Madras High Court
Ch. Trinadh Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 February, 2023
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2579 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.2664, 2665 and 2669 of 2023
W.P.No.2568 of 2023
Ch. Trinadh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Industries, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit-II, SIPCOT,
Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Kancheepuram District – 602 105. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the
Award of the second respondent in Na Ka No.06/2009, dated 23.11.2020 and quash
the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to pass a fresh award by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
reckoning the base date for arriving at the compensation as on 01.01.2014 and grant
all benefits flowing therefrom together with interest, etc.
For Petitioner : Mr. Swarnam J Rajagopalan
For Respondents : Mr. P. Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
W.P.No.2573 of 2023
S.R. Alli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Industries, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit-II, SIPCOT,
Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Kancheepuram District – 602 105. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the
Award of the second respondent in Na Ka No.05/2009, dated 23.11.2020 and quash
the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to pass a fresh award by
reckoning the base date for arriving at the compensation as on 01.01.2014 and grant
all benefits flowing therefrom together with interest, etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr. Swarnam J Rajagopalan
For Respondents : Mr. P. Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
W.P.No.2578 of 2023
K. Stalin Koshy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Industries, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit-II, SIPCOT,
Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Kancheepuram District – 602 105. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the
Award of the second respondent in Na Ka No.08/2009, dated nil.06.2020 and quash
the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to pass a fresh award by
reckoning the base date for arriving at the compensation as on 01.01.2014 and grant
all benefits flowing therefrom together with interest, etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr. Swarnam J Rajagopalan
For Respondents : Mr. P. Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
All the above Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the Award of the
second respondent and to consequently direct the second respondent to pass a fresh
Award by reckoning the base date for arriving at the compensation as on 01.01.2014.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is that while passing award, the base
dates have been taken wrongly as 22.01.2010 instead on 01.01.2014. According to
him the base date ought to have been taken note as 01.01.2014 and therefore, seeks
to quash the proceedings and direct the respondents to fix the base date as
01.01.2014.
3. The only submission made is with regard to the above aspect a similarly
situated person whose lands also acquired for the industrial purpose came before the
first Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1063 of 2012 and batch of cases. This Court
passed the order dated 17.10.2022, the relevant paragraphs reads as follows:
“23. In addition there to, the very same question also came up
before the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in Ishan
International Educational Society through its Director versus State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
Uttar Pradesh reported and others reported in MANU/UP/0203/2022,
wherein Allahabad High Court by placing reliance on the earlier three
Division Benches of the said Court and also the clarificatory note
prepared by the Government of India has held as follows:
“The three Division Bench judgments referred to above
have also held that where land acquisition proceedings had
commenced under the provisions of 1894 Act but award was
not made prior to 1 January 2014 under Section 11 of the
1894 Act, then in that case, all the provisions of 2013 Act
relating to determination of compensation shall apply and the
date of determination of the market value of the land should
be treated as 1 January 2014 in terms of the directions issued
by the Central Government.”
In the light of the above observation, which squarely covers the
issue raised in the present case, we agree with the views expressed by
the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. Therefore, we hold that
the base date for the purpose of determining compensation under
Central Act 30 of 2013 in the case on hand is the date of
commencement of the Central Act 30 of 2013, namely 01.01.2014.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pass a fresh award by
taking 01.01.2014 as base date for determination of compensation.”
31. In view of our findings in the common question that arose for
consideration with regard to the determination of base date all other
writ petitions are disposed off with direction to the respondent/Land
Acquisition Officer to pass fresh award by taking 01.01.2014 as a base
date for determination of compensation under Central Act 30 of 2013
after issuing notice to the land owners concerned by following the
procedure in accordance with law.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
In the above order in respect of same notification, this Court has fixed the base
date as 01.01.2014 and directed the authorities to pass a fresh Award by taking
01.01.2014 as a base date for determination of compensation under Central Act 30 of
2013 after issuing notice to the land owners concerned by following the procedure in
accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed the
above factual aspects.
5. Since the issue is already no longer res integra and the Division Bench
has fixed a base date as 01.01.2014, different base dates cannot be fixed while
passing awards. Accordingly awards are set aside, the respondents are directed to
pass fresh award by taking 01.01.2014 as the base date for determination of
compensation under Central Act 30 of 2013.
6. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
02.02.2023
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
AT
Note: Issue order copy on 08.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Industries, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit-II, SIPCOT, Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Kancheepuram District – 602 105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2578 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AT
W.P.Nos.2568, 2573 and 2579 of 2023 and
W.M.P.Nos.2664, 2665 and 2669 of 2023
02.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
