Madras High Court
The District Collector vs K.Ramasamy on 2 January, 2023
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022
&
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
1. The District Collector
Namakkal District
Namakkal.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer /
Special Tahsildar (LA)
Land Acquisitioning Officer
Master Plan Complex Petitioners/
Namakkal. .. Appellants
Vs.
K.Ramasamy
Chellammal
P.Renukadevi Respondents in
P.Selvakumar .. CMP No.20716/22 &
WA No.SR 125117/22
P.Rajendran Respondents in
P.Murugesan .. CMP No.20686/22 &
WA No.SR 125240/22
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
Prayer: CMP Nos.20716 and 20686 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the
appeals against the order dated 02.11.2021 made in W.P.Nos.12107
and 12108 of 2017 respectively; and
(ii) Appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 02.11.2021 made in W.P.Nos.12107 and 12108 of 2017
respectively.
For the Petitioners/ : Mr.S.Silambannan
Appellants Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Heard on the applications for condonation of the delay of 224
days in filing the appeals.
2. According to the petitioners, the lands covered in
S.Nos.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1, 371/11K1, 389/6 were
acquired by issuing notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
05.06.1998 for constructing Master Plan Complex. It was followed by
declaration under Section 6 on 24.06.1998. Some of the land owners
filed W.P.No.8629 of 1998 and obtained an order of stay. However, the
said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafater, an award was passed,
against which, land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the
Act, which culminated in LAOP Nos.5 to 173 of 2007. The Reference
Court fixed Rs.26/- per sq.ft. for some of the lands and Rs.35/- for
some of the lands. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by
way of appeals. The said appeals were dismissed upholding the rate
fixed by the Reference Court.
3. In the meantime, one Koundi Gounder, one of the land owner
and father of the respondents, expired. Therefore, the respondents
made a representation to the District Collector on 05.10.2016 seeking
to fix compensation at the rate of Rs.26/- per sq.ft. for the lands in
S.No.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1 and 371/11K1 and
Rs.35/- per sq.ft. for the lands in S.No.389/6, along with 30%
solatium and 12% additional amount and interest at the rate of 15%.
As no order or award was passed, the respondents filed W.P.No.12107
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
of 2017.
4. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the facts, directed
the second petitioner/appellant to pass award for the lands comprised
in S.Nos.366/4A, 371/11C1, 371/11F2, 371/11J1 and 371/11K1 at
the rate of 26/- per sq.ft. and for the lands comprised in S.No.389/6 at
the rate of Rs.35/- sq.ft., along with 30% solatium and 12% additional
amount and interest at the rate of 15% for all the lands. Aggrieved by
the said order, the petitioners/appellants have come up with these
appeals, along with the applications for condonation of delay.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the delay
has occurred in obtaining instructions from the higher authorities
either to proceed with the order of the learned Single Judge or to
obtain legal opinion for filing appeals.
6. Heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
petitioners/appellants and perused the affidavit and documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
7. Admittedly, the award enhanced by the Reference Court was
upheld in appeal. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the
respondents have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act or not,
they are entitled to the enhanced award amount fixed by the
Reference Court in the reference sought by some of the land owners
under Section 18, read with Section 28-A of the Act. Thus, we do not
find any good and sufficient reason for filing the appeals nor to
condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the
applications to condone the delay are dismissed. Consequently, the
appeals are rejected at the SR stage.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
02.01.2023
kpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
T.RAJA, ACJ,
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
(kpl)
CMP Nos.20716 & 20686 of 2022 &
W.A.Nos.SR 125117 & 125240 of 2022
02.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
