore, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside and the 3rd
respondent be directed to pass orders considering the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh's case (supra).
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
1st and 3rd respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the National Highways however submitted that as against the order dated
22.07.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent, there is an effective appeal
remedy available before District Collector / Arbitrator and the petitioners
have to avail the alternative remedy and it is impermissible for the petitioners
to come before this Court without availing the said remedy. It is therefore
submitted that the petitioners can very well canvass all the points in the
appeal before the District Collector in order to avail the benefit of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh's case (supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
5. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the
petitioners lands were acquired for the purpose of widening the National
Highways-205 from Alamelumangapuram to Pakkam Village and the
Award was passed and against the low quantification, the petitioners
claimed enhancement, which was accordingly ordered vide the aforesaid
arbitral award by the 1st respondent.
7. In the case of Union of India and another Vs Tarsem singh and
others (2019 (9) SCC 304), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the
enhancement of compensation with regard to acquisition and the statutory
entitlements available to the land losers and in that context, held as under :-
"52.There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor
General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the
issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in
view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned
judgments should be set aside on the ground that when
the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or
interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by
the landowners on this score, the Division Bench
judgments that are impugned before us ought not to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we
would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that
the Government itself is of the view that solatium and
interest should be granted even in cases that arise
between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we
decline to interfere with such orders, given our
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. We therefore, declare that the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to
solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-1)
and (2) and interest payable in terms of Section 28
proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the
National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of
Section 3-J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be
unconstitutional. Accordingly, appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No.9599 of 2019 is dismissed."
In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.Nos.10220 & 10219 of 2021,
this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2021 disposed of the said Writ petitions
and directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the
Acquisition Officer / 3rd respondent and complying with the aforesaid
directions, the petitioners made representations dated 08.05.2021 before the
3rd respondent, which were rejected citing that the 3rd respondent is
"functus officio". Therefore, the petitioners have come before this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
8. However, as pointed out by the learned Additional Government
Pleader, there is a remedy of appeal available before the 1st respondent,
which the petitioners have not exhausted. In such circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to
the petitioners to file Appeal petitions before the Arbitrator / District
Collector.
9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of and the petitioners
are directed to file appeal petitions before the Arbitrator / District Collector
as against the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
receipt of such Appeal petitions, the District Collector is directed to dispose
of the same on merits and pass appropriate orders in the light of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Singh's case
(supra) within a period of six weeks thereafter. Pursuant to the order, that
may be passed by the 1st respondent, if the petitioners are still aggrieved,
the petitioners are at liberty to workout their remedy in the manner known to
law by invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
10. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the
aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
25.04.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
1. The Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit,
"Sri Tower" 3rd Floor, DP-34(SP), Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), NH-205,
No.3 & 4 Lal Bagadhur Sasthri Street,
Periyakuppam Railway Station,
(Near) Thulasi Theatre,
Thiruvallur - 602 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
skt
W.P.Nos.18697 & 18699 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.19960 & 19965 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18697 & 18699 of 2021
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
