Madras High Court
A. Jagadesan vs 6 The District Collector on 4 July, 2023
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.A. No.2313 of 2018
A. Jagadesan Appellant
v
1 The District Collector
Collectorate
Sathuvacheri
Vellore 632 009
2 The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Sub Collector
Tirupattur 635 601
Vellore District
3 The Divisional Engineer (H)
NABARD – Rural Roads Division
No.8 Natteri Krishnamachari Street
Vellore 632 001
4 The Secretary to Government
Highways & Minor Ports Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
5 The Divisional Engineer (H)
Construction and Maintenance
Vaniyambadi Division
Vellore District
6 The District Collector
Tirupattur Respondents
(R6 impleaded suo motu by order dated
08.03.2023 passed in W.A. No.2313 of 2018.)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging
the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P. No.2325 of 2018.
For appellant Mr. K. Elango
For respondents Mrs. Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
For the sake of convenience and to avoid verbosity, the parties will be
referred to as per their rank in this writ appeal.
2 The facts in brief leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as
under:
2.1 In 1979, vast extent of lands in Markethiyanur Village,
including the appellant's land, was acquired for the purpose of forming and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
improving road from Matrapalli to Javadu Hills under the Tamil Nadu
Tribes Development Scheme.
2.2 Seeking compensation for the acquisition of his land, the
appellant addressed a representation dated 22.12.2017 and finding no
response thereto, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.2325 of 2018,
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay
compensation with interest, along with other statutory benefits, till the date
of such payment, for his piece of land in S.No.353/1 measuring 0.04.0
hectare in the aforesaid village, in the light of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act (Central Act 30/2013), (for brevity “the Amended Act”),
based on his aforesaid representation.
2.3 The main ground canvassed in the aforesaid writ petition was
that for the said acquisition made, neither award was passed nor
compensation was paid to the land owners, including him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
2.4 The Single Bench, on the short and sole ground of laches,
inasmuch as the appellant had addressed the representation seeking
compensation nearly after four decades and followed it up by filing the writ
petition, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.07.2018.
2.5 Calling into question the legality and validity of the aforesaid
order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Single Bench, this writ appeal has
been filed.
3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
4 According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the
counter affidavit filed before the Single Bench by the second respondent in
the month of March 2018, it has been specifically stated that since the
Divisional Engineer (Highways), Tribal Welfare Scheme, had already
formed the road, proposals were under process to settle the compensation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
the aggrieved land owners under private negotiation. But, according to the
learned counsel, the Single Bench, without considering the said counter
affidavit, has dismissed the writ petition. In other words, according to the
learned counsel, since it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the
appellant is entitled to compensation, the appellant ought to have been paid
compensation under Section 24(2) of the Amended Act.
5 Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained, since the appellant is not
entitled to compensation under Section 24(2) of the Amended Act.
6 During the pendency of this writ appeal, the District Collector,
Tirupathur, the sixth respondent herein, was impleaded suo motu, vide order
dated 08.03.2023.
7 In the affidavit dated 23.03.2023 filed by the sixth respondent,
it is clearly stated that the subject lands were acquired for the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
formation of road, which project got over in 1982 and that the land owners
are entitled to receive compensation as per the final rate fixed by the District
Level Committee which is Rs.4,30,955/-. It is further stated in the said
affidavit that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the sixth
respondent formed a special committee and convened a public meeting on
21.03.2023 and notice was also sent to all the 158 land owners to participate
in the meeting for the purpose of payment of compensation; out of 158 land
owners, 71 land owners had died, 60 land owners reside in the area and 18
land owners reside outside the area; however, none turned up for the
meeting.
8 In view of the above affidavit dated 23.03.2023 filed by the
sixth respondent, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the
appellant that he is entitled to compensation under the Amended Act.
However, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation
insofar as his share of the acquired land, together with interest at the rate of
6% per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
9 Accordingly, the sixth respondent is directed to settle the
proportionate share of the appellant together with interest at 6% per annum
from 11.11.2002 till the date of such payment, within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10 As far as the other land owners are concerned, the sixth
respondent is directed to settle their proportionate share by strict adherence
to the procedure contemplated under the rules and in the event of they
having any grievance qua the amount of compensation, they are at liberty to
agitate the same before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.
In fine, the order impugned passed by the Single Bench is set aside
and this writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction and observation.
Costs made easy.
(D.K.K., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
04.07.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2018
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B. BALAJI, J.
cad
To
1 The District Collector
Collectorate
Sathuvacheri, Vellore 632 009
2 The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Sub Collector
Tirupattur 635 601, Vellore District
3 The Divisional Engineer (H)
NABARD – Rural Roads Division
No.8 Natteri Krishnamachari Street
Vellore 632 001
4 The Secretary to Government
Highways & Minor Ports Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
5 The Divisional Engineer (H)
Construction and Maintenance
Vaniyambadi Division, Vellore District
6 The District Collector
Tirupattur W.A. No.2313 of 2018
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
