Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4912
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
A. Nagarajan & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department & Others
W.P. No. 3880 of 2012
Decided on: 21-12-2012
For the Appellant:V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel, M. Elango, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.Gomathinayagam, Additional Advocate General, Ms. V.M. Velumani, Special Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Writ Petition challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) on the ground that it was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 11(1) of the Act and without complying with Section 11-A of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, joint family members and joint owners of the land measuring 0.98.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.68/3B situated at No.64, Kottagoundampatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that it was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 11(1) of the Act and without complying with Section 11-A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not in accordance with law as it was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 11(1) of the Act and without complying with Section 11-A of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 11(1) of the Act? 2. Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed without complying with Section 11-A of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 11(1) of the Act. The Court observed that the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act clearly states that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. The Court further observed that in the present case, the award amount exceeded Rs.40 lakhs and hence, prior approval from the State Government was necessary. Since prior approval was not given before passing the award, the Court held that there was no award made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the award was non est and void in law. 2. The Court held that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed without complying with Section 11-A of the Act. The Court observed that Section 11-A of the Act mandates that an award should be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration. The Court further observed that in the present case, the award was passed within two years from the date of Section 6 Declaration, but it was not passed within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Court held that the award was therefore not passed in accordance with Section 11-A of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition to the extent that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.1/2003-2004, dated 30.04.2003 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the authorities concerned to follow the procedures contemplated under the Act in passing the Award, if the land in question covering the said Award is required for public purpose.
1. Challenging the awacrd passed by the 2nd respondent herein vide ROC No.929/98 in Award No.1/2003-2004 dated 30.04.2003, the 4(1) Notification issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.03.2000 and Section 6 Declaration of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.05.2001, seeking to quash the same in respect of their land measuring an extent of 0.98.5 Hec. comprised in Survey No.68/3B situated at No.64, Kottagoundamapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are enumerated thus:
2.1. The petitioners are members of the joint family and the joint owners of the land measuring an extent of 0.98.5 Hectares comprised in S.No.68/3B situated at No.64, Kottagoundampatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. The 1st respondent herein, vide G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.03.2000 has issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to acquire several pieces of lands comprised in various Survey Numbers including the lands belonging to the petitioners.
2.2. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 26.06.2000 under Section 5-A of the Act. After conducting an enquiry contemplated under 3(B) of the Rule, the 2nd respondent forwarded his recommendation to the 1st respondent recommending to drop the acquisition proceedings with respect to the petitioners, as their family consists of eight families, having 23 members in total and therefore, the extent of their land is suffice to construct houses for their own purpose. However, the 1st respondent, without considering the report of the 2nd respondent published a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.05.2001. Thereafter, the petitioners moved this Court in W.P.No.16709 of 2001 and it was admitted on 14.09.2001. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted stay of dispossession alone. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned award in his proceedings vide ROC No.929/1998 in Award No.1/2003-2004, dated 30.04.2003. On 30.10.2008, the said Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners went on appeal in W.A.No.2179 of 2011 before this Court and the same is pending.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per proviso to Section 11 of the Act, the 2nd respondent cannot pass an award without previous approval of the appropriate Government and that the impugned award was admittedly approved by the 3rd respondent, which is contrary to the said provision. As the value of the impugned award is more than Rs.40 Lakhs, it must have been approved by the Government. Referring to the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.2003, dated 13.12.1984, which was issued under the first proviso of Section 11(1), the petitioners would state that the Notification authorizes the Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which, the total compensation to be allowed exceeds Rupees 10 Lakhs and below Rupees 25 Lakhs and that the District Collector has to approve every award, in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceed Rupees 10 Lakhs. Hence, no award can be approved by any Officer, who is inferior to District Collector. The petitioners would contend that the impugned award was not approved by the District Collector, but the 3rd respondent/District Revenue Officer, who has not much jurisdiction to approve the impugned award, has approved the same.
4. The petitioners would further contend that as per Section 11(1) of the Act, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the award without previous approval of the appropriate authority and any such award without prior approval cannot be treated as an award. Further, as per 11-A of the Act, the valid award should h
