AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
This writ petition came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon''ble Chief Justice. The petitioner claiming to be the
owner of the land in Survey Nos.35/1 in No. 158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, has filed the present writ
petition seeking to challenge an order dated 29.7.2011 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for SIPCOT, Irungattukottai Extension
Scheme, Unit-I. The said order came to be passed pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.28406 of 2010, dated 22.12.2010.
In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he sought for a direction to dispose of his representation dated 23.08.2010. By the said
representation sent to the second respondent Special Tahsildar, the petitioner claimed that when the acquisition of his land was made, he had
agreed to part with his land after receiving the compensation of Rs.150/-per square feet. As per his consent, he was entitled to get a sum of
Rs.74,32,500/-. But he had received only Rs.24,64,000/-. As per the gazette notification for acquiring land dated 12.3.2008, the extent of land
was mentioned only in square meters. Therefore, the compensation should be awarded in terms of the square meters. It was also stated that even
as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.141, Industries SIPCOT-LA Department, dated 14.7.2008, he is entitled to get Rs.100/-per sq.ft as
his property was situated with approach roads on three sides. Therefore, he claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,91,000/-or in alternative he
sought for directing his case to the District Collector in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of the compensation.
After sending the representation, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation. This court even
without notice to the requisitioning body, i.e., the third respondent State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (for short
SIPCOT), had ordered the representation to be considered by the second respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of
the copy of the order. It is pursuant to that direction the impugned reply came to be sent to the petitioner. In that impugned communication, the
second respondent had informed the petitioner that fixed value for the property in S.No.35/1 to an extent of 1.12 acres as per the Government
estimation was only Rs.22 lakhs and that already a sum of Rs.24,64,000/-has been paid to the petitioner as on 1.7.2010. As per the registered
sale deed, by which the petitioner came to possess the land, the extent of land was shown as 1.12 acres. It was only on that basis, the
compensation was arrived at. Therefore, there was no possibility for the grant of higher compensation to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition came to be filed.
The writ petition was admitted on 30.08.2011. When the matter came up on 02.01.2012, this court directed the District Collector,
Kancheepuram to file a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2011 came to be filed by the second respondent. Though the petitioner
filed an application for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition, no orders have been passed so far. The learned Additional Government
Pleader was directed to circulate the original file relating to the petitioner''s case, which was accordingly circulated for perusal by this court.
Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government
Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for SIPCOT (R-3).
It is seen from the records that the petitioner''s land together with others land were sought to be acquired for expansion of Irungattukkotai
Industrial Complex by the SIPCOT in Pillaipakkam, Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk. An administrative sanction
was given by the State Government by G.O.No.138, Industries Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire 349.51.0 hectares of patta lands. The
writ petitioner is the purchaser of the land in S.No.35/1 in Pillaipakkam village by a registered sale deed dated 4.2.2002. The said land is situated
in the midst of the scheme area on Block No.2 of Unit-I. The area was kept vacant at the time when the acquisition process took place. Form-A
notice u/s 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was approved by the District Collector by proceedings
dated 03.10.2007. Notices were sent to the land owners and the interested persons by a registered post on 03.10.2007. Form ''B'' publication of
notice was issued calling for objections within 30 days from the date of publication. The local publication by way of ""tom tom"" in the village was
also made on 16.10.2007. It was also published in the local offices as well as in two dailies, one in Tamil and one in English on 17.10.2007. Out of
346 persons covered by the notification, 26 objection petitions were received within the stipulated period. The objections received from the land
owners were sent to the requisitioning body, i.e., third respondent and their remarks were obtained.
Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted on 21.11.2007 by the District Collector. The 26 land owners/interested persons have appeared for
the enquiry. Though the land was converted into house sites, the lands were kept vacant and that no building and no superstructures were raised in
the land. Since the lands were acquired for public purpose, the first respondent District Collector had ordered that the acquisition may be
proceeded with publication of notice u/s 3(1) of the Act. The said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary
No.75, dated 12.3.2008. By virtue of the notification issued u/s 3(1) and in terms of Section 4(1), the lands to which the said notice was issued,
from the date of such publication, will vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. The Collector is thereafter is entitled to
take possession of the land. Therefore, the notices were issued u/s 4(2) on 24.03.2008 asking the land owners to surrender their possession of
land. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 3.4.2008. The petitioner had received the compensation without any protest.
The other allegations regarding the consent letter given by the petitioner was denied by the respondents. In paragraph 15 of the counter it was
stated as follows:
15....It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner alleges that he gave consent letter to the second respondent agreeing to receive the
compensation for a sum of Rs.150/-per sq.ft. Where as he further alleges that he requested the second respondent on many occasions that the
compensation may be awarded in sq. meters. It is submitted that the request of the petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with the
procedures and that there is no infirmity crept in the proceedings in any manner.
Even when this court on the earlier occasion directed his representation to be considered, a personal notice was sent to the petitioner, but he did
not appear for the personal hearing. In this writ petition it is clear that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the acquisition. But he was only
interested in getting the higher compensation. As to how the higher compensation can be claimed is set out in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. In the present case, as noted from records, the petitioner had received the compensation
without any protest on 1.7.2010. There is nothing on record to show that within 60 days from the date of such decision, he required the matter for
reference to the appropriate forum for claiming higher compensation. As can be seen from Section 8, this section borrows the provisions u/s 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. u/s 18, a person whose land was acquired, if he does not accept the award, will have to make a written
application to the District Collector and request the matter to be referred. A limitation of six weeks from the date of the Collector''s Award if the
person making it was present or represented before the Collector when the Award is made or six weeks from the date of receipt of notice u/s
12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector''s Award is provided. But in the present circumstances, Section 8 has borrowed only the
procedure for reference u/s 18. But with reference to limitation Section 8 clearly states that it should be done within 60 days from the date of the
decision.
The petitioner had not only received the amount by passing on a stamped receipt for the compensation awarded to him, but had also never
protested regarding the alleged low rate of compensation. In fact, long after the notification u/s 3(1) read with Section 4,, the petitioner for the first
time sent a representation dated 23.8.2010. The compensation in this case was determined well before the limitation prescribed under the Act.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of UP and Others, ,wherein
the Supreme Court had summarised the scope of Section 18 reference. In paragraph 28(iv) the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
28.(iv) If a person interested receives a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot
claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act was
the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.
As to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act can be invoked in the matter of reference u/s 18 of the Central Act or even if any
amendment is made in the local enactment to the Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court has held vide its judgment in State of Karnataka Vs.
Laxuman, that such provision cannot be invoked and even the land owner loses the right to make such application. In this context, it is necessary to
refer to paragraphs 15, 26 and 27 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
15.This Court has also held that in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act before the authorities under that Act, Section 5 of the Limitation
Act has no application. [See Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Another Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others, ]. Therefore,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to while making an application u/s 18(1) of the Act and the application has to be made within
the period fixed by Section 18(2) of the Act.
26.Then the question is, whether in the context of Section 18 of the Karnataka amendment, the decision of this Court in Thakoredas and our
discussion as above, Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked or would apply to an application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act. This Court has
held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Collector or Deputy Commissioner here, while entertaining
an application for reference. We see no reason not to accept that position. Then arises the question whether Section 5 could be invoked before the
Land Acquisition Court while making an application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act. We have held in agreement with the earlier Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court, that the right to have a reference enforced through court or through the Deputy Commissioner becomes extinguished on the
expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference made in time. Consistent with this position it has necessarily to be
held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be available since the consequence of not enforcing the right to have a reference made on the
scheme of Section 18 of the Act, as obtaining in Karnataka, is to put an end to the right to have a reference at all. Since in that sense it is an
extinguishment of the right, the right cannot be revived by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We may incidentally notice that in
Thakoredas this Court rejected the application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act which was beyond time, though, of course, there was no specific discussion
on this aspect.
27.An application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act is to compel a reference by the Deputy Commissioner. We have held that on the expiry of three years
and 90 days from the date of the application for reference seeking enhancement the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference
comes to an end. In that context, and in the context of the fact that the claimant himself loses his right to move the court for compelling a reference,
it is not possible to hold that by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Land Acquisition Court the claimant can get over the bar to the
remedy created by Section 18 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application while
approaching the court u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act and if the application is not within the time as indicated above, the same has only to be dismissed as
was done in Thakoredas case.
Further, in his affidavit the petitioner has nowhere stated about the compensation amount received by him. In this case, the acquisition has been
made by the exercise of power under the Act and not by any consent letter given by the petitioner. In the absence of the petitioner having availed
the remedy of reference, he cannot sent a representation. Further he sought the representation to be disposed of by exparte direction given to the
respondents and thereafter when a reply was sent, he filed the second round of litigation. Hence there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ
petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands dismissed as infructuous.