Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 830
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
M. Loganathan
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.21095 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
Decided On : : 16-02-2012
For the Petitioner:N. Subramaniyan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Ravichandran A.G.P.
The main legal point established is that a petitioner lacks standing to challenge an acquisition after the passing of the award, and subsequent compensation enhancement does not vitiate the notification.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Notification Issuance - Jurisdiction and Competence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notification issued by the State Government under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring their land, claiming that the notification was issued by an authority not competent to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no standing to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the award, as the land vested with the state. The court also held that the notification issuance by the Collector and subsequent enhancement of compensation did not vitiate the notification.
Issues: The issues revolved around the competence of the authority issuing the notification, the standing of the petitioner to challenge the acquisition, and the validity of the notification in light of subsequent compensation enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the award, and that the notification issuance and subsequent compensation enhancement did not vitiate the notification.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notification and the acquisition proceedings.
1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the State Government u/s. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner.
2. The State of Tamilnadu issued a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.03.2007. The notice was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette as also in the local newspaper and substance of notice was also advertised in the locality.
3. Thereafter notification u/s.6 was also issued on 14.05.2008, after considering the objection u/s. 5(A). The notification u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued after following the process of law. Thereafter after hearing the land owners award was passed on 21.05.2010.
4. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that before passing of award, the land owners had filed similar writ petitions W.P.Nos.761 to 765/2009 to The challenge to notification issued u/s. 4 and 6. It is not disputed that these writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge was confirmed in writ appeal, and the special leave petition filed against the decision was also dismissed.
5. The stand of the petitioner is that review has been filed against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the review petition is yet to be numbered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that notification u/s. 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition is without jurisdiction, in as much as it has been issued by authority not competent to issue such notification.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 4 (1) has been amended by the State of Tamilnadu, and the jurisdiction of the Collector to issue notification u/s. 4 is only with respect to the land not exceeding 40 acres and the value to which does exceed Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only), whereas the commissioner can issue notification upto 75 acres where the value does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) and State Government is required to issue notification in all other cases.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the compensation granted by the Collector, it is revealed that the value of the land was more than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore the notification could have been issued by the State Government, and not by the Collector or the Commissioner. Therefore, the whole proceedings stands vitiated.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that the notification issued u/s. 4 is also not as per the Act as amended, the notification was wrongly shown to have been issued on behalf of appropriate Government, though signed by the Collector, further more the exercise of power by the Tahsildar, as a delegate of Collector also cannot be sustained as the delegate cannot further delegate.
10. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition, firstly for the reason that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the award on 21.05.2010, as on passing of award the land vests free from all encumbrances with the state and petitioner ceases to have any interest in the land (Except right to claim market value).
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification u/s. 4 is vitiated because it was issued by the Collector, also cannot be sustained, as it is not disputed, as at the time of assessing of the value of the land, the value was assured at Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only). The order of the Collector who had issued notification subsequently on appreciation of evidence by land owners and the State Government in granting compensation at market value exceeding the assessed value cannot be a ground to challenge notification. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is accepted there will be no bin
