AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—At the stage of admission, the Respondents are notified. Accordingly, learned Advocate General has put in appearance for the Respondents. As the matter relates to acquisition pertaining to Pykara Ultimate Stage Hydro Electric Project, it requires to be considered out of turn. Hence, the appeal is admitted and it is heard for final disposal.
The Petitioners are Appellants. They sought for quashing the Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with urgency clause for acquiring an extent of 0.24.5 hectares in S. No. 236/6A of Masinagudi Village, Udhagai Taluk, Nilgiris district, for formation of portal for Audit-4 to Tall Race Tunnel of Pykara Ultimate Stage Hydro Electric Project.
Learned Single Judge has upheld the acquisition proceedings. While doing so, learned single judge has gone into the question as to whether the Appellants would be entitled to compensation with regard to the minerals and other materials found during the course of digging the tunnel and has held that the Appellants would not be entitled to any compensation in respect of the minerals and other materials found while digging the tunnel.
In this appeal, it is contended by Shri Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that everything beneath the surface of the land, belongs to the owner of the land, as such, the Appellants are entitled to compensation not only for what is found on the surface, but also what is found during the excavation of the tunnel.
The correctness of this proposition is disputed by the learned Advocate-General who contends that mineral and other valuables found underneath the land belong to the State, therefore, the owner of the ryotwari land is not entitled to any compensation.
We are of the view that this is not the stage at which this question can be gone into. The Appellants have challenged the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act. The question of compensation shall have to be gone into by the Land Acquisition Officer and if the claimants are not satisfied with the award, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they have a right to seek a Reference to the Civil Court, which will go into all the aspects of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into this aspect of the matter, while considering the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the question shall have to be left open.
As far as the validity of the Notification is concerned, it is not disputed before us that the acquisition is for public purpose. It is also not disputed before us that urgency is involved in the acquisition. That being so, the application of the urgency clause is also justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge relating to entitlement of the compensation by the Appellants herein shall have to be set aside and that question shall have to be left open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
During the course of arguments, it is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that the acquisition does not and cannot stop on acquiring 60 cents of the land in question, as the acquisition is intended for a tunnel which runs into several kilometers and covers other portion of the land owned by the Appellant, as such, without acquiring that portion which would be covered by the tunnel, the present acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained.
It is no doubt true that the land in question is acquired for the purpose of formation of portal for Audit-4 to Tall Race Tunnel of Pykara ultimate stage Hydro Electric Project, which involves a tunnel running into several kilometers going beneath the remaining portion of the land of the Appellant. However, it is submitted by learned Advocate-General that if necessary, the State Government would be acquiring that portion. Whether the State Government would acquires that portion or not, if the Appellants think that by taking the tunnel through the sub-soil of the land of the Appellants without acquiring and paying compensation, their right is going to be effected, it is open to them to seek such remedy as is open to them in law. As the matter before us relates to acquisition of 60 cents in question, we do not consider it just and appropriate to go into the aforesaid contention.
For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
The acquisition of an extent of 0.24.5 hectares comprised in S. No. 236/6A of Masinagudi Village, Udhagai Taluk, Nilgiris District is upheld. The order of the learned single Judge in all other respects is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Appellants to seek such remedy as is open to them in law, in the event their rights in the other portions of the land are interfered with. Liberty is also reserved to the Appellants to seek such compensation as is open to them in law in respect of the land which is now acquired. However, there shall be no order as to costs.