Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN AND G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
The District Collector, Kancheepuram District & Another – Appellants
Versus
S. Rajasekaran & Others – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 1557 and 1558 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012 & 1 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 31-03-2015
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 47 - Town and Country Planning Act - payment of compensation – Claim of compensation – Appeal against conviction - In present case lands before acquisition itself were in approved layout and certain areas have been shown as open space for public use - But, however when the acquisition of land took place for industrial scheme conceived by SIPCOT purpose of use of land got completely changed and even the areas which were reserved for open space is no longer relevant - SIPCOT sold lands to the private party in respect of the entire extent - Those lands were no longer kept as open space meant for a park or a street - After obtaining the land cost from private companies, necessary compensation will have to be paid to the real owners – Held, In this case writ petitioners are having only limited right over the property and therefore they are not entitled to full compensation as like as full owners of the property, but they are entitled to compensation proportionate to rights in the approved layout. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that since the property was not transferred to local body local body is not at all entitled for any compensation in the approved layout set apart for public purpose. Further, in Clause 4 Industries Department, it is stated as follows - District Collector should also ensure that the roads, common space and OSR lands in the approved layout subjected to acquisition are gifted to the concerned local bodies. In case SIPCOT takes over they should compensate the local bodies - On a careful reading of Clause 4 it is clear that till the gift deed was executed in of the local body, the local body will not acquire any right or title over the approved layout and hence, the local body is not entitled for any compensation. Hence above G.O.Ms.No.141 is in of the writ petitioners - Further, in this case on a perusal of the entire files produced before us, it is seen that after the acquisition proceedings, the lands were acquired from the land owners by of Tamil Nadu for SIPCOT Expansion Scheme vide Government -Subsequently, the said lands were handed over by SIPCOT to Leyland for valuable consideration, for the purpose of starting an Industry under Special Economic Zone and compensation was fixed at - In view of above facts and circumstances, the lands were acquired by Government for public purpose and the writ petitioners have a right and local body has no right in the above lands. Hence, the argument of learned Special Government Pleader that lands in question automatically vest with local body and local body alone is entitled for compensation is liable to be rejected - In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that since lands were not at all transferred or vest with the local body, the local body is not a necessary party in the writ appeals and therefore filed by the appellants for are liable to be dismissed - Further even though the writ petitioners are having right and title in said lands, they are not having the full right unlike the other land owners, compensation has to be ascertained for the limited right of the land holders. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and both the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed with the above observation – petition dismissed
G. Chockalingam, J.
1. Both the above writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 16.02.2012, made in W.P.Nos.24460 and 24461 of 2011 respectively, wherein the relief sought for was to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in RCA 54/2010, dated 02.11.2010, rejecting the request of the writ petitioners for payment of compensation to the lands in survey numbers which have been allotted for the public utility such as Road, Park and Children's Playground.
2. The case of the writ petitioners / first respondent in both the writ appeals is that their lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for SIPCOT, Oragadam & Irunkattukottai Expansion Scheme vide Government Gazettee dated 10.03.2008. Subsequently, the said lands were handed over by SIPCOT to M/s. Ashok Leyland for valuable consideration, for the purpose of starting an Industry under Special Economic Zone and compensation was fixed at Rs.150/- per sq. ft. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that they have made efforts to receive the compensation for their lands vide their letter dated 03.12.2010 and prior to that on 05.04.2010 they have requested the second respondent to issue them an offer letter. As there was no response from the second respondent, the writ petitioners were constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.16675 of 2010 seeking a direction to dispose of their representation and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 29.07.2010. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the second respondent gave an oral hearing on 15.09.2010 and recorded their statements and on 02.11.2010, the second respondent, by his proceedings in R.C.A.54/2010, declined their request for letter of offer for part of their lands on the ground that such of the lands ought to have been earmarked for public purposes viz., road, park, OSR etc., and the same ought to have been gifted to Local Authorities and compensation will be paid not to the land owners but only to the Local Bodies.
3. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the second respondent had failed to appreciate that the lands, which were earmarked for public purpose, were not handed over to Local Authorities nor any gift deed was executed by the previous owner transferring or conveying the right and title to the Local Bodies. The further case of the writ petitioners is that the second respondent ought to have issued an offer letter fixing the rate of compensation to the writ petitioners instead of giving a presumptive reply stating that there is no scope for granting compensation for the lands earmarked for public purpose. Aggrieved by the decision of the second respondent denying to pay compensation to the writ petitioners for their lands acquired by the Government, the writ petitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P.No.24460 and 24461 of 2011 before this Court praying to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.2010.
4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, had allowed the said writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners by holding as under:
"18. In the present case, the lands before acquisition itself were in approved layout and certain areas have been shown as open space for public use. But, however when the acquisition of land took place for industrial scheme conceived by the SIPCOT, the purpose of use of the land got completely changed and even the areas which were reserved for open space is no longer relevant. The SIPCOT sold the lands to the private party in respect of the entire extent. Those lands were no longer kept as open space meant for a park or a street. After obtaining the land cost from the private companies, necessary compensation will have to be paid to the real owners.
19. In the present case, the local authorities for whose cause the respondent SIPCOT is pleading, have not become owners of the land either by way of gift deed or by way of any operation of law. On the other hand, admittedly no gift deed
SupremeToday
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
