N.R. Sekar vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 4251 of 1991 dated 27.11.1998

dismissing the writ petition on the sole ground that it has become infructuous as during the pendency of the writ petition the Land Acquisition

Officer passed the award, the present writ appeal has been filed.

Straightway we hold that the order of the learned single Judge is contrary to law. On 25.3.1991 when the award came to be passed, the writ

petition was pending before this Court. Any order passed subsequent to that would not make the writ petition infructuous.

However, we are of the view that the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits as discussed hereunder:

The notification u/s 4(1) was issued on 15.12.1982. Questioning the same the writ petition was filed and stay was obtained on 12.2.1983. The

stay was vacated on 7.4.1988. Thereafter on 5.4'' 1989 Section 6 declaration was passed., According to the writ Petitioner he purchased the

property on 7.6.1990 and the second Respondent on 26.3.1991 issued notice by tom-tom in the village u/s 9(1) and 10. Thereafter, he filed the

writ petition on 20.3.1991. The enquiry was conducted on 25.3.1991 and finally the award was passed on the same day.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant would put forth two-fold submissions. Firstly that the declaration u/s 6 was passed long after the period

of limitation prescribed under the Act and secondly that he was not given any notice about the award enquiry when in fact he filed the writ petition

even before the said enquiry.

As far as the first submission is concerned, between 11.2.1983 and 7.4.1988 there was an order of stay, which naturally prevented the

authorities from proceeding further and this period has to be excluded totally while calculating limitation (See M. Ramalinga Thevar Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu and Others, .

The stay was vacated on 7.4.1988 and Section 6 declaration was passed on 5.4.1989 that is one year within the period of dismissal of the writ

petition. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Section 4(1) notification was passed on 15.12.1982 and the stay was obtained only

on 12.2.1983 i.e.. nearly after 86 days and that period of 86 days should be deducted from one year for the purpose of calculation. Or in other

words, the learned Counsel contended that the said declaration should have been passed within a period of 279 days (365 days minus 86 days)

and in as much as declaration was passed only on 5.4.1989, the same is beyond the period allowed under law.

We do not find any substance in this contention. The Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 lays down that in respect of Section 4(1)

notification published after commencement of Land Acquisition Act 1967, but before commencement of Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984,

Section 6 declaration shall not be made after expiry of three years from the notified date of the amendment i.e., 24th September, 1984. As already

pointed out, the period between 11.2.1983 and 7.4.1988 has to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. In that event, there can be

no difficulty for this Court to hold that the declaration made u/s 6 on 5.4.1989 was well within the time.

Since the Appellant who purchased the property on 7.6.1990, in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas

Parishad, Lucknow (U.P.) Vs. Pushpa Lata Awasthi (Smt), , probably thought it fit only to raise the plea that he was not given notice about the

award enquiry. According to him. had he received such a notice, he would have put forth the just claim of compensation. A perusal of the counter

affidavit filed by the State would show that in fact that Appellant tool part in the enquiry. This categorical statement made in the counter affidavit

has not been refuted by the Appellant by filing reply affidavit or at the time of hearing the appeal. That being so. there is no substance in the second

contention as well.

The Appellant having failed to make out a case, we have no hesitation to dismiss the appeal. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

C.M.P. No. 561 of 1999 is also dismissed. No costs.