Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Dr. S. Vijayakumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 6413 of 2013
Decided On : 22-01-2018
For the Petitioner: L.P. Maurya
For the Respondents: S. Diwakar, Vijayan for M/s. King & Patridge
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, and the significance of the petitioner's delay in challenging the acquisition.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act - 1894 Act, 2013 Act - Section 4(1), 17(1), 6, 7, 9(3), 10, 11(1), 12(2), 18 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim of land acquisition for establishment of Petrochemical Park invoking Urgency Clause 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the subsequent administrative and legislative changes. The court also considered the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and the impact of the 2013 Act on the acquisition proceedings. Key legal provisions such as Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its interpretation were crucial in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 31.12.2001 and the 4(1) notification dated 07.10.1999 related to the acquisition of land for industrial purposes. The petitioner claimed that the acquisition violated the due process of law and the statutory provisions stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the acquisition proceedings, the lapsing of the proceedings under the 1894 Act, and the impact of the 2013 Act. The court found that the petitioner's lands were acquired for industrial purposes under the 1894 Act and that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under the 2013 Act. The court also noted the petitioner's delay in challenging the acquisition and the utilization of the lands for industrial purposes.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the land acquisition under the 1894 Act, the impact of the 2013 Act on the acquisition proceedings, and the petitioner's delay in challenging the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under the 2013 Act due to the non-payment of compensation and the utilization of the lands for industrial purposes. The court also emphasized the petitioner's delay in challenging the acquisition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest. The court also allowed the District Collector to make a reference for the petitioner under Section 18 of the 2013 Act to enable the petitioner to get better compensation.
1. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent, including the 4(1) notification issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.756, Industries, (MID-II) Department, dated 07.10.1999, insofar as it relates to the land measuring an extent of 1.04.0 Hectares in S.Nos.167/1, 170/1, 171/1 within the Registration District of Chengalpet, MGR District and the registration sub-District of Ponneri.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property to an extent of 1.04.0 Hectares of agricultural punja lands in S.Nos.167/1, 170/1 and 171/1 within the Registration District of Chengalpet, MGR District and the registration sub-District of Ponneri and he purchased the same from one Kannappa Mudaliar vide registered Sale Deed No. 1997/92, dated 05.05.1992.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the said lands were acquired by the Government for establishment of Petrochemical Park invoking Urgency Clause 17(1) of Part-II of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and administrative sanction for the same was accorded by the Government in favour of SIPCOT in G.O.Ms.No.85/Industries (MID-ii) Department, dated 21.03.1997. Thereafter, the Government issued amendment to the above Government Order vide letter dated 27.05.1997, stating that the said Government Order has to be read as 85-A' instead of 85. Subsequently, the Government, in their letter dated 28.01.1998, had ordered change of requisitioning body from SIPCOT to TIDCO.
4. Pursuant to the said decision, draft notification under Section 4(1) read under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was approved in G.O.Ms.No.756/Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 07.10.1999 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11.10.1999 and 4(1) notification was published in two Tamil Dailies viz. 'Malai Murasu' and 'Dhina Thoodhu' on 20.10.1999 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 22.10.1999. Subsequently, Section 6 declaration was published in Two Tamil Dailies viz. 'Malai Murasu' and 'Dhina Thoodhu' on 08.01.2000 and published in the locality on 05.01.2000. The Draft declaration under Section 7 of the Act ordering the Special Tahsildar to perform the functions of the Collector and to acquire the land was approved on 31.03.2000 by the District Collector.
5. Thereafter, a notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2000 calling upon him to appear for the award enquiry. On behalf of the petitioner, his Advocate, Mr. V.K. Ilango, who is his Power Agent, attended the enquiry and claimed Rs.3,500/- per cent, as compensation. Thereafter, notice of Award under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioner on 07.01.2002 without a copy of the Award and the petitioner forwarded the same to his erstwhile Advocate to take steps in that regard. On receipt of the same, a notice was issued by the petitioner's erstwhile Advocate on 06.03.2002 requiring the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer to take steps to serve a copy of the Award to enable the petitioner to file objections within the time stipulated.
6. On 27.03.2002, a communication was sent by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the Award, requiring him to file objection under Section 18 of the Act. On receipt of the same, the petitioner was shocked to note that the authorities have passed an award for a sum of Rs.75,207/- only for 1.04.0 Hectares, without considering his Power Agent's claim of Rs.3,500/- per cent. According to the petitioner, the said lands are high yielding and that the true market value was not taken into account while awarding the compensation.
7. It is further stated by the petitioner that when he forwarded a copy of the Award to his erstwhile Advocate, he was advised that the entire Acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, lapsed, as the award was passed on 31.12.20
