Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
S.N. Sumathi – Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 34150, 34152, 34153, 34155, 34156, 34157, 34158, 34159, 34160, 34227, 34228, 34229, 34230, 34231, 34232, 34233, 34234 of 2014, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2493, 2494, 2495, 2708, 2709, 2710, 2711, 2969, 2970, 3815, 3816, 3826 and 4276 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2015
LAND ACQUISITION - Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Acquisition proceedings - Lapse of - Petitioners' lands acquired by respondents under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Petitioners contended that entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed since respondents had not passed Award even after lapse of four years - Respondents contended that land acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu High Ways Act were initiated by issuing invidiual notice dated 23.9.2010 under section 15(2) of the Act and an opportunity was provided to appear before the third respondent on 15.10.2010 - A Notification under Sec.15(2) of the Act was published on 15.12.2010 in Tamil and English dailies - On 3.4.2012, the High ways Department approved the Notification under Sec.15(1) of the Act and the same was published in the Gazette on 2.5.2012 - Thereafter, the lands, to which the said Notice was issued, vest absolutely with the Government, free from all encumbrances - The State Government brought out the new Highways Act to expedite the process of land acquisition for developments of its highways by legislating a new Highways Act - The Act cannot be read and interpreted to mean that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply "mutatis mutandis" to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 - As such, the mandate prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not applicable to the present cases - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, between Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act and passing of orders under Section 19(11) of the Act - Hence the question of lapse does not arise - Petitioners cannot compare the provisions of Land Acquisition Act with the Tamil Nadu Highways Act - There is no time limit prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 to pass an Award - Held, the contentions raised by the petitioners are liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same are rejected.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners' lands were acquired by respondents under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Petitioners contended that entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed since respondents had not passed Award even after lapse of four years. Respondents contended that land acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu High Ways Act were initiated by issuing invidiual notice dated 23.9.2010 under section 15(2) of the Act and an opportunity was provided to appear before the third respondent on 15.10.2010. A Notification under Sec.15(2) of the Act was published on 15.12.2010 in Tamil and English dailies. On 3.4.2012, the High ways Department approved the Notification under Sec.15(1) of the Act and the same was published in the Gazette on 2.5.2012. Thereafter, the lands, to which the said Notice was issued, vest absolutely with the Government, free from all encumbrances. The State Government brought out the new Highways Act to expedite the process of land acquisition for developments of its highways by legislating a new Highways Act. The Act cannot be read and interpreted to mean that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply "mutatis mutandis" to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001. As such, the mandate prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not applicable to the present cases. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, between Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act and passing of orders under Section 19(11) of the Act. Hence the question of lapse does not arise. Petitioners cannot compare the provisions of Land Acquisition Act with the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. There is no time limit prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 to pass an Award.
Finding of the Court:
The contentions raised by the petitioners are liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same are rejected.
Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in respect of the petitioners' respective lands for the reason that the respondents have not determined the compensation even after lapse of four years.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, between Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act and passing of orders under Section 19(11) of the Act. Hence the question of lapse does not arise.
Final Decision: Writ petitions dismissed.
1. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are common, the learned counsel on either side advanced common arguments in all these writ petitions. Hence all the writ petitions are disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr. N.M. Shanmuga Sundaram and Mr. K. Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have sought for a Writ of Declaration to declare the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 by the respondents regarding their properties situated at Erode Taluk, "C" village, Punjailakapuram village and Pudur B village, as void, unconstitutional and illegal.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of their respective lands, which were acquired by the respondents under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The lands belonging to the petitioners situate very near to Erode Town Limit and that they are suitable for conversion of house sites. The third respondent issued Sec.15(2) notice under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 on 8.9.2010 and the Notification was published in the Newspaper on 13.10.2010. The purpose of acquisition was for formation of Outer Ring Road at Erode. Though the proceedings commenced way back in 2010, the petitioners have not been paid the compensation till today. Since the respondents have not passed the Award even after a lapse of four years, the petitioners contended that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
5. According to the respondents, the land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act were initiated by issuing invidiual notice dated 23.9.2010 under section 15(2) of the Act and an opportunity was provided to appear before the third respondent on 15.10.2010. A Notification under Sec.15(2) of the Act was published on 15.12.2010 in Tamil and English dailies. On 3.4.2012, the High ways Department approved the Notification under Sec.15(1) of the Act and the same was published in the Gazette on 2.5.2012. Thereafter, the lands, to which the said Notice was issued, vest absolutely with the Government, free from all encumbrances. The State Government brought out the new Highways Act to expedite the process of land acquisition for developments of its highways by legislating a new Highways Act. The Act cannot be read and interpreted to mean that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply " mutatis mutandis" to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001. As such, the mandate prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not applicable to the present cases. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, between Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act and passing of orders under Section 19(11) of the Act. Hence the question of lapse does not arise. The petitioners cannot compare the provisions of Land Acquisition Act with the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. There is no time limit prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 to pass an Award.
6. Mr. K. Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions made his submissions raising the following points:
(a) That Sec.19(6) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, prescribes for determination of compensation amount which should rely upon the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894, thus the provisions of Land Acquisition Act apply " mutatis mutandis" to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 and in case any provision of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act is silent and ambiguous, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall govern and be applicable. Therefore, the present proceedings are governed by Land Acquisition Act and the mandate prescribed under Sec.11A should have been strictly complied with. Since the provision of Sec.11A has not been complied with, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act are said to be lapsed.
(b) The respondents have not fo
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
