Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan, JJ.
The Secretary Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sambasivam - Respondent
A.S. Nos. 488 and 490 to 497 and 543 to 597 and 943 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2015 in A.S. No. 543 of 2015 & all other connected pending MPs.
Decided On : 30-10-2015
For the Appellant in all appeals (Corporation) : N.A.K. Sarma for Mr. N. Nithyanandam
For the Respondent: Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, for Mr. V. Anand, Mr. P. Gunasekaran
Headnote:
Land Acquisition – Lqand Law - learned counsel appearing for land owners awards passed in common in several batches of cases Land Acquisition Tribunal enhanced compensation to uniformly – Aggrieved by such enhancement of compensation, which is about 11 times amount awarded by Land Acquisition Officer in some cases and Amount awarded by Land Acquisition Officer in other cases Requisitioning Body has come up with this batch appellant has a lot of grievance about manner in which – Tribunal disposed of land acquisition original petitions – According to appellant – Tribunal was in a great hurry to dispose of these cases and did not give adequate time to appellant to lead evidence – Held, appellant that references are time barred finding that references are not barred by limitation cannot go along with a finding that land owners are not entitled to interest on account of long delay in making references devaluation of rupee and increase in price of immovable properties are all factors which will offset interest payable even with interest paid on compensation land owners cannot today get another land of similar nature not propose to exercise discretion appellant correct way of understanding hold that award of interest substantive part of Section 28, is imperative, while award of interest in terms of Proviso to discretion of Court very fact that Legislature used only expression may direct in the substantive part of used expression may also direct in Proviso to indicate that the award of interest under the substantive part to be taken as mandatory – Appeal allowed.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
All these appeals are filed by the Requisitioning Body namely the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, questioning the correctness of the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
2. We have heard Mr. N.A.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Special Tahsildar and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. V. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the land owners.
3. A vast extent of land in a village known as Periyakurichi village, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of expansion of the mining activities of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, which is the appellant herein, under Notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on various dates such as 21.2.1991, 11.5.1991, 10.6.1991, 15.7.1991, 30.12.1991, 2.1.1992, 6.1.1992, 21.1.1992, 20.7.1995, 31.7.1995, 20.5.1996, 18.5.1998 and 8.8.2000.
4. After completion of formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed separate awards bearing Nos. 1/92, 2/92, 3/92, 4/92, 5/92, 3/93, 5/93, 7/93, 8/93, 3/94, 5/94, 8/94, 9/94, 10/94, 11/94, 13/94, 14/94, 3/97, 4/97, 9/97, 10/97, 12/97, 8/99 and 1/2000, passed on various dates ranging from 12.2.1992 to 15.6.1994 and from 27.6.1997 to 20.10.2000.
5. In the first batch of 57 cases where the awards were passed during the period from 1992 to 1994, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per acre in a majority of cases, Rs. 26,400/- per acre in a few cases, Rs. 30,000/- in one case where there were trees and Rs. 87,200/- in one or two cases taking into account the existence of buildings, trees, etc. In the next batch of 8 cases where the awards were passed during the period from June 1997 to October 2000, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per acre in six cases and Rs. 52,200/- in one case and Rs. 56,760/- in one case.
6. Not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners sought references under Section 18. The Collector made references and those references were taken on file by the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore in L.A.O.P. Nos. 4, 7, 8, 10 to 14, 42, 61, 68, 72, 78, 87, 118, 119, 123, 129, 154, 330, 347, 348, 369, 629, 630 and 631 of 2013 and 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 to 22, 24, 50 to 53, 55, 60, 62, 97, 145, 147, 180, 192, 193, 196 to 198, 257, 260, 284, 306, 320 and 459 of 2014.
7. By the awards passed in common in several batches of cases on 28.4.2015, the Land Acquisition Tribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre uniformly. Aggrieved by such enhancement of compensation, which is about 11 times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in some cases and 22 times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in the other cases, the Requisitioning Body has come up with this batch of about 65 appeals.
8. The appellant has a lot of grievance about the manner in which, the Tribunal disposed of the land acquisition original petitions. According to the appellant, the Tribunal was in a great hurry to dispose of these cases and did not give adequate time to the appellant to lead evidence. One other grievance of the appellant is that the same Tribunal, which was seized of about 147 cases, dismissed the applications filed by the appellant for reopening the case for leading evidence, both oral and documentary. The interlocutory applications for reopening of the cases for the purpose of leading evidence were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each on 24.4.2015.
9. Worried about the haste, with which, the Tribunal was proceeding, the appellant filed an application for transfer. This Court ordered notice in the transfer petition and granted a stay on 28.4.2015. But, the Tribunal pronounced orders on the same day i.e. 28.4.2015 in the entire batch of cases.
10. According to the appellant, the claim statements were filed by the land owners o
