Madras High Court
G.Ramesh vs The Competent Authority And ... on 28 July, 2023
WP No.17634 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28-07-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.17634 of 2022
G.Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Competent Authority and Special District
Revenue Officer,
National Highways (Land Acquisition),
Bengaluru – Chennai Expressway Project,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore-9.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
National Highways (Land Acquisition),
Bengaluru – Chennai Expressway Project,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore-9.
3.The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Kancheepuram,
7/16, Govindarajan Street,
Tambaram West,
Chennai-600 045.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
[R-3 impleaded vide order of Court dated
28.07.2023 made in WMP No.30399 of 2022
in WP No.17634 of 2022] ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the first respondent and quash the impugned proceedings dated 14.05.2022
in Th.Ne.Ni.E/P.Ch.V/C.Ma.Va.A/A2/71/2022 of the first respondent
rejecting the petitioner's claim for compensation as the same is ultra virus,
unconstitutional, perverse, arbitrary, biased, illegal and against all principles
of law and natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay
due statutory compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of his
acquired lands forming part of roads/streets or any other common areas of
Annai Nagar Layout situate in S.No.18/1A1, 18/1A1B, 18/22, 18/3A1B,
18/2A1 and 18/2A1B, Gonvidacheri Village, Wallaja Taluk, Vellore
District acquired by the respondents for Bangalore-Chennai Expressway
Project.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan
For Respondents-1 and 2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent-3 : Mrt.Su.Srinivasan
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
ORDER
The order dated 14.05.2022 passed by the first respondent-
Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), is under challenge in
the present writ petition.
2. The acquisition proceedings initiated and completed in
respect of the subject properties, are not in dispute in the present writ
petition.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 06.12.2021 to
the District Revenue Officer to settle the compensation in respect of the
portion of the land gifted by him to the Local Authority for the purpose of
formation of road in the layout.
4. At the time of approval of layout, the lands for the formation
of road are to be gifted to the Local Authority and in accordance with the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioner gifted a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
portion of the land for formation of road in the layout in favour of the
Commissioner, Sholinghur Panchayat Union by executing a gift in favour of
the Commissioner, Sholinghur Panchayat Union. The petitioner is ceased to
be the owner of the portion of the land, which has been gifted in favour of
the Local Authority.
5. The petitioner has taken a stand that the land gifted by him
was subsequently acquired and therefore, the gift lost its relevance and thus
he is entitled entitled for the compensation for the portion of the land gifted
by him to the Local Authority.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of S. Rajasekaran vs. District Collector,
Kancheepuram District [(2012) 2 CTC 324], wherein in paragraphs 18
and 19, it has been held as under:-
“18. In the present case, the lands before
acquisition itself were in approved layout and
certain areas have been shown as open space for
public use. But, however when the acquisition of
land took place for industrial scheme conceived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
by the SIPCOT, the purpose of use of the land got
completely changed and even the areas which
were reserved for open space is no longer
relevant. The SIPCOT sold the lands to the private
party in respect of the entire extent. Those lands
were no longer kept as open space meant for a
park or a street. After obtaining the land cost from
the private companies, necessary compensation
will have to be paid to the real owners.
19. In the present case, the local authorities
for whose cause the Respondent SIPCOT is
pleading, have not become owners of the land
either by way of Gift Deed or by way of any
operation of law. On the other hand, admittedly
no Gift Deed has been executed in favour of the
local body. Even otherwise, as held by the
Supreme Court in catena of decisions referred to
above, the local body does not become the owner
of the land and it is merely a custodian. Further
the Town and Country Planning Act is not an Act
providing for land acquisition. Hence, the
contentions raised by the Respondents cannot be
countenanced by this Court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said
judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of District Collector vs. S. Rajasekaran [2015 (3) LW 626].
Therefore, even after gifting of the property under the Town and Country
Planning Act, for formation of road in favour of the Local Authority, the
previous owner can claim compensation if such lands are acquired for
public purposes.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General strenuously
objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by
stating that after gifting of the portion of the land for formation of road. At
the time of approval of layout by the Director of Town and Country
Planning, the petitioner ceased to be the owner of the portion of the land
and therefore, he is not entitled to claim compensation.
9. The Special District Revenue Officer in his counter-affidavit
stated that award proceedings were passed on 08.12.2017 and regarding sale
of plot in the layout, the purchasers were not only purchased the plots but
also the right to use the piece of land shown as road and the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
consideration of the plot would also invoke the component of right to use
the road portion. The land portion shown in the private layout developed by
the land owner or Power Agent is meant for all persons, who purchased the
plots in the layout. Considering these vital points, the plot value in dry land
was fixed at Rs.1,185/- per sq.meter than the dry land value of Rs.255/- per
sq.meter. Hence, it has to be dedicated only for the purpose of road and it
should have been handed over by the land owner or Power Agent to the
Local Body. Accordingly, Mr.S.V.Kumar, Power Agent of Annamalai and
Amsa Group had gifted the road portions in the layout in favour of
Govindacheri Village Panchayat as per Gift Deed bearing No.4698 of 2018
dated 20.07.2018.
10. The writ petitioner got the acquired property of Annamalai
and Amsa Group at meagre sum of Rs.12,03,500/- with some motive from
the Power Agents Mr.Venkatesan and Mr.Kumar vide Sale Deeds 2695 of
2019 dated 14.09.2019 and 4094 of 2019 dated 10.07.2019 respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
11. With the strength of the abovesaid two documents, the writ
petitioner Mr.G.Ramesh got the plots values plus all statutory benefits of the
said land owners amounting to Rs.55,49,192/- on 31.08.2020 from the
Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Vellore. In addition to
the said sum, the writ petitioner, who is not an Awardee, claims
compensation for the road portion in the present writ petition with some
motive.
12. The roads in the layout had been vested to the Village
Panchayat in the year 2018 as stated above. The compensation, if any,
payable to the roads of the layout by the Project Director, National Highway
Authorities, it has to be paid to the Commissioner, Panchayat Union,
Sholinghur.
13. The Awardeeds or Power Agents or the writ petitioner are
not eligible to get compensation, if any of the acquired public road, since
higher land value fixed for the house site plots, taking into consideration of
the road facilities, were paid to the land owners. Hence, no separate value is
eligible for the Awardees of plot purchasers or land owners or their Power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
Agents.
14. The facts and circumstances, as narrated in the counter-
affidavit, would be sufficient enough to form an inevitable conclusion that
the petitioner purchased the land after acquisition proceedings and after
gifting of the road as per the layout in favour of the Local Authority. Even
the motive has been attributed against the writ petitioner for claiming
additional compensation in respect of the gifted property in favour of the
Local Authority. Thus the judgment cited by the petitioner is of no avail as
he is not considered as an Awardee even by the Authority Competent based
on the original acquisition proceedings, since the petitioner was a
subsequent purchaser.
15. For all these reasons, this Court do not find any acceptable
reason for considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
16. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
28-07-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
To
1.The Competent Authority and Special District
Revenue Officer,
National Highways (Land Acquisition),
Bengaluru – Chennai Expressway Project,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore-9.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
National Highways (Land Acquisition),
Bengaluru – Chennai Expressway Project,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore-9.
3.The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Kancheepuram,
7/16, Govindarajan Street,
Tambaram West,
Chennai-600 045.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17634 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 17634 of 2022
28-07-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
