Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
T. Paramaraj
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9, and another
W.P. No.8181 of 1995 and W.M.P. No.13112 of 1995
Decided On : 14-09-1999
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 6, 11, 11-A - AWARD PASSED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL AND BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT - AWARD QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that it was passed without prior approval and beyond the prescribed time limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award was passed without prior approval from the appropriate authority, as required under Section 11 of the Act, and that it was passed beyond the two-year time limit prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the award was passed without prior approval from the appropriate authority? 2. Whether the award was passed beyond the prescribed time limit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prior approval of the appropriate authority, as prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, is mandatory and that the award passed without such approval is non est and cannot be sustained. 2. The court also held that the award was passed beyond the two-year time limit prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act and that such an award is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the entire acquisition proceedings, including the award passed.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents from proceeding further under Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands covered under Section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.154 Industries (MIH-II) dated 24. 1993 of the Government of Tamil Nadu under which the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.222/8 in Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul Anna District has been declared to have been acquired on various grounds.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. After taking me through various averments made in the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-
.(i) In as much as there was no prior approval by the Government/competent authority, the award said to have been passed on 16. 1995 is non cost and cannot be sustained.
.(ii) Since the declaration under Section 6 was published on 16. 1993, the award said to have been passed on 16. 1995 is out of time, accordingly the same is also liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate after taking me through the various averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent would contend that since the award has been approved by the District Revenue Officer as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Land Administration, the award passed on 16. 1995 cannot be in to ordered. He would also contend that the award passed on 16. 1995 is within the time prescribed, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. With regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute that as per first proviso, to Section 11 of the Act before passing of an award, prior approval of the appropriate Government or such authority as prescribed is a mandatory one. Even though, it is stated that prior approval was not at all obtained from any one, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in para-5 it is stated that “The Land Acquisition Officer has prepared the draft Award and it has been got approved by the District Revenue Officer as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Land Administration. After getting the approval of the draft Award from the District Revenue Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in his Award No.5/95, dated 16. 1995.” It has not been explained as to how the District Revenue Officer is authorised or empowered to approve the award. On the other hand, it is brought to my notice that by G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, dated 30.12.1984, the Governor of Tamil Nadu authorised the Commissioner of Land Administration and District Collector to approve awards. First Proviso to sub section (1) of section 11 issued the following notification:-
.(i) The Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds 10 lakhs rupees;
.(ii) The District Collector to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceeds 10 lakhs rupees. It is also stated that the amount has been further amended the enhanced as Rs.20 lakhs instead of Rs.10 lakhs as mentioned above.
6. It is clear that the Government have authorised only the Commissioner of Land Administration and District Collector to approve every award depending on the amount fixed. In the absence of any such specific authorisation, it is not clear as to how the District Revenue Officer has approved the award in question. In the absence of any specific information and in view of the notification refereed to above, I sustain the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Regarding the second contention, there is no dispute that the declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 15. 1993, in the dailies on 25. 1993 and in the locality on 16. 1993. In otherwords, the date of declara
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
