Madras High Court
M/S.Omshakthy Realties Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.07.2024
Pronounced on : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.Nos.663, 667, 668, 670 & 671 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.690, 693, 694, 691, 700, 698, 684, 695, 697 & 692 of 2024
W.P.No.663 of 2024
M/s.Omshakthy Realties Pvt. Ltd
Rep by its Director N.R.Manigantam
No.N-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai – 600 032 .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
4.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
Phase I, Oragadam and Irungattukattai
Expansion Scheme, SIPCOT
Sriperumbudur
5.The Special Tahsildar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Oragadam Expansion Scheme
SIPCOT-Unit-1, Sriperumbudur
6.The Managing Director, SIPCOT,
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st Respondent relating to the notification under Section 3 (1)
of the Tamil Nadu acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act dated 20-
09- 2022 Published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Volume No.451 Vide
Proceedings No.Rc.No. S2/ 1416076/ 2021 and the consequential award dated
30.11.2023 in Award No.1/ 2023 passed by the 3rd respondent to acquire the
petitioners lands measuring 2.12 hectares or 5.24 acres for setting up of New
Sipcot Industrial Park at Thirumudivakkam Village Kundrathur Taluk in
Kancheepuram district out of the total extent of 12.66.3 hectares (or) 31.28
acres and quash the same as arbitrary and abuse of process and consequently
direct the respondents to proceed with acquisition as per G.O.Ms.No.200,
Industries (SIPCOT LA) Department dated 03.09.2020 in the same manner as
adopted in Phase I and Phase II at the same rate under Section 7(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
In all cases
For Petitioners : Mr.Vijaynarayanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Solomon Francis
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran for R1 to R5
Special Government Pleader
Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Palaniappan for R6
COMMON ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Commonality involved in all the writ petitions, this Court is inclined to
dispose of these writ petitions by way of this Common Order.
2. These writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the 1st
respondent relating to the notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act dated 20-09-2022 published
in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Volume No.451 vide Proceedings
No.Rc.No.S2/1416076/2021 and the consequential award dated 30.11.2023 in
Award No.1/ 2023 passed by the 3rd respondent to acquire the respective
petitioners' lands for setting up of New SIPCOT Industrial Park at
Thirumudivakkam Village, Kundrathur Taluk in Kancheepuram District,
quash the same consequently direct the respondents to proceed with
acquisition as per G.O.Ms.No.200, Industries (SIPCOT LA) Department
dated 03.09.2020 in the same manner as adopted in Phase I and Phase II at the
same rate under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondents had
approached the petitioners to acquire land to the extent of 82.15 acres in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Survey No.400/1A and adjacent survey numbers that belong to petitioners and
others at Thirumudivakkam Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram
District for the purpose of developing an industrial area through SIPCOT. The
lands were sought to be acquired by private negotiation under Section 7(2) of
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act. The
respondents had formulated and put up the proposal before the Government of
Tamil Nadu for acquiring 82.15 acres in Survey No.400/1A and adjacent
survey numbers that belong to petitioners and others at Thirumudivakkam
Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District was accorded single
administrative sanction on 03.09.2020 in G.O.Ms.No.200 (Industries
Department) dated 03.09.2020 for proceeding for acquisition under private
negotiation. The respondents proceeded with the land acquisition proceedings
as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997 and have acquired the lands to an extent of 25.18 acres in
Phase-I and an extent of 25.69 acres in Phase-II totalling to 50.87 acres in 2
phases and after deliberations by following the procedures under Section 7(2)
of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act belonging
to the petitioners and others. After negotiations, it was mutually agreed to fix
Rs.1,46,93,750/- for the lands type wet lake irrigation single crop Type-I and
Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the lands type of Wet Special Type-II as base sale value
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under provisions of the Act 30 of 2013. After applying the multiplier and the
solatium as per the Act 30 of 2013, the compensation price was fixed at Rs.4
crores per acre, award has been passed and amount has been disbursed to the
petitioners.
4. Thereafter, the respondents also initiated the proceedings for
acquisition of the balance extent of 31.86 acres, the third respondent called
the petitioners for an enquiry with respect to Phase III, a negotiation was
called and the petitioners had participated and it was mutually agreed to adopt
the same value as fixed for the other two phases at Rs.4 crores per acre, the
same was also recorded by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent made
recommendation by a letter dated 29.09.2021 recommending the acquisition
of land as done earlier in Phase I and II at Rs.4 crores per acre. In view of the
same, the petitioners were under bonafide and legitimate expectation that the
respondents would pay the very same amount and were ready and willing to
execute required Form 7 as per Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2001. However, to their shock and
dismay, the third respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.2022 unilaterally
fixed a lower base value amount of Rs.73 lakhs per acre without adhering to
the provisions or taking into consideration the acquisition of the land under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Phase I and II.
5. Under this background, the 5th respondent issued a notice dated
18.10.2022 to the petitioners for an enquiry on 02.11.2022 for determination
of the market value, when there was a consensus reached already and the third
respondent had also forwarded the fixation of the compensation value as Rs.4
crores per acre vide proceedings dated 29.09.2021. However, the second
respondent unilaterally after a period of 12 months had returned the
recommendations of the 3rd respondent stating that the acquisition of lands in
Phase 3 should be done compulsorily under Section 7(3) of the Act and under
7(2) as contemplated under the administrative sanction and the
recommendations of the 3rd respondent.
6. Hence, it is the contention of the writ petitioners that the second
respondent was not empowered to return the proposal with recommendations
as the entire proposal for acquisition was under a single administrative
sanction. Based on the directions of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has
proceeded to conduct enquiry under Section 7(3) of the Act not as per Section
7(2) as contemplated under the Government Order. The second respondent
being a subordinate cannot usurp the powers of the higher authorities. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impermissible as the decision of an authority cannot surpass and override the
decision of the Government that has culminated into a Government Order.
The petitioner has also challenged the 3(1) notification and subsequent
notification dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.No.28759/2022 and the above writ
petition was dismissed on 03.08.2023 holding that the respondents are at
liberty to fix a date and time for the purpose of negotiations once again by
issuing a fresh notice to the petitioners. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner
is at liberty to attend the meeting and place all the facts and documents
available with him for negotiations. The parties are at liberty to negotiate the
issues under Section 7(2) of the Act and form a final opinion for determining
the compensation to be settled. In the event of failure, the respondents are at
liberty to proceed further by following the procedures as contemplated under
the provisions of the Act. All the disputed issues between the parties, if any,
are kept open for negotiations to be held between the parties without causing
any undue delay and in the public interest. The said meeting and negotiations
are directed to be completed between the parties within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the
petitioners to appear for enquiry for acquisition of land under Section 7(2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Act on 08.09.2023. The petitioner and others appears for the enquiry and
submitted their reply. The third respondent having conducted the enquiry did
not take a decision. Strangely, the 3rd respondent issued another notice on
27.09.2023, calling upon the petitioners to attend enquiry under Section 7(3)
of the Act. However, the award has been passed fixing the base value at Rs.73
lakhs per acre. The impugned award does not give a reason for the third
respondent to proceed under Section 7(3) instead of Section 7(2), this is in
total violation of G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 30.09.2020. Hence, sought for
quashing the impugned order on the grounds that they are in violation of the
Order of this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 and the third respondent has
deviated and adopted from the method of acquisition by invoking Section 7(3)
of the Act instead of Section 7(2) of the Act.
8. Common Counter has been filed by the third respondent, wherein, it
is the stand of the third respondent that the petitioners have not given any
objection neither at the time of 3(2) enquiry nor issuance of Form B, only
after passing of the award, the petitioners have come up with these writ
petitions and hence, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The Award is
passed strictly in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997 and Central Act 30 of 2013 and the petitioners can very
well agitate before the Reference Court for determination of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation. The award is passed in compliance with the order of this Court
in W.P.No.28759 of 2022 by providing hearing to the petitioners for
negotiations and as the negotiations did not fructify, the respondents
proceeded with the compulsory acquisition. Hence, opposed the writ
petitions.
9. Mr.Vijayanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that for
acquiring the lands in 82.15 acres for the purpose of developing an industrial
area through SIPCOT, the Government has granted administrative sanction to
enter private negotiations vide G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 30.09.2020. Pursuant to
the said Government Order, the respondents have conducted private
negotiations for Phase I and Phase II. The District Level Committee has
recommended for compensation at Rs.4 crores per acre which has been
approved by the State Level Committee and the Government has also
approved and the amount has been paid. It is the contention that originally,
the Government in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 has granted
administrative sanction to enter private negotiation for the entire extent of
82.15 acres. Lands were acquired in the Phase I and II, however, for the
remaining land, the District Level Committee has also initiated proceedings
under private negotiations and adopted the earlier value accepted for Phase I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and II and forwarded it to the State Level Committee. Even after such
recommendation, the third respondent has fixed the base value as Rs.73 lakhs
per acre. It is the contention that when the administrative sanction is granted
to enter private negotiation for the entire extent of land and the private
negotiation is already taken place for Phase I and II and the District Level
Committee has also recommended Phase 3 for the compensating with the
same amount as fixed for the Phase I and II, now the Government is estopped
from going back from the private negotiation, the same cannot be rescinded
by either of the parties and it creates an estoppel between the parties.
10. The impugned award has been passed by the 3rd respondent by
invoking Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, circumventing G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 is non est in
law as the third respondent being a subordinate of the Government not being
the Government cannot usurp the powers of the Government and unilaterally
overrule and contradict a Government Order passed by the Government
relating to acquisition of land under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for
Industrial Purposes Act and pass an award. Having made a recommendation
for acquisition of the land under Section 7(2) relating to Phase – III on
29.09.2021 by private negotiation to be acquired at Rs.4 crores per acr, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
very same District Collector had ignored the recommendations and issued a
draft award by invoking Section 7(3) of the Act by compulsory acquisition on
29.09.2022. The impugned award does not disclose any decision of the
Government nor any reason for compulsory acquisition and dropping the
acquisition under Section 7(2) by private negotiation. When the petitioners
challenged the draft award on earlier occasion in W.P.No.28759 of 2022, the
respondents had categorically stated that the notice will be issued to the
private negotiation also. Despite the order of this Court, wherein, the
respondents taken a stand that further opportunity will be given to private
negotiations, however, now, the impugned notification is passed for invoking
compulsory acquisition. Hence, it is the contention that there is no materials
available to show who took the decision to rescind from the G.O.Ms.No.200
dated 03.09.2020. Therefore, the entire award passed for invoking Section
7(3) of the Act for compulsory acquisition is bad in law and cannot be
sustained. The award also do not contain any reasons as to the Government
has estopped from going back from private negotiation.
11. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance to the case of
P.R.Jagannathan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in
MANU/TN/4172/2020 and State of Gujarath and others vs. Daya Shamji Bhai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 746
12. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth
respondent submitted that this Court in W.P.Nos.24182 of 2014 batch cases
vide order dated 03.07.2019 has held that the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was declared to have become
repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thereafter, on
19.07.2019, the State of Government of Tamil Nadu sent a bill titled Tamil
Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and
Validation) Act 2019 and the same came into force on 02.12.2019 and
received the assent of the President with retrospective effect to its operation
from 26.09.2013. Hence, it is the contention that the Tamil Nadu Land
Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act
2019 has effectively revived all provisions except the provisions relating to
the determination of compensation. Therefore, the very private negotiations
for acquiring the land itself is bad. According to him, since the determination
of the compensation is put strictly as per Central Act 30 of 2013 not under the
private negotiation. Hence, the impugned order has been passed under the
Central Act 30 of 2013, wherein, it also provides for reference. It is his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contention that the Central Act 30 of 2013 is a self contained code and thus,
the writ petitions are not maintainable.
13. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Advocate General submitted that even
under the Act namely the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of
Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 private negotiation is
permissible. He would submit that though the Government has passed
Government Order granting administrative sanction for private negotiation of
the entire extent of land, private negotiation has been accepted by the
Government only in respect of Phase I and II. As far as the Phase III is
concerned, the Government has not accepted that. Therefore, mere offer for
private negotiation which has not culminated into acceptance, it cannot be
said that private negotiation has reached between the parties and concluded.
Therefore, the question of applying principle of estoppel does not arise at all.
According to him, when the recommendation made by the District Collector
is not accepted by the State Level Committee and the notification issued for
the compulsory acquisition that itself indicate that the decision of the State
Government not to accept the private negotiation. Therefore, when the
compulsory acquisition is culminated into an award, the writ petitions are not
maintainable that too challenging the notification after the award is passed,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same is not maintainable. According to him, possession is also taken,
however, merely, because of the private negotiation is adopted in respect of
some other land, the same is not a criteria for compulsory acquisition and the
award is passed strictly in accordance with the Central Act 30 of 2013.
Therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable. All the grievance of the
petitioners can be agitated only before the Reference Court.
14. The learned Advocate General also submitted that for the same
relief, a notification has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.28759
of 2022 and the same was dismissed. This Court while dismissing the writ
petition has clearly held that the proceedings of the District Collector dated
29.09.2022 is not final and granted liberty to fix a private negotiation once
again. In the event of failure, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further
by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, once the notification is already challenged and dismissed by this
Cour, again the same notification cannot be challenged that too after the
award is passed.
15. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
16. The impugned award has been passed under the Central Act 30 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2013 fixing the base value as Rs.73 crores. It is the grievance of the writ
petitioner that for similarly situated lands, i.e., Phase I and II, private
negotiations culminated fixing Rs.4 crores per acre and the amount is also
disbursed, whereas, for the remaining land in Phase III, though the District
Level Committee has recommended for the similar amount on 29.09.2021 to
the State Level Committee, the same has not been accepted, whereas, the
notification has been issued fixing the base value at Rs.73 lakhs per acre. The
main contention of the writ petitioners are that the notification is passed
contrary to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020. On
perusal of the Government Order, it would indicate that the Government has,
in fact, accepted the request of private negotiation for acquisition of 82.15
acres and has granted administrative sanction. Pursuant to the said
Government Order, following the guidelines set out in Circular
No.M2/7304/2018 dated 16.10.2020, private negotiations were conducted and
the District Level Committee has recommended fixing the value at Rs.4
crores per acre and forwarded it to the State Level Committee and the
Government has accepted that value and the lands both in Phase I and II, in
around 50.87 acres were acquired on private negotiations. Thereafter, for the
remaining land to an extent of 31.28 acres, again, the District Level
Committee has initiated the private negotiations and recommended fixing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same value as that of Phase I and II, i.e., Rs.4 crores per acre and forwarded it
to the State Level Committee. However, the second respondent has not
accepted the recommendation and directed the third respondent to acquire the
land compulsorily under Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land
for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order.
17. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners is that the District Collector has initiated the proceedings for
compulsory acquisition despite, he has made the recommendation. According
to him, when the Government has agreed to enter into private negotiation and
issued a Government Order for the entire land, the District Collector being a
subordinate of the Government cannot overrule and contradict a Government
Order and proceed under compulsory acquisition. It is relevant to note that the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2020 is only a
administrative sanction for private negotiation. There is no amount
whatsoever fixed or agreed upon between the parties and the Government.
The recommendation made by the District Level Committee has been
accepted by the Government with regard to the Phase I and II, however, in
respect of Phase III, the recommendation is not accepted by the Government.
The notification has been issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 read with Tamil Nadu
Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation)
Act 2019. The very issuance of notification under Section 3(1) of the Act will
clearly show that the Government has, in fact, no accepted the
recommendation of the District Level Committee. Therefore, when the
Government has offered for private negotiation which has not culminated into
acceptance, it cannot be said that the recommendation sent by the District
Level Committee is always to be accepted by the Government. The
Government being Eminent Domain is within its own right to take a decision
and acquire the land as per law. Earlier on Phase I and II, the Government has
accepted the private negotiation. In respect of Phase III, the Government did
not agree to the recommendation of the District Level Committee. In such
situation, it cannot be said that there was consensus reached between the
Government and the private parties that has been culminated in the form of
the acceptance by the Government to act upon it. Therefore, applying the
principle of estoppel as against the Government does not arise in this case.
18. It is relevant to note that the same notification was challenged when
the draft award was published, before this Court in W.P.No.28759 of 2022.
This Court, by Order dated 03.08.2023, dismissed the writ petition. Similar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prayer is made in the above writ petition challenging the notification as made
in the present writ petition. This Court, in paragraph, in W.P.No.28759 of
2022 held as follows:
"9. The proceedings of the District Collector,
Kancheepuram, relied on by the petitioner was dated
29.09.2022, i.e. before issuance of the notice dated 18.10.2022.
Thus, we cannot form an opinion that the proceedings of the
Collector dated 29.09.2022 became final, since the respondents
have subsequently issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to
attend for a meeting, wherein the petitioner is at liberty to place
all the facts including the compensation determined in respect
of the adjacent lands acquired. Instead of availing the
opportunity provided, the petitioner approached the High
Court and obtained an order of interim stay, which caused
inconvenience to the development of the industrial park in that
locality.
10 It is made clear that the proceedings of the District
Collector dated 29.09.2022 is not final and thereafter, they
have decided to invite the petitioner for a meeting to discuss the
issues under Section 7(2) for the purpose of determining the
compensation to be settled.
11. This being the factum established, the respondents are
at liberty to fix a date and time for the purpose of negotiations
once again by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner. On
receipt of the notice, the petitioner is at liberty to attend the
meeting and place all the facts and documents available with
him for negotiations. The parties are at liberty to negotiate the
issues under Section 7(2) of the Act and form a final opinion
for determining the compensation to be settled. In the event of
failure, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by
following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions
of the Act. All the disputed issues between the parties, if any, are
kept open for negotiations to be held between the parties without
causing any undue delay and in the public interest. The said
meeting and negotiations are directed to be completed between
the parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt of a copy of this order."
19. The above order makes it clear that in the event private negotiation
is failed, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further by following the
procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Now, it is the
stand of the State Government since the private negotiation has not been
fructified, they resorted to proceed under the Central Act 30 of 2013,
following the procedure set out in the said Act. It is the contention that for
similarly situated lands, higher compensation agreed earlier, the same has not
been considered while passing the impugned award. It is relevant to note that
once the private negotiation is failed and consensus not reached merely
compensation awarded on private negotiation earlier cases, the same may not
be a criteria for compulsory acquisition. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the
judment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer and others vs. N. Savitha reported in (2022) 7 SCC 256, wherein, it is
held as follows:
“ 5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ext. P-
17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not
to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of
determining the compensation in case of another acquisition.
In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the
circumstances under which the consent award was passed and
the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular
rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring
body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award
cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the
compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when
there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court
has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs per
acre relying upon the award — Ext. P-17 in respect of the land
which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.”
20. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (Noida) vs. Yunus and others reported in
(2022) 9 SCC 516 has held as follows:
“ 38. The scheme of Section 28-A of the Act is unmistakably
clear from its very opening words. What Section 28-A
contemplates is a redetermination of compensation under an
award passed under Part III. Part III takes in Section 23.
Section 23 deals with the matters to be taken into consideration.
Various aspects including the market value on the date of the
notification under Section 4(1) are indicated. What we wish to
emphasise is that elements of Section 23 are not in consonance
as such with the guiding principles set out in Section 19(4) of
“the 1987 Act” which are to guide a Lok Adalat. When the
Court deals with the matter under Section 18, in other words, it
is bound to look into the evidence and arrive at findings based
on the evidence applying the legal principles which have been
enunciated and arrive at the compensation. While it may be true
that there is reference to “other legal principles” in Section
19(4) of the 1987 Act, the Lok Adalat also can seek light from
the principles of justice, equity, and fair play. The Lok Adalat by
virtue of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement
and compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It
has no adjudicatory role (see State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh).
40. An argument was raised by Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents, that the Lok Adalat insofar
as it manifests the stand of the appellant and it being consensual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
based on the consent of Noida, Noida is estopped. In this regard,
he drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in P.T.
Thomas v. Thomas Job [P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6
SCC 478].
63. An award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise
decree. An award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything
more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia. We would approve
the view of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in
P.T. Thomas [Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas, 2003 SCC OnLine
Ker 270 : (2003) 3 KLT 936] . An award unless it is successfully
questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and
non-violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order 23
of the Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the court to
apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything
more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does
not have the imprimatur of the court. It becomes a compromise
decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone.
64. An award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a
product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses
jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the court for
adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being
reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes
the garb of an award which in turn is again deemed to be a
decree without anything more. We would think that it may not
be legislative intention to treat such an award passed under
Section 19 of the 1987 Act to be equivalent to an award of the
court which is defined in the Act as already noted by us and
made under Part III of the Act. An award of the court in Section
28-A is also treated as a decree. Such an award becomes
executable. It is also appealable. Part III of the Act contains a
definite scheme which necessarily involves adjudication by the
court and arriving at the compensation. It is this which can form
the basis for any others pressing claim under the same
notification by invoking Section 28-A. We cannot be entirely
oblivious to the prospect of an “unholy” compromise in a matter
of this nature forming the basis for redetermination as a matter
of right given under Section 28-A.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal
Council, Ahmed Nagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others reported
in (2000) 2 SCC 48 has held as follows:
“ 17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ
petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or
against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent
view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C.
Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627] )
this Court observed as below: (SCC p. 628, para 4)
“4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the
notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in GOR No. 1392 Industries dated
17-10-1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in
Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District in
Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the
manufacture of Synthetic Rasina by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals
India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become
final and possession of the land was taken on 30-4-1964.
Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was
handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is
a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear
that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out
of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally
had ownership, was transferred in GO.Ms No. 816 Industries
dated 24-3-1971 in favour of another subsidiary company. Shri
Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also
another subsidiary of the Company had requested for two acres
75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold
basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the
agreement in G.O.Ms No. 439 Industries dated 10-5-1985. In
GO.Ms No. 546 Industries dated 30-3-1986, the same came to be
approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original GO.Ms
No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962 contending that since the
original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to
be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
possession taken from them. The learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench have held that the acquired land having already
vested in the State, after receipt of the compensation by the
predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to
challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ
appeal came to be dismissed.”
20.The observations however pertain to the Transfer of Property
Act and in particular reference to Section 105 and the facts
therein are clearly distinguishable and the sentence emphasised
as above depicts the disgust feature. Hindustan Petroleum case
[(1999) 4 SCC 450] is not a case for acquisition at all and
reliance thereon thus is totally misplaced.”
22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaika Properties
(P) Ltd and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2008) 4
SCC 695 has held as follows:
“ 17. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi
[(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay [ Arising out of SLP (C)
No. 16910 of 2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4-
9-2006 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 134 of 2006 :
2006 AIHC 3465] it was held: (D.R. Laxmi case [(1996) 11 SCC
501] , SCC p. 452, para 9)
“9. … When the award was passed and possession was taken, the
Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award
which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third-
party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for
interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right
in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” [Ed.:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Also observed in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v.
Industrial Development Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501,
p. 520, para 29.]
18. To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig [(2000) 2
SCC 48] wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court
in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627]
held: (Shah Hyder case [(1996) 6 SCC 445] , SCC p. 55, para
17)
“17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can
be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any
proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken
by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy.
Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [Ed.: Also observed in Municipal
Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment
Co. Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501, p. 520, para 29.] )….”
23. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order
of this Court in the case of P.R.Jagannathan's case (cited supra), wherein, it
has held that once the negotiation reached between the parties, the
Government is estopped from from resiling back from the terms settled. The
State also has an obligation to preserve public exchequer and be watchful
enough so that public funds are not depleted.
24. On perusal of the above order, this Court is of the view that of
course in the above judgment, negotiation was finalised on 06.03.2018.
Majority of the land owners given their consent, thus the above order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed. Whereas, in the present case, the recommendation of the District
Level Committee was not accepted and such recommendation has not been
culminated into contract by way of acceptance. Therefore, the question of
applying the principle of estoppel does not arise at all. On the basis of the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 03.09.2022, administrative
sanction was granted for private negotiation, wherein, the private negotiation
was fructified in respect of Phase I and II and insofar as Phase III, the same
has not been fructified and no consensus is reached. Therefore, merely on the
basis of the recommendation made by the District Level Committee, it cannot
be said that the State Government has accepted the private negotiation to act
upon it. The moment when the notification issued for compulsory acquisition,
it cannot be said that still the State Government has to pay the compensation
as that of the the earlier Phases.
25. Therefore, once, the notification is already challenged before this
Court, this Court had also dismissed the writ petition, merely, because,
subsequent opportunity is given for further negotiation, it cannot be said that
the compensation should be paid in par with the earlier negotiation. Thus, this
Court is of the view that as the award has already been passed under the
Central Act 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation and other aspects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can be challenged only in the reference Court. The petitioners can very well
agitate that compensation arrived by the authority is not according to law and
not followed the requisite procedure. Such view of the matter, it is for the writ
petitioners to agitate their right in the reference Court not in writ petition.
26. With regard to submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
Mr.R.Viduthalai that the private negotiation itself is bad as per the Tamil
Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and
Validation) Act 2019. All the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 except the provisions relating to the
determination of the compensation. Therefore, according to him, Section 7 of
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 has not
been revived. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General that what has not
revived is only the provision relating to the determination of the
compensation. According to them, only for determination of the
compensation amount alone has not been revived. Determination should be
made only under the Central Act 30 of 2013, whereas, for entering into the
contract between the parties that provision has not been taken away. Though
submission is made with regard o the application of Section 7(2) of the Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same is left open since, the same is not germane for determination in this
writ petition.
27. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. It is for the writ
petitioners to work out their remedy in the reference Court in the manner
known to law.
02.08.2024
dhk
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
4.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
Phase I, Oragadam and Irungattukattai
Expansion Scheme, SIPCOT
Sriperumbudur
5.The Special Tahsildar
Oragadam Expansion Scheme
SIPCOT-Unit-1, Sriperumbudur
6.The Managing Director, SIPCOT,
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.663, 667, 668, 670 & 671 of 2024
02.08.2024
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
