Madras High Court
Dr.G.Ganga vs The District Collector Madurai on 8 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
Dr.G.Ganga ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector Madurai,
Office of the District Collectorate,
N.K.No.27/2009 Land Acquisition,
Airport Acquisition Extension Wing-1,
Madurai.
2.Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
N.K.No.27/2009/L.A,
Airport Acquisition Extension Wing-1,
Madurai 625 020. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
the Na.Ka.No.3715/2009/B6 dated 10.03.2020 regarding Land Acquisition
Madurai District - Airport Extension Iyanpappakudi Village, Land Acquisition
property, vide N.K.No.27/2009 House Site plot of Survey No.455 situated in
Airport Road, Wing 3 of Avaniyarpuram Town Panchayat, Madurai and quash the
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
award in 9/2020 which was posted on 19.03.2020 and was received on
21.03.2020 and the consequent notice dated 19.03.2020 in Na.Ka.No.
31/2018/Ni.Ea, dated 19.03.2020 which was received on 24.03.2020 since posted
on 20.03.2020. The same was not acted upon due to the corana virus lock down
implemented by the state of Tamil Nadu and the Union of India and quash the
same as illegal, contrary to law and invalid under law against the judgment of the
Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.9036 to 9038 of 2016 dated 06.03.2020
consequently direct the 1st respondent to reissue a fresh notification since the
earlier notification is lapsed in view of the Apex Court's order pertaining to land
and building in S.No.455/2A1A, Door No.6, 0.78.50 ares part situated in the
Airport Road, Wing-3, Avaniyapuram Town Panchayat, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Santharaman
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed for the following relief:-
“Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the Na.Ka.No.3715/2009/B6 dated 10.03.2020 regarding
Land Acquisition Madurai District - Airport Extension Iyanpappakudi
Village, Land Acquisition property, vide N.K.No.27/2009 House Site
plot of Survey No.455 situated in Airport Road, Wing 3 of
Avaniyarpuram Town Panchayat, Madurai and quash the award in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
9/2020 which was posted on 19.03.2020 and was received on
21.03.2020 and the consequent notice dated 19.03.2020 in Na.Ka.No.
31/2018/Ni.Ea, dated 19.03.2020 which was received on 24.03.2020
since posted on 20.03.2020. The same was not acted upon due to the
corana virus lock down implemented by the state of Tamil Nadu and
the Union of India and quash the same as illegal, contrary to law and
invalid under law against the judgment of the Supreme Court of India
in S.L.P.9036 to 9038 of 2016 dated 06.03.2020 consequently direct
the 1st respondent to reissue a fresh notification since the earlier
notification is lapsed in view of the Apex Court's order pertaining to
land and building in S.No.455/2A1A, Door No.6, 0.78.50 ares part
situated in the Airport Road, Wing-3, Avaniyapuram Town Panchayat,
Madurai.”
2.This writ petition highlights the loss that is caused to the exchequer on
account of the officials not comprehending/overlooking the instructions,
Government Orders as well as the Court orders. The above observation has been
made taking into account the facts, which has given raise to the above writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
3.It is the case of the petitioner that she has purchased a house site under a
registered sale deed dated 05.06.2002 registered as Doc.No.2424/2002. On the
very same day, a gift for the road was also registered as Doc.No.2423/2002. The
petitioner would submit that she has sought building permission for constructing
a building and the same was approved on 02.08.2002. As per the approval, the
construction was to be completed on or before 19.08.2004. The petitioner would
submit that she has also put up a construction by obtaining loan from the Housing
Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd., under two tranches. The
construction was completed before 2009 and an additional construction was also
put up. The building that has been put up was given D.No.6 and was also assessed
to tax with the Avaniyapuram Town Panchayat. The petitioner would submit that
the building was a modern construction and was also serviced with electricity.
4.While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive the letter dated
22.11.2017 from the second respondent, wherein it has been stated that they
proposed to acquire her lands, as the same was described as punja lands when it is
a house site in an approved layout. This classification has been made with a view
of giving lesser compensation to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
5.The petitioner has therefore filed W.P.(MD) No.5269 of 2018 on the file
of this Court to direct the respondents to change the classification of the land in
S.Nos.455/2A 1A, measuring an extent of 0.78.50 ares. This Court by order dated
16.08.218 was pleased to direct the respondents therein to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 05.02.2018 and pass orders on merits after
hearing the petitioner.
6.The petitioner would submit that contrary to the directions of this Court,
the second respondent did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner to put-
forth her case. The second respondent had issued a notice calling upon the
petitioner to appear before him on 03.10.2018. However, the notice was received
on the date of the hearing and the petitioner had contacted the second respondent
over phone requesting him to grant time for a personal hearing to consider the
representation and fix the market value. She was informed that the matter would
be taken on 16.10.2018. However, the same was not taken up on the said day.
Thereafter, the petitioner had moved W.P.(MD) No.24762 of 2018 calling upon
the first respondent to fix the market value of the acquired land as a house site.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
When the matter had come up, the learned Government Advocate had fairly
conceded that the award has not been passed. Therefore, this Court had passed an
order directing the respondents to determine and disburse the compensation
payable to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of that order. It appears that the first respondent had passed an award dated
07.03.2019 deciding the compensation payable at Rs.4,41,986/-. This order has
been passed without hearing the petitioner. The said award was communicated to
the petitioner by the petitioner's counsel vide letter of the second respondent
dated 25.04.2019.
7.Immediately, the petitioner had challenged the same by filing W.P.(MD)
No.15609 of 2019 along with the relief for directing the first respondent to pass
an award fixing the compensation for paying the petitioner. This Court by order
dated 19.08.2019 was pleased to pass the following order:-
“20.For all these reasons and discussions made above, this
Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following
directions:-
“that the impugned communication dated 25.04.2019 issued by
the second respondent cannot be given effect to and therefore, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents with a
direction that, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry with the
petitioner by giving separate notice to that effect, within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order directing the
petitioner to appear either before the first respondent or before the
second respondent mentioning the date and time as well as the venue,
with relevant documents to be enumerated in the said notice and on
receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall appear before the
respondent as indicated in the notice and on appearing, the petitioner
would be given an effectual hearing, enabling the petitioner to put
forth her case seeking for adequate compensation for the land
acquired from her including the building and after completing the
enquiry, it is open to the respondents to pass award within a period of
two weeks, thereafter. Once the award is passed, it is for the petitioner
to accept or to agitate the same, if she felt aggrieved in the manner
known to law. The aforesaid exercise shall be strictly followed and to
be completed within the time, as indicated above, by giving
opportunity to the petitioner, as has been directed by this Court.””
8.Thereafter, the second respondent had called upon the petitioner to appear
before him on 26.08.2019 pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.(MD) No.15609 of
2019. The petitioner would submit that she had submitted a detailed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
representation to the respondent under cover of a letter dated 30.08.2019. Despite
bringing it to the notice of the petitioner that the compensation has to be
calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.30/2013), the
impugned order dated 10.03.2020 came to be passed, which is the subject matter
of challenge in the instant case.
9.Mr.M.V.Santharaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would submit that the land in question was originally acquired by
invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.30/2013) came into
force on 01.01.2014. This Act repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On
01.01.2015, the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/2015 (The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparencies in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act came into effect. After the enactment
of Act 30/2013, the three special State Acts, namely The Tamil Nadu Acquisition
of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, by
virtue of Section 105 of Act 30/2013, acquisition continued to be applicable.
10.Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.251, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department,
dated 31.12.2014, it was decided that the provisions of the Central Act 30/2013
relating to determination of compensation would apply to cases of land
acquisition, where notice of acquisition under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 has been published on or
before 01.01.2014.
11.Meanwhile Act 1/2015 was challenged, in and by which a new Section
105(A) was sought to be introduced and it was held that the provisions of Act
30/2013 would not apply to the enactments relating to the land acquisition
specified in the Vth schedule. The Vth schedule dealt with the three Acts, namely
The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978,
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the Tamil
Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The Bench in the batch of cases had ultimately
observed that by the insertion of Section 105(A), the three State Acts, which have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
been listed in the schedule V of Act 1/2015 could not be revived since it had
become repugnant on 27.09.2013. This judgment was taken on challenge before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.22727-22736 of 2019. By order dated
27.09.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court had granted leave and observed that the
impugned orders would be stayed with reference to the order of the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court that the acquisition made under the three
impugned enactments post 27.09.2013 would be illegal and had continued the
interim protection granted by the Division Bench of the High Court regarding the
status quo as to the possession of the land and for proceedings to go on without
final orders being passed. After the orders were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Act 38/2019 for reviving the
operation of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act,
1978, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. As per Section 6 therein, all the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 stood
revive except for the provisions relating to the determination of compensation
with effect from 26.09.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
12.Sub-section 3 therein provided that the provisions relating to the
determination of compensation as specified in the Ist schedule, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement as specified in the IInd schedule and infrastructure amenities as
provided in the IIIrd schedule to Act 30/2013 would apply to the land acquisition
proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes
Act, 1997. This amendment has been circulated to all the District Collectors of
the State under cover of a letter of the Principal Secretary to Government bearing
letter No.8210/1.2/2019 dated 08.01.2020. Despite the above and without
considering the submissions and giving hearing to the petitioner, the impugned
order came to be passed on 10.03.2020.
13.The respondents had filed a counter interalia contending that the
remedy of the petitioner is only to move a suit before the competent civil Court
under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes
Act, 1997 and the writ petition was not maintainable. In the additional counter
affidavit, once again the averment stated in the earlier counter affidavit is
reiterated and the respondents have stated as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
“6.It is humbly submitted that in accordance with the above
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Petitioner herein was directed
to appear for personal enquiry on 18.02.2020 at 11 AM. She appeared
for enquiry and gave a representation dated 18.02.2020. In-fact,
additional notification under section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes
Act,1997 regarding houses, tress etc. was approved and published in
Dinamalar and Deccan Chronicle dated 19.12.2018. Insofar the
Petitioner's house property located in 1950 sq.ft of land in S.No.
455/2A1 is concerned, the Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, the Competent authority, inspected the property and
submitted his valuation report by stating that the property is valued at
Rs.4,70,300/-, Hence necessary proposal to the Special Commissioner
for Land Administration has been submitted for approval as well as
causing publication in the Government Gazette, the amount will be
paid to he Petitioner herein as per the orders passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Roc. No. 31/2018 dated 25.02.2020 and the Petitioner herein
has received the same on 03.03.2020.”
They have further stated as follows:-
“Larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP
(C) Nos.906 -9038 of 2016 dated 06.03.2020 held that under the
Provisions of section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on
1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the Act, there is lapse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of Act of 2013. In the present case also, the compensation
has been arrived only as per the provision f the new Act,2013 and
hence no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner.”
14.In the counter it has been categorically stated that the compensation has
been passed only as per Act 30/2013. In the background of the above
submissions, a perusal of the impugned order dated 10.03.2020 would clearly
demonstrate that the compensation has not been awarded as per Act 30/2013,
which is evident from a reading of the operative portion of the impugned order,
which reads as follows:-
“epyvLg;gpw;f;fhd ,og;gPl;Lj; njhif:-
3(2) mwptpf;if 19.03.2009y; ntspaplg;gl;Ls;sjhy;
Gjpa epyvLg;G rl;lk; 2013Mk; tUlj;jpa epyk; ifafg;gLj;Jjy;
kw;Wk; cupa ,og;gL
P toq;Fjy; kWtho;T kw;Wk; kWFb mkh;T
rl;lj;jpw;Fz;lhd (RFCTLARR Act 2013) gyd;fs; toq;Ftjw;fhd
Nfs;tp votpy;iy. epy cupikahsu;fSf;F ,Jtiu ,ilf;fhy
,og;gPl;Lj; njhif vJTk; toq;fg;gltpy;iy. epy
cupikahsu;fsplkpUe;J epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;L ,Jtiu
Nfl;Gj; Jiwapdh; trk; xg;gilf;fg;gltpy;iy.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
15.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.
16.The entire case rests on whether the respondents have followed the
provisions of the Act and the instructions of their officials and from a reading of
the impugned order, it is clearly evident that the same has not been done as per
Act 30/2013, but only as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The respondents would take umbrage
under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.251, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department,
dated 31.12.2014, which is a Government Order that has been passed pending the
assent to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill, 2014.
It is thereafter that Act 38/2019 had received the assent of the President and
Section 6(1) and (3) makes it very clear that with reference to compensation it
would only be the provisions of the Central Act 30/2013 that would apply.
Therefore, by the enactment of the Act, the respondents cannot rely upon
G.O.Ms.No.251, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 31.12.2014 which
by itself was only an interim measure pending assent. Therefore, the Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
is allowed as prayed for. The impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.3715/2009/B6
dated 10.03.2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents
for reworking the compensation in the lines of Act 30/2013 within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Speaking : Yes / No 08.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The District Collector Madurai,
Office of the District Collectorate,
N.K.No.27/2009 Land Acquisition,
Airport Acquisition Extension Wing-1,
Madurai.
2.Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
N.K.No.27/2009/L.A,
Airport Acquisition Extension Wing-1,
Madurai 625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.6630 of 2020
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
