No need for supplementary award when compensation is awarded for entire extent of land acquired. Remedy for land owner to seek reference under Section 20 of the Act.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

1. The learned Single Judge, without there being any challenge to the statutory notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, directed the appellants to pass a supplementary award and re-determine the compensation on equitable grounds. The order is under challenge at the instance of the Highways Department on the ground that there is no provision for passing a supplementary award, without setting aside the statutory award determining the compensation payable to the land owner.

The facts:-

2. The land owned by the respondent in T.S. No. 1/2 situate at Madhavaram Village, Tiruvallur District was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Highways Department for construction of Grade Separator at the intersection of GNT Road @ km 8/6 of Moolakadai Junction. The extent of land acquired from the respondent was shown as 0.0207 sq. mts in the notification. The statutory authority issued notice to the respondent under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Thereafter, notification was issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002. The Competent Authority determined the amount payable to the respondent. Notice was issued to the respondent under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, informing him about the award.

3. The mother of the respondent earlier filed a Writ Petition for compensation, after passing the award. The said Writ Petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Competent Authority to pass a supplementary award. The said order was implemented by the appellants under the threat of contempt. The respondent taking advantage of the order passed by the Court in favour of his mother and the subsequent implementation of the said order, filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19082 of 2010 challenging the award dated 25 May 2012. The award was challenged on the ground that a mistake has crept in with regard to the total extent acquired and as such, the award is bad in law.

4. The learned Single Judge by following the earlier order in W.P. No. 30107 of 2010, allowed the Writ Petition. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the State.

Rival contentions:-

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that there was no defect in the procedure adopted by the appellants either in describing the land acquired from the respondent or valuation. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the land was acquired taking the total extent as 207 sq. mts. The respondent took advantage of an incorrect description, to contend that compensation was not awarded, taking into account the actual extent acquired. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, a perusal of the award would indicate that the respondent was paid compensation for the entire extent of 207 sq. mt and as such, the learned Single Judge was not correct in directing the appellants to pass a supplementary award.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the case of the respondent is similar to the one in W.P. No. 30107 of 2010. The learned Single Judge was therefore correct in directing the appellants to pass a supplementary award to pay the correct amount payable to the respondent.

Analysis:-

7. The respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19082 of 2012 to quash the award dated 25 May 2012 and to preserve the possession of his land acquired by the Highways Department. The order passed by the writ Court in the Writ Petition filed by the mother of the respondent in W.P. No. 30107 of 2010 to pass a supplementary award, notwithstanding the finality attached to the entire issue, appears to be the reason which prompted the respondent to file the Writ Petition for similar relief.

8. The land owned by the respondent was acquired by the Highways Department for construction of Grade Separator at the intersection of GNT Road. In the initial notification, the extent was mentioned as 0.0207 sq. mt. The Competent Authority issued notice to th