Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Jagarabevi on 13 June, 2023
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
AS. Nos.1127, 1129, 1150, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1170, 1171, 1174,
1192, 1193, 1194, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1207 and 1208 of 2015
and MP.Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2015
The Secretary,
Corporate Office,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,
Neyveli -1.
.. Appellant in AS.No.1127 of 2015
Versus
1. Jagarabevi
2. The Special Tahsildar,
No.20, Land Acquisition,
Neyveli 2.
.. Respondents in AS.No.1127 of 2015
PRAYER in AS.No.117 of 2015: First Appeal filed under Section 54 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and decree passed in
L.A.O.P.No.49 of 2013 on the file of the Special Sub Court for LAOP
Cases, Cuddalore, dated 29.06.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
For appellant : Mr.N.Nithianandam
For respondents
for R1 : Mr.V.Anand
for R2 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Spl.G.P.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J)
These appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees dated
29.06.2015 passed by the Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore in
a batch of cases namely, LAOPs.No.49, 217, 360 and 346 of 2013, 8, 10,
23, 25, 331, 332, 337, 26, 28, 30, 57, 65, 190 and 336 of 2014.
2. The Government of Tamiladu initiated proceedings for acquisition
of lands in Periyakurichi Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District
for expansion of existing Mines of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It is to be
noted that the lands were acquired by various notifications issued by the
Industrial Department between 1991 and 1997. It is admitted that the lands
in Periyakurichi Village were split into 14 blocks for administrative
convenience and the lands covered in each blocks were sought to be
acquired by different notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
3. From the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is seen
that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.2,15,384/- per
hectare for the lands acquired under notification dated 21.02.1991 issued
under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer however fixed
compensation at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per acre for the lands acquired for
the same purpose under the notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the
Act dated 18.10.1996 and 31.01.1997.
4. It is admitted that the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter
for fixing just compensation before the Reference Court on the petitions filed
by the respective land owners and the Reference Court also enhanced the
compensation in all cases uniformly. One of the grounds raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant is that the Land Acquisition Officer had
erroneously referred for higher compensation by allowing petitions, which
were filed beyond the period of limitation.
5. It is admitted that the petitions filed by the appellant under Order 7
Rule 11 long after commencement of trial were dismissed by the Trial Court
for want of merits. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that in many cases, the appellant also filed an application under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
Order 14 Rule 2 seeking permission to raise their objection as a preliminary
issue. Since the appellant did not cooperate, it is stated that the Reference
Court dismissed all the applications with the observation that the same can
be gone into at the time of trial.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that the appellant has not produced any document to sustain their objection
that the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matters ignoring the fact that
the petition under section 18 seeking reference were filed beyond the period
of limitation. It is in these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent objected for the issue being raised and canvassed by the
appellant in these batch of cases. An objection questioning the reference
should be based on materials. Even before trial Court, the learned counsel
for the appellants has not furnished the factual details to sustain his
argument. However, this issue was considered by the Reference Court and
held in favour of claimants accepting their case that the claimants had
sought for reference to Civil Court immediately after Award and that the
Land Acquisition Officer failed to act on their immediate request.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
7. This Court finds that the Reference Court has erroneously clubbed
all the cases and fixed the same compensation of Rs.25,000/- per cent that is
Rs.25,00,000/- per acre in all cases irrespective of the date of notification
under section 4[1] of the Act. The notifications under section 4[1] of the
Act were issued between 1991 and 1997 and they were in respect of
different parcel of lands in the same village. Therefore, the value of the lands
has to be fixed with reference to the date on which the notifications under
Section 4(1) of the Act were issued. However, the compensation was fixed
without reference to the specific provisions of the statute particularly,
Section 23 of the Act, which mandates that the Court shall fix the market
value as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, arriving same compensation for all the
lands covered under different notifications issued between 1991 and 1997
cannot be sustained.
8. It is admitted that the compensation payable to the claimants in
this batch for every parcel of lands are covered under different notifications.
Therefore, this Court finds that there is no other option except to allow these
appeals and remit the matter to the Reference Court for determining the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
compensation payable for every parcel of lands taking into account the date
of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the sale statistics and the
evidence available with reference to each parcel of lands under different
notifications. Though serious prejudice is caused to the first respondent /
claimants in view of the time lag, this Court is helpless as it will be against
the principles of law. This court gave sufficient time for the parties to
negotiate for settlement as it is reported that the appellant has settled almost
all cases except the cases under these batch of appeals. However, there is no
consensus for a settlement.
9. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent (claimants) that the appellant has not come before this Court
with a specific pleading as to the date of award and the bare facts which are
required to sustain the plea that the Land Acquisition Officer has referred
the matter without considering as to whether the petition under Section 18 of
the Act by the land owners have been filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. In the said circumstances, this Court
is not inclined to preserve any liberty to the appellant to raise the objection
with regard to the reference. In the absence of an attempt to challenge the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
reference on the basis of records, this Court is unable to interfere with the
conclusion of reference Court on this issue.
10.The Reference Court, viz., Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore is directed to dispose of the batch of cases, considering the fact
that the lands in question are covered by different notifications and the
compensation should be determined taking into account the market value as
on the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in each case.
The parties are directed to report before the Reference Court on 04.07.2023
and thereafter, the Reference Court is directed to dispose of all the LAOPs
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from
the date of appearance of the parties as directed by this Court.
11. At this juncture, it is pointed out by the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent that in respect of
the lands in question, which were acquired during the period 1991 - 1997,
the requisition body had paid a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- per acre to the land
owners by way of settlement. Considering the fact that the lands were
acquired from its owners at least 25 years back, this Court is inclined to give
a direction to the appellant to pay each of the land owners an interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
compensation at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees twenty lakhs only] per
acre, after deducing whatever amount they had already deposited or paid
pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer or pursuant to the
judgment of Reference Court.
12. With the above observations and directions, these appeals are
allowed and the orders impugned in these appeals are set aside and the
matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh consideration as indicated
above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(S.S.S.R.J.,) (C.K.J.,)
13.06.2023
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pvs
To
1. The Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases,
Cuddalore
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS. No.1127 of 2015 etc. batch of cases
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
pvs
AS. Nos.1127, 1129, 1150, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159,
1170, 1171, 1174, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1200, 1201,
1204, 1207 and 1208 of 2015
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
