Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
Lakshmana Padayachi
Versus
The State of Tamil & Others
W.P.No.6709 of 1999 and W.M.P.No.9685 of 1999
Decided On : 27-07-1999
LAND ACQUISITION - AWARD - LIMITATION - PUBLICATION OF AWARD - DATE OF COMMUNICATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DATE OF AWARD FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 11-A AND SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - AWARD PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SECTION 6 DECLARATION - STAY OF DISPOSSESSION - DOCTRINE OF MIGHT AND OUGHT - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings for the formation of a neighborhood scheme, alleging that the award was not passed within the stipulated period and that the communication of the award was delayed. The petitioner also claimed that he was not given possession of the land after the expiry of the six-month period granted for harvesting the sugarcane crop.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the date of communication of the award is the material date for fixing the date of publication of the award for purposes of Section 18 reference, but it cannot be said that it would be the date for all purposes, particularly when it comes to limitation for passing the award. The court further held that the award was made within the period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration, considering the period of stay of dispossession granted by the court. The court also applied the doctrine of might and ought and constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to raise the issue of limitation under Section 11-A during the writ petition proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the date of communication of the award is the material date for fixing the date of publication of the award for all purposes, including limitation for passing the award? 2. Whether the award was passed within the period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration, considering the period of stay of dispossession granted by the court? 3. Whether the petitioner is precluded from raising the plea of bar of limitation under Section 11-A due to the application of the doctrine of might and ought and constructive res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court distinguished between the meaning of 'date of the award' in Section 18 and 'the Collector shall make an award' or 'the award shall be made' in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the date of signing and putting the seal on the award is the date of making the award, and the fact that the petitioner was communicated about the passing of the award on a subsequent date would not mean that the award was made on the said subsequent date. 2. The court held that the award was passed within the period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration, considering the period of stay of dispossession granted by the court. The court relied on the decision in Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. Vasantha Bai, where it was held that stay of dispossession passed by the High Court would tantamount to stay of further proceedings being taken under Section 11 and that the entire period of stay has to be excluded in computing the period of two years prescribed by Section 11-A. 3. The court applied the doctrine of might and ought and constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to raise the issue of limitation under Section 11-A during the writ petition proceedings. The court held that the petitioner ought to have raised the point at the time the writ petition was taken up, and his failure to do so precluded him from raising the controversy once over.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
The prayer is for a certiorari to call for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings in award dated 1. 1995 in Reference No.5/95 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners land comprised in S.Nos.14/1 and 14/2, Veli Semmandalam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, South Arcot District.
2. The case as set out in the affidavit, in support of the writ petition is as follows:
The petitioner is the owner of the two items mentioned supra and he is cultivating double crops of paddy, groundnut, and tapiacio in the said lands. Every year the petitioner has been reclaiming and spending husge sums for the lands by adopting scientific method for improving the yield. The lands were sought to be acquired by the Government for the formation of neighbourhood scheme. Sec.4(1) Notification was published on 111. 1991. Sec.6 declaration was approved on 212. 1992 and was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 30.12.1992. The petitioner challenged Sec,6 declaration stating that it was published beyond the period of one year vide W.P.No.20088 of 1993 and in W.M.P.No.31375 of 1993 stay of dispossession alone was granted on 11. 1993. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 21. 1996 by a Division Bench of this Court holding that Sec.6 declaration had been passed within the stipulated period. However, pending the writ petitioner award was passed on 1. 1995. This passing of the award was not communicated to the petitioner herein immediately as contemplated under Sec.12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act nor was compensation amount offered immediately to him. Only after the dismissal, of the writ petition on 21. 1996 the award was communicated to the Petitioner on 31. 1996. Till the date of filing of the present writ petition the respondents had not made the revenue deposit in favour of the petitioner.
3. By letter dated 31. 1996 the respondents alleged that the petitioner was causing damage to the lands by digging out earth. By his reply dated 13. 1996 the petitioner stated that he was not causing damage to the lands, that he was cultivating the lands and there were standing crops (sugarcane) and that it could take six months time for him to harvest the same. The respondents did not take possession of the lands after the said six months period and till the date of the filing of the writ petition the petitioner alone has been in possession. The petitioner also had paid kist till the year 1997. He had cultivated sugarcane and harvested the same in the year 1998 also. Suddenly in the month of January, 1999 the third respondent Land Acquisition Officer and the fourth respondent the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, started interfering with the possession of the Petitioner necessitating the petitioner filing a civil suit in O.S.No.21 of 1999 for permanent injunction before the District Munsifs Court, Cuddalore. The petitioner also obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.255 of 1999 and the same is in force. The petitioner is aware that he cannot challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings in a civil court. He would be withdrawing the suit. Subsequent to the filing of the suit the third respondent sent a communication on 11. 1999 and even in that communication, the third respondent has stated that the compensation amount is till lying in his hands. The petitioners reply on 2. 1999 provoked a rejoinder by the third respondent on 12. 1999 in which the third respondent has stated that possession of the lands was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 3. 1996. At no point of time did the petitioner part with the possession of the properties. The authorities have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act for taking possession. The entire proceedings initiated by the respondents to acquire the petitioners lands is vitiated by illegalities and infirmities.
4. On 14. 1999 Jagadeesan, J. directed the learned Government Pleader to produce
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
